Thread: Third parties, who do you like more in the election

Originally Posted by skysaw

Wow. Are you seriously not aware that this is happening all the time?
I'd appreciate if you'd watch a these and let me know what you think.


By the way, I'm not talking about socialized medicine pro/con anymore. I'm talking about the evil insurance industry and our broken healthcare in general.

That does not answer my questions. Please do so.

I am not saying insurance companies don't try to skip out as much as they can, and I am not saying they never get sued. You are arguing with points I am not making. Please answer my questions.

In response to the original question, which candidate do I prefer. I prefer McAin. Although I'd consider myself on the left of the political spectrum I value honesty. At least you know what your getting with Mcain, a dumb conservative old man.
With Obama, hes all about a facade, he kind of reminds me of a black Tony Blair, hes all about image. You dont have a fuckin clue what he stands for really, all you know is he can talk to a camera. Hes a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Originally Posted by guerilla

Well barr and paul both don't support national health care.

So they have my vote.

I hate when people say "In europe healthcare is FREE!"

No, its not free there, its payed by taxdollars, coming from their pockets...they just don't pay at the office thats all....and they have longer waits, doctors don't get good pay. I heard most docs in the UK have a private practice on the side just to make good money.

Also, I know a few people who were treated in the UK and one woman had a broken bone, and they set the bone in wrong and it healed all retarted, so she had to get it re-broken and re-done here in the states.

makes me sick to my stomach when I hear people say they're moving to canada or the uk for healthcare, sure our healthcare system is totally broken...but the care you get is top notch..if you get the care.

You wouldnt say that if you were poor. Over here you dont have to have money to be considered a citizen worth saving.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That does not answer my questions. Please do so.

Ok... assuming these are the questions you meant:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Aren't you saying the insurance companies can do what they want and are not legally bound by anything? Why would such a case ever be allowed into court, based on what you are saying?

Yes, insurance companies have legal obligations. The problem is that those obligations are riddled with loopholes, not clearly spelled out, and seldom policed. So they CAN do more or less what they want even though legally restricted.

Why a case would be allowed in court would be to examine a claim that the insurance company did not adhere to their obligations. This is what videos 2 and 3 were demonstrating.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Yes, insurance companies have legal obligations. The problem is that those obligations are riddled with loopholes, not clearly spelled out, and seldom policed. So they CAN do more or less what they want even though legally restricted.

Why a case would be allowed in court would be to examine a claim that the insurance company did not adhere to their obligations. This is what videos 2 and 3 were demonstrating.

That is what I was saying. They have contractual and legal obligations they have to obey. If they don't, they generally get sued and lose. Insurance companies cannot do just whatever they wish. So people need to be careful with the terms of the policies they sign up for. They are contractual obligations concerning them and the insurance companies.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is what I was saying. They have contractual and legal obligations they have to obey. If they don't, they generally get sued and lose. Insurance companies cannot do just whatever they wish. So people need to be careful with the terms of the policies they sign up for. They are contractual obligations concerning them and the insurance companies.

But this is sadly a gross over-simplification. With our current system, it is exceedingly easy for these companies to get away with murder. It all comes down to the relationship of profit to non-coverage. The only way for them to get rich is to deny coverage.

Suing them sounds like a simple solution, but these guys have giant teams of lawyers and huge bankrolls to fund their day in court. The average person who is wronged has neither and will go broke even trying to plead their case. This story plays itself out time and time again these days. A contract is not even nearly enough to keep things fair.

Originally Posted by skysaw

But this is sadly a gross over-simplification. With our current system, it is exceedingly easy for these companies to get away with murder. It all comes down to the relationship of profit to non-coverage. The only way for them to get rich is to deny coverage.

No, it is not easy. Insurance companies have to obey their contractual obligations, which are not mere contractual suggestions. The companies can only deny claims when doing so gets around the contract or when they think they really have a shot at it.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Suing them sounds like a simple solution, but these guys have giant teams of lawyers and huge bankrolls to fund their day in court. The average person who is wronged has neither and will go broke even trying to plead their case. This story plays itself out time and time again these days. A contract is not even nearly enough to keep things fair.

The insurance companies don't want to lose money in court either. They do not just violate their contracts while holding onto the idea that nobody wants to sue them. It does not work that way. Also, there are tons of plaintiff's attorneys who work on the basis that they will represent a client and charge a fee or percentage ONLY if they win the case. A case of insurance contract breach will attract the Hell out of lawyers like that. The kinds of cases you are talking about are not that common. Insurance companies don't want to shoot themselves in the foot. They only play dirty games when they have a loophole they think will work. It is not a problem so serious we need to go public school system with U.S. healthcare.

I just wanted to say that my mom sells health insurance

it's very complicated delicate procedure. she has to say everything right, make sure she doesn't confuse any information, and the process of which they buy insurance is also very strict. she does anything wrong, its not just her license thats in threat

insurance companies get scammed too, by people who just want to steal money from little old ladies. if they deny to show my mom the proper identification or this or that, she has to report them. and if she doesn't report them, she gets thrown in jail *that silly rule was made under the bush administration*

my mom feels that insurance companies are difficult to AVOID being scammed or lawsuits or this or that. for example. she has a client that is eligible for health insurance. the client is old. the children of the client want the client in a nursing home. under this health insurance, a nursing home isn't necessary because the insurance would provide. the old lady doesnt want to go to a nursing home. she wants the health insurance that would provide for her as a free elderly.

so, they are trying to claim that my mom physically forced the older lady to sign the contract *my mom being flabby and weak and 50 herself* and that the older lady has dementia and my mom took advantage of that. my moms upset because the lady was sane enough to provide all the necessary paper work *which half of her elderly don't do* and feels the claims of dementia is a lie.

they keep taking the older lady to doctors to prove she has dementia *of which has yet to be proven* just to toss her in a nursing home. but after they threatened to sue my moms company, my moms boss just told her to back down. walk away and decline.

my mom thinks there should be a universal health care system. as even a health insurance agent, its still difficult to get her own kids *me* proper health insurance! she says, private health care isn't going anywhere. it is still the better option for those who can afford it. but too many americans CAN'T afford it. and insurances are strict and limited sometimes for their own protective reasons.

she's a saleswoman at heart trying to bargain you into a deal. but even after working with one client on and off she was still unable to find an insurance company that would help them. *she doesn't work for a single company, she represents as many insurances as possible*

the client died a month later with cancer.

Universal Health Care is very slow. There was a woman who was raped in Wales 2 years ago. Since then she has not been able to walk, and has not been able to see a specialist. She finally got approved to see a specialist by her normal doctor... 22 weeks from now.

Sounds like she's getting the help she deserves to me!

Originally Posted by snoop

Universal Health Care is very slow. There was a woman who was raped in Wales 2 years ago. Since then she has not been able to walk, and has not been able to see a specialist. She finally got approved to see a specialist by her normal doctor... 22 weeks from now.

Sounds like she's getting the help she deserves to me!

you make it sound like the option is

universal or private

when in actuality the option FOR THE US IS

universal or NOTHING

just because universal health care doesn't work in one place doesn't mean it will be the same system or format here. private health care isn't going anywhere. although universal is not as good as private - the option for the poor is NOTHING

Originally Posted by juroara

you make it sound like the option is

universal or private

when in actuality the option FOR THE US IS

universal or NOTHING

just because universal health care doesn't work in one place doesn't mean it will be the same system or format here. private health care isn't going anywhere. although universal is not as good as private - the option for the poor is NOTHING

Even though private health care isn't the best, you are misrepresenting it. The poor get medicaid and medicare; they still get treated.

Originally Posted by snoop

Even though private health care isn't the best, you are misrepresenting it. The poor get medicaid and medicare; they still get treated.

I'm afraid you haven't been following this very closely. Millions of Americans do not have access to insurance.

I still fail to see how that that's my fault and I should pay for it. If I feel like giving to charity, that's one thing, but forcing me to pay for others is different. The whole redistribution-of-wealth thing doesn't sit well for me.

Originally Posted by snoop

I still fail to see how that that's my fault and I should pay for it. If I feel like giving to charity, that's one thing, but forcing me to pay for others is different. The whole redistribution-of-wealth thing doesn't sit well for me.

It's called building a community and protecting it.

My tax dollars help build roads that I never drive on. Should I complain about that? Or should I understand that other people's tax dollars pay to have mail delivered to my house, whether anybody ever sends them a letter or not.

My tax dollars help pay for child protection services, but I have no children to protect. Should that bug me? Not if I remember that other people's tax dollars pay to keep my local library in business, whether or not they even know how to read.

This is how towns, states, and countries are built. If everything were pay-for-yourself, society goes out the window.

Originally Posted by snoop

Universal Health Care is very slow. There was a woman who was raped in Wales 2 years ago. Since then she has not been able to walk, and has not been able to see a specialist. She finally got approved to see a specialist by her normal doctor... 22 weeks from now.

Sounds like she's getting the help she deserves to me!

That is not what I call "protection", but forcing the entire country to live like that is what I call "robbery".

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is not what I call "protection", but forcing the entire country to live like that is what I call "robbery".

Universal Healthcare is very slow, which makes it very impractical. There are other ways to set up healthcare so that everyone receives treatment, but don't have to wait 2 years to see a specialist. That is why I don't support Universal Healthcare.

Also, part of my point with that was juroara was acting like, if we had Universal Healthcare, that person that died of cancer would not have died of cancer, but if you look at how slow Universal Healthcare is, you would see that the person that died would have died anyway.

Originally Posted by snoop

Universal Healthcare is very slow, which makes it very impractical.

A tenacious myth with very little supporting evidence save a few anecdotes.

Originally Posted by skysaw

A tenacious myth with very little supporting evidence save a few anecdotes.

That is not so. My dad has a degenerative back disease, and he is a member of a forum for people with problems with their backs and the like. He knows several members from Canada that would like to move to America because it takes them forever to see a specialist.

Can you tell me you honestly know several people with serious diseases that would argue that the opposite were true?

Don't give me shit about supporting evidence unless you give me some. Please provide me with the people mentioned above, or some links to unbiased web sources.

For the sake of continuing the conversation in standard English, please allow me to point out a standard definition:

Anecdotal
-adjective
Based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.

Originally Posted by snoop

My dad has a degenerative back disease, and he is a member of a forum for people with problems with their backs and the like.

This is anecdotal

He knows several members from Canada that would like to move to America because it takes them forever to see a specialist.

Again, anecdotal

Can you tell me you honestly know several people with serious diseases that would argue that the opposite were true?

A request for anecdotal evidence

It's your claim to prove. Please do it without anecdotal evidence. A scientific study or poll usually does the trick.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MODV9pdViIA&feature=related

Let's Do What The Dutch Do And Forget The Stupid Motherfucking Canadians.

All of this is fucking bullshit. I've switched general practicioners like pants and never had a problem with that. If the Canadians can't get it right, that's not the system's fault. You can just call them up and get an appointment within the next couple days. For specialists, sometimes you'll have to wait 2-3 weeks but there's always the possibility to look for someone who's got some more time available. To get a non-emergency operation, I had to wait some 5-6 weeks. This is acceptable, given that it was after the holiday season. Seriously, this "Walk-In Clinic", I don't even know what that's supposed to be. People here go to regular doctors and it seems to work out pretty well.

Originally Posted by Serkat

All of this is fucking bullshit. I've switched general practicioners like pants and never had a problem with that. If the Canadians can't get it right, that's not the system's fault. You can just call them up and get an appointment within the next couple days. For specialists, sometimes you'll have to wait 2-3 weeks but there's always the possibility to look for someone who's got some more time available. To get a non-emergency operation, I had to wait some 5-6 weeks. This is acceptable, given that it was after the holiday season. Seriously, this "Walk-In Clinic", I don't even know what that's supposed to be. People here go to regular doctors and it seems to work out pretty well.

Where do you live?

Source: http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...XIE2006002.htm

Originally Posted by Canada

While most reported waiting times as acceptable – some deemed their waits unacceptably long and some experienced adverse effects

Waiting for care is not inherently problematic but may be considered so when patients experience adverse effects (K.D. Kelly et al. 2001), (H.C. Brownlow et al. 2001), (I.N. Ackerman et al. 2005), (H. Hadjistavropoulos et al. 2001) and/or feel they have simply waited too long for care. The proportion of patients who felt that their waiting time was unacceptable was highest among those who waited for specialist visits (29&#37 and diagnostic tests (21%) and lowest among those who waited for non-emergency surgery (16%) (Chart 2 ; Table 9) even though individuals are more likely to wait longer (i.e. > 3 months) for non-emergency surgical care compared with other specialized services (Table 7). This points to potential differences regarding thresholds for unacceptable waits across different specialized services – i.e. Canadians appear to be more willing to wait longer for surgery than for a visit to the specialist.

Approximately 18% of individuals who visited a specialist indicated that waiting for the visit affected their life compared with 11% and 12% for non-emergency surgery and diagnostic tests respectively. (Table 10) Most of those who were affected reported that they experienced worry, stress and anxiety during the waiting period: ranging from 49% among those whose lives were affected by waiting for non-emergency surgery to 71% among those affected by waiting for a diagnostic test. (Table 11) Between 38% and 51% of individuals waiting for specialist services experienced pain and close to 36% of those who were affected by waiting for non-emergency surgery indicated that they experienced difficulties with activities of daily living. Approximately 28% of those who were affected by waiting for a diagnostic test indicated that it resulted in worry, stress and anxiety for their friends and family.

Source: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/PublicH...ces.asp#Graphs

Originally Posted by Wales

Difficulties getting health care

In 2006, excluding those who did not need health care, 13.2 per cent of adults had difficulties getting health care. The main difficulties were: waiting time for an appointment with a general practitioner (36.3 per cent), difficulty in accessing specialists (14.3 per cent), cost of health services (10.7 per cent), waiting time for dental services (10.1 per cent), shortage of general practitioners in area (9.3 per cent), transport issues (8.8 per cent), quality of treatment (7.9 per cent), shortage of health services (7.8 per cent), and waiting time in emergency departments (7.4 per cent).

A significantly lower proportion of males (11.9 per cent) than females (14.6 per cent) had difficulties in getting health care. Among males, a significantly lower proportion of adults aged 16-24 years (4.4 per cent) and 75 years and over (8.0 per cent), and a significantly higher proportion of adults aged 45-54 years (16.7 per cent), had difficulties getting health care, compared with the overall adult male population. Among females, a significantly lower proportion of adults aged 16-24 years (7.7 per cent) and 75 years and over (6.6 per cent), and a significantly higher proportion of adults aged 35-44 years (18.8 per cent) and 45-54 years (18.5 per cent), had difficulties getting health care, compared with the overall adult female population.

A significantly higher proportion of adults in rural areas (21.9 per cent) than urban areas (9.5 per cent) had difficulties getting health care. A lower proportion of adults in the Sydney South West (9.9 per cent), South Eastern Sydney & Illawarra (9.3 per cent), Sydney West (9.1 per cent), and Northern Sydney & Central Coast (9.7 per cent) Health Areas, had difficulties getting health care. A higher proportion of residents in the Greater Western (22.3 per cent), Greater Southern (25.3 per cent), North Coast (20.1 per cent), and Hunter & New England (20.8 per cent) Health Areas, had difficulties getting health care.

Difficulties getting health care increased with socioeconomic disadvantage. A lower proportion of adults in the least disadvantaged quintile (5.9 per cent), and a higher proportion of adults in the second most disadvantaged quintile (19.9 per cent), had difficulties in getting health care, compared with the overall adult population.

There has been a significant increase in the proportion of adults having difficulties getting health care, from 9.9 per cent in 1997 to 13.2 per cent in 2006. This increase was significant in both males (8.8 per cent to 11.9 per cent) and females (11.0 per cent to 14.6 per cent).

I'll admit the case with the woman who has had to wait 2 years is rare, but the fact that it has happened also indicates that the system is flawed. I'm not saying our system isn't, but you all act like Universal Healthcare is just so great.

These numbers may seem small to you, but this is for waiting time and difficulty getting care at all. At least now (in America), if you have health insurance, you can get the treatment you need when you need it. If you do not have health insurance, if it's an emergency, I'm pretty sure they have to allow you into the hospital anyway. The only problem is paying them. There, you get your care, but you must wait an average of 3 months to get it. Not everyone waits that long, some get it sooner, some get it later, but that's the median.

Look, I'm all for a new system, but Universal Healthcare isn't the right one.