I ran a test, the results are not good

Gdemami

Sharne said:

In the UK we obviously have the NHS, and someone has to pay for it, per year I pay 13.8 % of my wages which equates to just over £12K per year, so if I equate that to the US, that would probably cover some sort of health cover for me.

Essentailly, US has very much the same health care system as any other country, the only difference is, it isn't mandatory.

It truly seems to me that people are somewhat brainwashed and believe that UHS is some right and comes for free. It is not.

Universal health care system means everyone pays health insurance - mandatory employee welfare benefit.

So if you consider the health care program being a tough expense for you, with UHS they will just take the money away from you without asking.

UHS, just like any social programs, it is a huge strain for employees, employers and economy overall. It is no magic.

Utinni

Sharne said:

Sovrath said:

Sharne said:

Genuinely curious, what happens is the US, if a homeless guy is knocked over, taken to hospital, needs an operation to save his life, has no known relatives and has no health insurance?

There are programs specifically for homeless people with no income, there are also hospitals that have services for homeless and the state might give them money. Sometimes hospitals just use it as a loss.

Thanks for the clarification.

In the UK we obviously have the NHS, and someone has to pay for it, per year I pay 13.8 % of my wages which equates to just over £12K per year, so if I equate that to the US, that would probably cover some sort of health cover for me.

Ironically we also pay Medicare taxes, as do employers. We pay for health insurance separately. 

delete5230

boris20 said:

Sharne said:

Genuinely curious, what happens is the US, if a homeless guy is knocked over, taken to hospital, needs an operation to save his life, has no known relatives and has no health insurance?

They are treated and taken care of. Usually to hospital eats the bill. I spent 7 years EMS Abulance/Fire Dept, anyone in need of treatment goes and gets cared for if its an emergency. The hospital can try to bill, but it doesnt mean they will get any money. Cant bill someone if they don't have an address to bill. 

Also here in the US we have the salvation army, that take care of the homeless along with other organizations. They take them to the hospital and work with them for funding. 

DafAtRandom

Gdemami said:

Sharne said:

In the UK we obviously have the NHS, and someone has to pay for it, per year I pay 13.8 % of my wages which equates to just over £12K per year, so if I equate that to the US, that would probably cover some sort of health cover for me.

Essentailly, US has very much the same health care system as any other country, the only difference is, it isn't mandatory.

It truly seems to me that people are somewhat brainwashed and believe that UHS is some right and comes for free. It is not.

Universal health care system means everyone pays health insurance - mandatory employee welfare benefit.

So if you consider the health care program being a tough expense for you, with UHS they will just take the money away from you without asking.

UHS, just like any social programs, it is a huge strain for employees, employers and economy overall. It is no magic.

Not mandatory...unless you are born with certain conditions that require constant medication, like type 1 diabetes, of course.  Then insurance companies get to dick you over your entire life on both your premiums and medication because they control everything. 

But yeah, it's not like I need insulin or anything...

Cryomatrix

Sovrath said:

Sharne said:

Genuinely curious, what happens is the US, if a homeless guy is knocked over, taken to hospital, needs an operation to save his life, has no known relatives and has no health insurance?

There are programs specifically for homeless people with no income, there are also hospitals that have services for homeless and the state might give them money. Sometimes hospitals just use it as a loss.

I'll add, years ago I found a homeless person right on the edge of the Boston Commons close to Tremont Street. He had become sick and was lying there, seemingly not breathing.

I called 911 and they told me to see if I could turn him over AND they would send an ambulance.

So they didn't tell me "touch luck, cover him with a tarp and the pigeons and rats will take care of the rest."

Was a weird night as he was still alive, woke up (rip roaring drunk) when I tried to turn him over by touch as little of his coat as possible, he was trying to fight me as he lay there, other homeless people had gathered around like ravens and just sat there as all this was going on. Totally surreal.

Eventually an ambulance, a police car and a fire engine arrived, the homeless people fled into the night, and a woman got out and yelled at me that he wasn't unconscious. Which he was when I initially called. 

Eventually they got all the details, said they knew him at the shelter and bundled him up and took him away.

One of my weirder Boston moments.

Boston medical center's motto is "Exceptional care without exception". We had one child sent from near the carribeB to the airport and straight to the medical center. Patient had HIV. Took the kid in without questions.

AAAMEOW

The thing with healthcare is a huge percent of developing country all have free health care.  But I find it more of a math problem than ideology problem.

Simply put the health care per capita is too high in the USA.  You have other countries where the health care per capita is a fraction of the USA.  

delete5230

Thing in the US is by law companies have to pay heath care to 40 hour workers that's about 30% in benefits on top of their paychecks. 

The BIG question is, will they pay the worker 30% more so they can pay higher taxes. Or do companies get a free ride from their obligations ?  

The other BIG question, will the service be so poor that private health care providers start back up and the cycle starts all over again ? 

Quizzical

Utinni said:

Quizzical said:

Cryomatrix said:

2) As someone who works in healthcare, yes there are problems and health insurance companies are a big problem, but i as a human being, i couldnt deny a person healthcare if I could do something about it. Are u guys okay letting someone suffer because they cant pay for healthcare? 

Healthcare should be a right for everyone, the compassion that America has is amazing for people. As a doctor, i have offered to pay for medications for my patients sometimes if the insurance company or medicaid/medicare is being stupid. 

The political questions about health care are not about whether everyone should get the health care that they need. 

There in lies the issue. Health shouldn't be political.

There are intrinsically political questions to be addressed in health care (and many other things) whether you want to acknowledge it or not.  Different countries have come up with their own answers to the sort of questions I raised--and different countries commonly have very different answers.

Nowhere in the world has ever had a solution in which anything labeled as health care automatically gets unlimited funding.  They always have to restrict it somewhere or else you'd end up with runaway costs that the country couldn't pay.  The details of where and how to restrict it and how much funding there is and what is prioritized are necessarily political questions.  Indeed, if it's paid for by the government, that necessarily makes it more political than if no one else besides the patient and doctor is involved.

As with many other things in life, there are no perfect answers, but only trade-offs.  Refusing to acknowledge that is not taking the issue seriously.

Quizzical

Avarix said:

Quizzical said:

If you say yes, all of that health care should be provided even to people who can't pay for it, then the question of how to pay for it becomes very difficult.

Take it out of our military budget. Done.

The US federal government already spends about twice as much on health care as on the military.  And that's not counting what state and local governments spend on health care.  State and local governments don't have to spend anything on the military.  Zeroing out the military budget entirely wouldn't come remotely close to paying for everything that people would like to spend on health care.

Quizzical

Sharne said:

Genuinely curious, what happens is the US, if a homeless guy is knocked over, taken to hospital, needs an operation to save his life, has no known relatives and has no health insurance?

Emergency rooms in the US are not allowed to turn people away.  They'll save his life first and then worry about payment later.  If he can't pay, then the hospital may have to eat the cost themselves--which they implicitly pay for by raising prices on everyone else.

Realistically, if the guy is poor enough, he'll be eligible for Medicaid, which is government-funded health care for the poor.  To the extent that there are people in the US who are too poor to afford health insurance, it's people who make a little too much money to qualify for Medicaid, SCHIP, or various other programs.

btdt

More drivel... different day... even a broken record knows it's broke... but the OP?  Nope.  

It's like Ground Hog Day only no Bill Murray... or Ground Hog... 

Tomorrow will bring yet another post... and another... and still more.  Death is all we can hope for... or a nuclear strike on his ISP provider.

Utinni

delete5230 said:

Thing in the US is by law companies have to pay heath care to 40 hour workers that's about 30% in benefits on top of their paychecks. 

This is completely untrue. We wouldn't be having healthcare debates if everyone with a job had healthcare. I'm not even sure where you could've heard this.

Sovrath

Utinni said:

delete5230 said:

Thing in the US is by law companies have to pay heath care to 40 hour workers that's about 30% in benefits on top of their paychecks. 

This is completely untrue. We wouldn't be having healthcare debates if everyone with a job had healthcare. I'm not even sure where you could've heard this.

Employers who are considered large employers have to offer a certain amount of their employees insurance. If not there is some sort of tax penalty.

Margaretaville

Sharne said:

Genuinely curious, what happens is the US, if a homeless guy is knocked over, taken to hospital, needs an operation to save his life, has no known relatives and has no health insurance?

Depends on the hospital he's taken to. In the US we do have not for profit hospitals run by either religious groups (eg: Catholic nuns/Sisters of Mercy) or public universities. In exchange for their exemption from US income taxes they are expected to provide free health care to charity cases. However, if the patient has the ability to pay, they are still expected to pay.

A homeless guy might also be covered by the government through a program called "Medicaid", but only if they had applied for it. Since Medicaid limits the amount a doctor may charge, there are doctors that will not accept Medicaid patients.

If the guy is taken to a for profit hospital and has no health insurance he will be expected to pay, or transferred to a not for profit hospital. Many people in the US that have health insurance may find that their insurance will not cover the hospital bill, and, if they don't pay, will have their account turned over to a collection agency, and may have to go through bankruptcy.

Some for profit hospitals provide minimal medical services, and do what is called "dumping", which is putting the patient back out on the street and calling the police or fire department to come and take them to another hospital.

The other thing patients in the US have to watch for is that sometimes the hospital takes their insurance, but the doctor performing the surgery, or the anesthesia doctor/nurse, doesn't, so they get hit with a large bill which they are expected to pay/or seek bankruptcy.

Overall medical care follows The Golden Rule......them with the gold rules.

Them without the gold generally have shorter lifespans.

Quizzical

Utinni said:

delete5230 said:

Thing in the US is by law companies have to pay heath care to 40 hour workers that's about 30% in benefits on top of their paychecks. 

This is completely untrue. We wouldn't be having healthcare debates if everyone with a job had healthcare. I'm not even sure where you could've heard this.

Don't confuse health care with health insurance.  Polls have found that even the overwhelming majority of Americans who don't have health insurance at all are satisfied with the quality of health care that they get.  There aren't many Americans who are upset that they can't get health care at all, or even that the quality of health care that they can get is terrible.  There are a whole lot of Americans who are upset at what health care costs, especially when you get a bill and are surprised to find that you have to pay far more than you expected.

That's why American politicians who want to change the American health care system rarely talk about getting health care to Americans who currently lack it, and don't even talk much about increasing the quality of care.  Rather, they talk a whole lot about how to bring the costs down, and different people have different proposals about what will work well.  And, of course, things that politicians claim will work well commonly don't actually work well in the real world.

One could argue that the biggest problem with the American health care system is the lack of price transparency.  Hospitals and doctors often won't tell you what you'll be charged ahead of time.  Even if you directly ask what something will cost, they'll often just say, let's take care of you first and we'll worry about payment later.  In some cases, your choices are between a surprise bill of unknown size (which will sometimes be only a token copay) and walking away and not getting the care at all, or at least having to go to a different doctor or a different hospital.

Margaretaville

Quizzical said:

And, of course, things that politicians claim will work well commonly don't actually work well in the real world.

We have this alternate reality in the US that exists solely within "The Beltway" in Washington DC.

Picture yourself stepping Through the Looking Glass, falling down the rabbit hole, drinking the vial labelled "Drink Me", and following The White Rabbit to the Tea Party, only to find the Mad Hatter and the Marche Hare in charge of stuffing the Dormouse into the Tea Pot. 

Now you know why things that sound good inside the Beltway don't actually work in the real world...….always be careful what you ask for.

Utinni

Sovrath said:

Utinni said:

delete5230 said:

Thing in the US is by law companies have to pay heath care to 40 hour workers that's about 30% in benefits on top of their paychecks. 

This is completely untrue. We wouldn't be having healthcare debates if everyone with a job had healthcare. I'm not even sure where you could've heard this.

Employers who are considered large employers have to offer a certain amount of their employees insurance. If not there is some sort of tax penalty.

There is an employee count threshold where which you have to "offer" to cover part of an ACA approved plan. Once you hit that threshold a majority percentage of your employees have to agree to enroll in a plan which costs them the same as it costs the employer. In every business I've worked with who was forced by this the employees would rather pocket the expense than pay for silver health plans which have extreme deductibles and co-pays. Basically useless health insurance. Typically once your employees waive their "right" to healthcare you incur no penalties tax wise. We're talking people who make $9-$14/hr being asked to give up $200+ per paycheck for health insurance they can't afford to even use.

I also work with plenty of businesses(large and small) that absorb full cost of insurance for their employees (and spouses/children) as a benefit of employment. This is brutal for most businesses. The fact that small companies have to foot the bill for basic healthcare so that huge companies like Amazon can pay no taxes is dystopian. 

As the majority of businesses in the US are small (under 50 employees) this law is not enforced upon them.

Ungood

Ok, legit, in America, for "Universal Health" it would have to be a Much smaller country. Sorry, but America's diversity and bulk make it very hard for that kind of plan to work. 

Just to really grasp things, Countries like Canada, have a population smaller than California, in fact, only 36 counties in the world, ok let that process, across the whole world of 230+ nations, only 36 nations have a higher population than California alone, if we toss in Texas, now you have 19 counties, and UK didn't make the cut.

In the few counties that are near as large as America that have some kind of public health, like China, they have the cultural diversity of a bar of ivory soap.

On top of that, American government is not known for having their shit together, these are the same people that bankrupted Medicare, and Social Security, and now recently, the Democrats could not even get a correct count at the voting polls in Iowa, so, these are not the people that any sane person would want running their heath care.

And that is where most Americans have an issue, it is not the idea of public health that bothers them, it's who would be in charge of it.

Hatefull

delete5230 said:

DMKano said:

The first image that came to my mind about Deleted running a test

This is the berserk I was talking about..... non relevant.
It's funny, but not a counter point  

You seldom, if ever, actually make a point, so there isn't really much to counter.

Wizardry

lol i laugh at so many that think they have a common nonsense view point.Maybe if people quit living under a rock and pay attention to the world and what goes on around them,they might grasp it all.
$$$$$$<<<this is the root of all that is evil.There is never any money for the taxpayers but seems to be billions for the rich,billions for the governments,tons of money to EASILY waste except when times comes to help the people.
Oh sorry we don't have any money for that but here let's spend trillions on weapons that kill people,we rather work on that than helping the people.
Want to to know the true mentality of the world,look at the Chinese Doctor who tried to warn the people of the Corona virus and was arrested for supposedly spreading rumors.This is how people in power treat those below them,like ants,we have NOTHING for you but for us,we seem to have unlimited $$$.

delete5230

Ungood said:

Ok, legit, in America, for "Universal Health" it would have to be a Much smaller country. Sorry, but America's diversity and bulk make it very hard for that kind of plan to work. 

Just to really grasp things, Countries like Canada, have a population smaller than California, in fact, only 36 counties in the world, ok let that process, across the whole world of 230+ nations, only 36 nations have a higher population than California alone, if we toss in Texas, now you have 19 counties, and UK didn't make the cut.

In the few counties that are near as large as America that have some kind of public health, like China, they have the cultural diversity of a bar of ivory soap.

On top of that, American government is not known for having their shit together, these are the same people that bankrupted Medicare, and Social Security, and now recently, the Democrats could not even get a correct count at the voting polls in Iowa, so, these are not the people that any sane person would want running their heath care.

And that is where most Americans have an issue, it is not the idea of public health that bothers them, it's who would be in charge of it.

Good points with country is too large and over the top spending and taking from Social Security.

- Add that us Americans like to sue and pull our rights and win most every time because of our laws, this in it self will bankrupt us more.  

- Billions will be spent in the fight to make it happen, but the red tape involved will NEVER LET it happen....... Infact the fight will use up all the money for health care.

- Health Care is to fragile.... as bad as their are problems, it's best to not mess with it.  Hospitals will close.

- If the borders open wide, will be paying for the entire world. The middle class only has so much money to foot the bill. 

Scot

Amathe said:

Scot said:

Well I think he is commenting on the fact we were not all happy with low quality graphics in the other thread. I am sure many would be, quite possibly enough for an indie MMO, but there is no guarantee. To appeal to a larger audience (and ensure you have enough for an indie MMO) the graphics will need to be decent. It is a balance, not going too far either way seems to be what all the indie MMOs have gone for so far.

@Scot You always look for educational value, even in posts that are complete poop. Someone could say "I like eating dirt," and you will  take from that "I think what he is saying is that we all benefit from returning to our core values in Mother earth."

Glad you're here. Sometimes yours is the only sane post to be found.

Well I do try to take the best I can from a post, but Delete is not the only poster I do that for. We do have posters who are passionate about MMOs but have a hard time articulating exactly what their concerns are. He is chief among them because he posts a lot, but the passion is genuine so I give a genuine reply. Also I think any forum can be a bit staid and he livens us up no end.

I would say though as I always do, lets steer clear of politics, this is a gaming forum.

psiic

Speak for yourself I don't want healthcare for all, I think you should only get what you can afford to pay for. We are 4 billion people over planet sustainability and we are polluting the gene pool by keeping bad dna that natural selection would kill off alive and breeding. We need to stop trying to save everyone and let nature do her duty. Screw healthcare for all but I would be all for coffins for all. 

Ungood

Sharne said:

Ungood said:

Ok, legit, in America, for "Universal Health" it would have to be a Much smaller country. Sorry, but America's diversity and bulk make it very hard for that kind of plan to work. 

Just to really grasp things, Countries like Canada, have a population smaller than California, in fact, only 36 counties in the world, ok let that process, across the whole world of 230+ nations, only 36 nations have a higher population than California alone, if we toss in Texas, now you have 19 counties, and UK didn't make the cut.

In the few counties that are near as large as America that have some kind of public health, like China, they have the cultural diversity of a bar of ivory soap.

On top of that, American government is not known for having their shit together, these are the same people that bankrupted Medicare, and Social Security, and now recently, the Democrats could not even get a correct count at the voting polls in Iowa, so, these are not the people that any sane person would want running their heath care.

And that is where most Americans have an issue, it is not the idea of public health that bothers them, it's who would be in charge of it.

I cant see how the population or diversity (Your point about China not being culturally diverse is totally wrong btw) would have an impact, the issue is how the healthcare is funded, rather than the infrastructure right?

Also your point about China not being culturally diverse is  

The point about who would run it though, I completely understand.

 91+% of China is Han Chinese, Of the remaining 8(ish)% of the population they are Also Chinese, just not Han Chinese. 

To give you an idea, in America, the "Majority" population is held on by 51%, and that group is classified as "White" and has more diversity in it's own right than China, in fact American's Asian population alone has more cultural diversity than China.

And that's just the facts, not my opnion at all.

AlBQuirky

bestever said:

PLEASE DETELE MY ACCOUNT.

Agreed