ATD will be delayed

This forum relates to Announcements, News and General Discussion of SSG products.

Moderators: AlexS, Run5 Staff, SSG Staff

Postby Kingpin » Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:35 pm

Carl Myers wrote:Kingpin
The notion that government shouldn't be involved in health care is tired and lame.


Nope, it is a notion that no one, patient or health care provider, has to accept the involvement of the government in health care.

Kingpin
Most of the civilized world has decided that health care is a right for all.


Nothing is a right if it involves the voluntary participation of another for the evernt to happen.


Wow Carl. You are quite the philosopher.
That is why you guys have been bogged down in endless debate. You focus on irrelevant statements like this
Carl Myers wrote:Nothing is a right if it involves the voluntary participation of another for the evernt to happen.

There are so many holes in that statement that its pointless to respond.
The bottomline is that your system allows the have's to get treatment and the have not's are left behind.
I know, its the American way. The strong survive and forget the rest. In fact the weak deserve it, don't they Carl. They should have worked harder.
And like I said earlier, its all about your rights. Its all about you. Don't you get tired droning on about yourself?
Maybe its time to put down the philosophy book and come back to the real world where real people benefit from a government system.
Last edited by Kingpin on Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Kingpin
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:18 am
Location: Waterloo, Canada

Postby Kingpin » Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:40 pm

Treale wrote:Would you like to quote your sources on that info??? Twice as likely to die without insurance! I doubt it.....


Oh Treale. The study was done by Harvard.

"Traumatically-injured patients without health insurance are more than twice as likely to die in the hospital as those who have coverage, according to a new study by Harvard University researchers which included celeb medical journalist and Harvard surgeon Dr. Atul Gawande."

Google it. I think I'll believe Harvard over Treale.
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Kingpin
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:18 am
Location: Waterloo, Canada

Postby Abwehr » Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:14 pm

So, basically, now that SSG has made a political comment, we decided to get into a fight over healthcare systems?

Imagine a non-forummer reading this thread, that would be pretty confusing. "ATD2 is delayed again, OK, but what does healthcare have to do with it?"
Abwehr
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Arnhem, Gelderland province, the Netherlands

Postby flick » Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:59 pm

Sounds like 90 percent of all forums, just be thankful he wasn't having a pregnancy termination.
flick
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 6:45 am

Postby JSS » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:36 pm

Kingpin wrote: The bottomline is that your system allows the have's to get treatment and the have not's are left behind.


Whilst I won't engage in the philosophy debate as you and Carl seem more than capable of presenting your own positions well, there a couple of facts I'd like to point out:

Have's and have not's both are covered in the US... Have's with their private insurance and the have not's with a government plan that's already in place for them. Its the have a little's who aren't doing so well in the current system.

And like I said earlier, its all about your rights.


Americans are kinda touchy about that subject, eh... civil wars in the 1770's and 1860's et al.

Maybe its time to put down the philosophy book and come back to the real world where real people benefit from a government system.


The fact that its perceived to work well in Canada, Austraila, or the UK doesn't mean it will work well in the US. The current US government systems in place for the elderly, the poor, and veterans are widely perceived to be either inefficient/fraud ladened or have accessibility/quality issues. These are poor indicators for a national government that has managerial challenges in terms of geographic size and population that Canada, Austraila, or the UK don't have to deal with...
User avatar
JSS
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby Carl Myers » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:53 pm

Kingpin
Maybe its time to put down the philosophy book and come back to the real world where real people benefit from a government system.

I see that you are still not dealing with the reality that we Americans have not created a governmental system with the authority to control healthcare. Not even those who strenously advocate a 'Medicare for All' are not stupid enough to have the legislation require that health care providers WILL become participating providers or that citizens WILL enroll in the 'Medicare for All' system.
Carl Myers
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 10:46 am

Postby Abwehr » Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:17 am

These are poor indicators for a national government that has managerial challenges in terms of geographic size and population that Canada, Austraila, or the UK don't have to deal with...


That point is often brought up in debates about healthcare in the US, but I don't think it's a very valid one. The US is a federation, not a country with a strictly national government and some regional control over non-national issues, like most European countries.

The combined population of the US is high, but there are only 8 states with a population of over 10 million, and there are only 2 states with a population of over 20 million, Texas with ~24 million and California with ~36.5 million.

For comparison: England, as part of the UK, has 51.5 million inhabitants. As long as healthcare in the US isn't federal for the larger states, as in: they manage their own healthcare, the system would be MUCH less difficult to manage than the one in the UK. Canada has over 33.5 million inhabitants, and Australia over 22 million.

Creating a state-based healthcare system would also go around the fear many Americans seem to have for federal government influence aside from elections.
Abwehr
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Arnhem, Gelderland province, the Netherlands

Postby JSS » Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:51 am

Abwehr,

The main point you're making is one I agree with... only a regional or state based system has a chance to be effective.

The issue is that the plan is being worked at the federal level right now. A key point not to be missed is that the US is truly a country with national laws that require all the states to do certain things in order to get the federal money (this is the lasting legacy of our 1860's civil war).

Right now I'm paying equivalent of ~100 euro's monthly in federal medical tax (covers poor and elderly medical program)... of this I get nothing. My parents get partial expense coverage; they still have to buy supplemental medical insurance. The existing program doesn't work well IMHO... expanding it or trying to create a national program with government management doesn't seem like a winning proposition to me (regardless of how much I like the concept of universal medical coverage).

Marty
User avatar
JSS
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby Abwehr » Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:21 am

I'm paying 120 euro's a month now, up from 40 euro's or so 2 years ago, which was before the government decided that everybody should have insurance, which means I'm paying for the people that can't afford it.

I've had some minor ear surgery to remove an infection and improve my hearing, so I'm getting most of my money's worth. However, my dad, who hasn't visited a hospital in years for any kind of surgery, now pays 400% more compared to the earlier costs.

The main flaw of the Dutch healthcare system, and the main thing younger Dutchmen like me are going to pay for, is that the system as it was designed from the 1950's up to this point isn't affordable on the long term.

There are too many elderly people who have paid only a small amount of money throughout their period of employment, but now they depend on my money to survive, more or less. The system isn't bad, but I'm less than amused that I'm going to pay a hell of a lot more because other people didn't when they could have.

As a disclaimer: I'm not a "Labour" kind of guy. I'm a liberal, not a social democrat, but the liberals in the Netherlands support the "social"/cradle to the grave healthcare system.
Last edited by Abwehr on Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Abwehr
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Arnhem, Gelderland province, the Netherlands

Postby JSS » Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:41 am

Abwehr,

US is facing same challenge (system not covering costs) for elderly benefits over the next decade as the Baby Boomer crowd retires.

This also plays into the regional healthcare approach as many folks in the US elderly crowd have moved to warm weather states to retire.

IMHO, US should put practical policies in place for a number of other issues before it takes on expanded medical coverage (nationally managed). If a regional approach (i.e. state management friendly) policies are the result of the current US debate in congress, then I think it has a chance to succeed.

Marty
User avatar
JSS
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

gash chat

Postby mcperis » Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:02 am

I have lived in Canada, America, UK, and France... most recently the UK..must say I despise the NHS(UK version) but cant say I have enough experience of the others.. they all are blood sucking(no pun intended) and lastly I preferred this forum when we were mulling over the decisions of the generals of WWII!
User avatar
mcperis
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:44 am
Location: London

Postby Noakesy » Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:06 pm

Ah, seems just like the good old days, now all we need is Sorceror et al to call by with a couple of firey remarks :wink: :lol:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Noakesy
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: UK

do I buy Kharkov now, or wait for national health care?

Postby ben » Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:37 am

interesting forum thread.

but I have a q ref the game v health care: if I buy Kharkov now, do I have to spend moulah again for ATD, or will I get an upgrade? If so I'll wait..

thanks
Ben
ben
New Recruit
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:26 am

Postby Abwehr » Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:00 pm

You'll have to pay for ATD2, but get a discount if you can prove you own ATD.
Abwehr
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Arnhem, Gelderland province, the Netherlands

Postby kondor999 » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:30 pm

As an American physician whose parents are uninsured, I am in total agreement with you on this.

I've noticed one thing about the people here in America who are in favor of keeping the current system: they are relatively wealthy and always have good insurance. You'll never find someone outside of those categories endorsing the current insanity.

Like you said - It's not Socialism, It's Civilization. And, if you're so inclined, it happens to be what Jesus would probably want - not our current experiment in social Darwinism.

- Maj. Erich Swafford MD

Gregor Whiley wrote:
pete AU wrote:Ian - glad to hear you got thru this one OK.

Now, with my pharmacy hat on, take your medicine (you probably have a stack) and take it easy. The best thing about being sick is you can play with your laptop in bed and noone will get cranky with you!


Yes, Ian does has a bucketful of pills of to take but I'm sure he's doing the right thing.

Just for the benefit of our American cousins, this is how the system works here.

Ian feels unwell, calls ambulance and is whisked to hospital. No walletectomy is performed, he is admitted instantly as a public patient. He stays there for a few days undergoing a battery of tests, tests ordered solely on the basis of his medical condition, regardless of cost or health insurance status. Ian reports that his treatment was first class throughout and as far as I know this whole episode has cost him nothing.

On leaving hospital, the cost of each of the various treatments he needs is capped through the operation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, to ensure that his recovery is not compromised by his economic status.

This is not socialism, its civilisation and I commend it to you as an example of how to run a health system.

Gregor
kondor999
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:51 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Announcements/News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron