I've figured out how to make socialized Medicine work in the US
 

these conversations ALWAYS leave out the obvious. That the USA is a fat, retarded nation full of self destructive assholes that couldn't identify a piece of broccoli unless it was covered in chocolate and butter. Canada... not so much. Other european nations with sound systems... not so much.

the biggest health care costs in this nation are totally preventable


here are some changes you will have to make for it to work in the USA... lets get this into the bill before it's too late!!

you have to stop being a fat pig

you have to stop smoking

you have to start wearing your seat belt

you have to start wearing a helmet

you have to pay for your own negligence

we have to stop people from eating like 1/2 starved homeless assholes that just found a bunch of food in a dumpster

as a nation, we have to stop trying to figure out how to wrap a cigarette in bacon, coat it with sugar and chocolate, soak it in cheap beer and deep fry it.

we have to stop serving kids shit food in public schools

we have to make people who make bad choices like smoking, becoming fat/obese pay for their costs and NOT make people who make great choices pay for that behavior


you can't have it all ways. you can't be a nation with a 4 trillion dollar national debt, in a recession and then want to make a multi trillion dollar transition to a new government abortion of a bureaucracy... with no idea of how to pay for it and simultaneously be FULLY COMMITTED to being the fattest, most unhealthy nation on earth.

i don't want to subsidize you as you decide to make your family fat

i don't want to pay for medical procedures that help keep your unhealthy, fat ass alive

i don't want to stand by and watch you make your kids obese. in fact, i want you to be charged with child abuse

i don't want to pay for drugs that do what YOU should be doing with good diet, good food and exercise

i don't want to pay for your cancer because you eat like an asshole and can't stop smoking

I am fine with socialized medicine in principle... but if you want ME - who tries to do everything right... to pay for YOU who does everything wrong... then you have some obligations to ME or you need to pay for your own shitty decisions and bear the consequences yourself.





:2 cents:

I am fat due to disability. It's not my fault!

Things like smoking actually save money when it comes to health care, since people who die young tend to not need many of the costly types of care that come with getting older.

Someone who dies at age 60 from lung cancer or a heart attack is a whole lot cheaper than someone who reaches 90 and spends his last decade needing constant care because he has Alzheimer.

FUCK YOU

Other than that, you're so right!

Actually, I bet your right. I t would be interesting to see that breakdown actually made.

the problem si that they don't just die... if someone smoked for 20 years and then just died one day while taking a shower, i would be the first to paint "enjoy a Marlboro" on my car.

they spend years getting cancer treatments and organ transplants. almost every form of cancer is treatable now and its expensive

Here's a study on the "costs" of smoking:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/15/1052

Keep in mind that this study only looks at health care costs. It leaves out things like tax income, money saved on pensions, etc.

Being healthy leads to direct savings in health care, but it also leads to living longer, which drives up costs dramatically in the long run.

Economically speaking, it would be cheapest if people died around age 65.

Copy pasted, and sent via whitehouse.gov feedback form.

I'm GrouchyAdmin, and I endorse this message.

I get the feeling you're not too fond of fatties

This needs to be printed, reprinted and plastered all over america. I have found my rally point in this message.

I STRONGLY OBJECT to the idea that someone expects me to be financially accountable to THEM to take care of them and their needs... but they don't have to be accountable to me... ever. for any reason. zero. none. nada.

No reciprocation at all.

A one way street.

They just get to be sloppy, unhealthy idiots at my direct expense and the government gets to jump in and mismanage everything on top of that.

No, you get to live a long, healthy life at their expense.

Thank you :thumbsup:thumbsup

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup

depends one who is spending the bulk of the time in the health care system, having the costliest issues and draining the resources as a result of the choices they've made.

If that's me... i've paid into it and i'm taking MY money back out. assuming its a % of my taxable earnings. basically, i would have to have a major tragedy or act of God to take out what i've put in.

when its a bunch of obese, chain smoking Wall Mart greeters.. they are taking THEIR MONEY AND MY MONEY OUT.

:2 cents:

In addition to all that they need to charge a small user fee for idiots who go to emergency rooms for treatment of NON-emergency cases. This has in the past been a big problem in Canada, people using the ER for colds and splinter removals when they could just as easily have gone to a walk-in clinic for that treatment and freed up the ER's resources for people who have actual serious health concerns.

i had a girlfriend like this many years ago. she had a 2 year old and everytime the kid frowned, she ran him to the hospital because she was on some sort of state assistance and it didnt cost her anything and i kept thinking "my god, how could an entire nation afford this"

You had a girlfriend on government assistance?!

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/...l.pmed.0050029

i think the comparison between nations and what works as with almost any other comparison (i.e gun ownership, crime etc) leaves out obvious cultural factors and differences.

a nation that lives healthier lives are going have more reasonable health care costs. a nation that is so proudly blazing the way in setting records for obesity and diminished quality of life is going to have a much harder time managing the costs than a nation who prides themselves on a healthy lifestyle.

i was young. she was single, with a kid etc. i was only like 21. it was a big part of what made me see that when you start endorsing and subsidizing failure... you create more failure.

There is not much to worry about, American's are not into family values, not into having a large family, not into working hard, not into religion or faith and we have opened the flood gates to the islamic world to come here and take over. These people have zero interest in clubs, bars, parties, drugs etc. They worship their god, have 9 kids and work hard and buy up companies. Give it time and wearing a hijab and burka will be added to the constitution.

Years ago a chick I was seeing had an 8-yr-old daughter who was growing rather obese. The kid would squirrel away junk food and snacks in her room like a pack rat - on top of second and third helpings she'd have at the dinner table.

On top of that, she was somewhat lethargic...prefering to sit around watching TV or doing something that required no effort, as opposed to riding a bike, playing in the yard, etc.

I was constantly on my GF's case about it - trying to make her understand how much effect the obesity was having on the girl, and the future health problems she'd face later in life.

Her typical excuse was a variation of, "If I don't let her eat what she wants, she'll think its because I think she's fat and that'll lead to self-esteem issues. When I was a kid other kids always made fun of me because of my weight - so I ate more to make myself happy."

Huh? :eek7

Her excuses at the time made no logical sense whatsoever.

The fact remained - the kid IS/WAS fat.

Both the mother and daughter had health issues - they were always frequent flyers at the hospital for one ailment or another. But nothing I could do or say would alter their mindset about food. I took over the grocery shopping in the household and made an effort to buy only healthy food. That lasted awhile until the GF started complaining, "There's never anything to eat in the house" (meaning - no junk food). So off she'd go to the store to pick up junk food.

I am surprised that you were able to deal with it as long as you could. At least you "tried", unfortunately trying simply doesn't work. You can't change people unless they want to change. Being that unhealthy is just disturbing... it's disgusting. They obviously had some mental issues behind the whole food thing... and that's too bad.

They states last night on the news that England had 300K more deaths due to breast cancer last year than the US.. Due largely in part to the socialized medicine. Because they have to WAIT.

Want to fix the Health care issues in the US. Mandatory 1 to 2 years 20 hours a week min in Social health care centers for EVERY LICENSED MD. They can NOT get out of it for ANYTHING.

Problem solved.

my best friends brother had a girlfriend that was doing that to her kid. she fed him whatever he wanted.. of course, shitty food usually causes you to crave shitty food and he was well over 150 pounds at about 8 or 9 years old. it was horrible. she wouldn't listen to anyone and always had an excuse.

sometimes women tend to use kids to make themselves feel better and fill the holes they have inside themselves and put the welfare of the child and the notion of being a great parent behind these sort of destructive behaviors. :(

I like a lot of your ideas. I'm curious about your thoughts on taxing things like candy, cigarettes, junk food and booze to help pay for health care.

What? 300k more?

The total yearly number of deaths from breast cancer in the UK is around 12k. The total yearly number of deaths from breast cancer in the US is around 40k.

Being a med student I might be a bit biased, but: go fuck yourself. Seriously, go fuck yourself.

That has got to be the single dumbest thing I have read in the entire health care debate so far.

My wife and her entire family has this mentality. It's been a long road trying to get her to break it.

I have long long long supported this. American's can't do it on their own. So instead let them have what they need. Government to tax things that are unhealthy to the point where they can not possible afford it on a regular basis or in large quantities.

sure. just like a toll road. user pays. i think that's very fair. if i want the convenience of the road and a faster way to get from point a to b... then i should be paying for it. a blind quadrapalegic who lives 5 counties away should not be paying for it.

if you want to live on cheese burgers and cocaine... be my guest. but don't ask me to pay for it when you end up in the cardiac center

you want to fuck your life up... I am all for that! 100% ... you're choice. Blow your head off... drive your car off a bridge... die climbing Mount Everest... just don't ask me to pay the consequences for your decisions. Climb mount everest? fine! put up the 1-2-3 million dollars that will be spent on the search and rescue mission BEFORE you climb... or fuck you,... you'll freeze to death until your family raises the money to pay for your dumb actions.

i think everyone should pay a proportionate share of the financial consequences to others for their actions.

going further, i would limit lawsuits in medicine and require users to pay attorney fees if they lose.

:)

I agree. This last winter there were two pretty big search and rescues at a mountain near where I live. They spent a lot of money finding these lost people and in both cases they had trouble because the people didn't spend the extra $140 to get an emergency device that would transmit their location if activated. If they had that device they would have been found in a matter of hours not days. Instead they ran up thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, in costs to find them.

I have also long been a supporter of sin taxes as long as the money goes towards something good and can't be shifted away. My state (like many others) has long had trouble funding the schools. So about 20 years ago they started up a statewide lottery. They sold it as being a solution for schools and most of the money raised by the lottery would go to the schools. I guess at first it did, then they started shifting it away to other things. Now next to none of it goes to the schools and the schools are right back having the same funding issues.

If someone wants to drink some vodka, no problem (I'm sometimes one of those people) it won't kill them to pay an extra 50 cents a bottle. If someone wants to eat ice cream and cookies, let them, but it will cost then a little more money. If the money that was raised by these taxes went towards paying for health care it could greatly offset the cost.

1) No more 20 to life jail sentences. If you are convicted of anything worth 20 years or more, you are immediately put to death. No waiting years on Death Row either, make it happen that week or at the very least few weeks.

You will get those complaining that people need a second chance, or what about the wrongly convicted? That's unfortunate for them but I'm pretty sure they make up a minuscule amount of today's prisons.

2) Impose a much higher tax on items deemed 'unhealthy" by the FDA.

Obviously, the hardest part here is this must be some agreed upon objective method for measuring and rating a product's unhealthiness. Junk food will no longer cost way less than healthy food and thus people buying junk because it's cheaper, will switch.

3) Utilize the massive amount of funds gained in steps 1 and 2 and put them towards public healthcare, new hospitals, better doctors and training, more public sports programs, etc...

Canada's health care system works fairly well, with the funding required no longer being a problem, a similar system can be implemented in the States easily.

I just reduced crime, solved prison over-crowding, introduced national health care, got people into healthier lifestyles and possibly even reduced national debt (with the surplus of funds) with a few simple suggestions :upsidedow

That scenario happens far too often. It isn't just your state. Like you said, a tax is introduced to conquer a certain problem... once that certain problem is conquered, that tax should disappear. Instead, that tax money gets shifted to other areas that may not even be necessary and you end up back at square one. Five years later when that initial certain problem starts up again, they find something else to tax. And the cycle repeats.

Taxes should have limits or goals. They should not be a tax sitting out there in the open for all to rape.

Ummm no they don't. Smoking related illness costs states shit loads of money. In fact I think it's at the top of the list. This was from 98.

http://berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/...6/smoking.html

72.7 billion a year is what it cost in the US alone and it costs each state a shit load as well.

"She pointed out that the 1993 bill for California alone amounted to $8.7 billion, the highest total in the nation, followed by New York, with $6.6 billion in smoking-related disease costs. Wyoming, at $80 million in 1993, had the lowest expenditure for illness caused by cigarette smoking.

Communism sucks.

You are wasting body parts. No more death penalty. Organ farms instead.

i agree people should pay for their own health expenses..
but there has to be some exceptions. say if you're a refugee and the USA accepted you to come live in the states, in the first 5 years, how do you attain a job where you get paid enough and get your own health insurance? let alone learn the new culture and language.

the think part of the reason why california is bankrupt is because they have a program called mediCAL, which is pretty much california version of medicaid for the low income. all your health care bills are paid in full if you're poor. so people be going to the ER left and right bc it costs them nothing.

while that is not a sustainable system (for california), i dont think it's right turn our backs against people who really is trying to make the best out of everything, to try to eat healthy and to keep their family alive, and no matter how hard they try (language barrier, limited education, etc) they can't get a white colar job that can offer them good pay and health insurance for their family. instead, what they hope for is to give their children the opportunity to get a good education and get a job, to hopefully one day pay society back.

My only real problem with this is that there have been hundreds of people who have been exonerated through DNA evidence in recent years. Of course now we could use that DNA evidence up front at the trail and not do it retroactively as most of these people were found guilty before DNA evidence was really used. That said, it would take a fundamental shift of our legal system for this to save money. It actually costs more to put someone to death than it does to lock them up for life. The reason is because of all the legal issues that go into place to make sure we aren't executing innocent people.

It is easy to say that only a tiny number of innocent people will be put to death, but is it so easy if one of those people is you or someone you love?

I agree fully. One of the reasons people eat bad food is because it is cheap. If it were cheaper to eat healthy more people might do it.

I'm not so sure about all of the savings though. Sure if we can change eating habits it will make people healthier over the long run, but it could take decades for that actually happen. If we stick with the current legal system you will solve prison overcrowding, but it will actually be more expensive than keeping them all locked up.

While I may not always agree with you, you usually have some decent arguments. This was definitely not one of those times.

That's a great idea, however I think they'd have enough conflict with the pro-lifers then to have to deal with all the public outcry against forced organ donation...they need to take it one step at a time :winkwink:

Exactly. When the lottery started paying for the schools everything was great then they moved more and more money elsewhere. The problem was this area became one of the most popular places in the nation to relocate to so we we went through a population explosion which meant the schools needed more money. So now that the lottery money was going elsewhere they went back to their favorite fall back, property taxes. The crazy thing was several years ago there was a measure passed that limited the amount of property tax the state could put on your house (mean they capped the dollar per thousand tax rate at a certain number.) So within two years of that measure being passed suddenly every house started going up in value. If the state couldn't increase the percentage they could get, they will just raise the value of your house and get it that way.

We can start with them.

Based on 2008 stats, the average cost per year of a prisoner in an American prison is $76,100 so for minimum 20 years, assuming the cost stays the same, that's 1.5M give or take (and could be more, the longer the sentence and what kind of age / health the offender is in).

I understand your point, that things are gone about differently when seeking the death penalty, but yes for this to work there would have to be no change in current legal process; in brief, a death penalty case should NOT differ from a regular case and trial.

Additionally, that aside, you must also calculate the cost of reduced crime (obviously I don't know, but I'd think if thousands upon thousands of criminals started being put to quick death, a lot of people might think twice about committing a crime to begin with). Less crime = less legal and police costs, less people in prisons to have to pay for, less prisons needing to be built, etc...

My personal opinion on that is, my chances of that happening by "being in the wrong place at the wrong time" are less than the chances of having a fatal accident, being murdered, etc... so if it happens, it's truly "my time to go". Also, if I was convicted wrongly and given a life sentence, depending on my individual jail experience today and in the future, I might wish that I was simply killed as opposed to suffering for 20-30 years then being set free, having missed a large chunk of my life/youth.

Please allow me to educate you.

There are two things you should know about studies like this:

1 - Many studies like this don't compensate for the money saved by avoiding extra costs due to longer lifespans. And if they don't, they're entirely worthless.

2 - The line "translates the adverse health effects (of smoking) into dollar terms, the universal language of decision makers" from the article indicates that, like many studies, this study also gives an arbitrary "economic value" to years of life gained. The typical value of a year? $10k-$50k, depending on the study in question. That's not actual money, though. It's not "the monetary gains of an extra year of life", but the "intrinsic value" of living.

Every single study that doesn't fuck up these two things arrives at the same conclusion: if people quit smoking, it gives short-term economic benefits but long-term economic costs which outweigh the benefits, at least on a financial level.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/15/1052 <- I already posted this before, but it seems as if people aren't getting the message.

This chart sums it up pretty well:

http://i31.tinypic.com/sgisjp.jpg

At any given age, smokers are individually more expensive than non-smokers. However, because they tend to die younger, as a group they are less expensive overall - simply because relatively few will make it to 80, and the older you get, the more health care you will need, on average.

This is not a theoretical argument, it's a cold, hard fact. I've posted links to two studies published in peer-reviewed journals in this thread which conclude exactly the same thing.

I know people on GFY generally speaking aren't exactly big on academics, but personally, I tend to trust scientific studies a whole lot more than I do the anecdotes of random people on message boards.

Sure if it were widespread you may actually end up reducing crime in the long run and ultimately that could save a lot of money. I guess I envision a different end to things. I could see a situation where someone is convicted of a crime, sentenced to death and killed then we find out that the person actually was innocent. Their family sues the state that put this person to death and wins a multi-million dollar settlement. This could open up a whole new can of worms

Sadly, there is no easy answer. We can either deal with massive overcrowding and costs or deal with the possible issues that come from a rapid death penalty.



For sure, if you are just sitting in your house watching TV the cops aren't going to kick your door in and drag you away just because they need someone to arrest. Most of the people who eventually were found innocent of the crime were originally caught because they had existing criminal records that made them suspects. So one thing for sure that could happen is that it may encourage people to not get yourself involved in petty crime of any sort. If you end up a criminal that could get you in a line-up for a different crime you didn't commit and then you could be wrongly ID'd.

So if I read that correctly it is saying that the average cost per person is higher for smokers, but when you group smokers into one group and non-smokers into another it shows that the non-smokers end up costing more total dollars.

Is that correct?

If so couldn't that simply be because there are more non-smokers than smokers? Sure all of the smokers combined cost less than all of the non-smokers combined, but what is the difference in population size?

Good point and example; I suppose the only solution there is to give the Court final authority where they are not liable and thus, cannot be sued in any way for wrongful death. Of course that would open up the question of "If you give them x power, why not also let them do y." and then you get stuck at "Where is the line drawn"?

As you mentioned though, with new techniques such as DNA testing becoming cheaper and more widely used and they fact they'd still have a traditional trial, I'd think it going forward you won't have as many wrongful convictions as in the past...

The graph shows what it would be like if the entire male population did or didn't smoke.

Average cost per person if the person is alive is higher for smokers. But smokers die younger. So, at later ages (70+), smokers start becoming a lot cheaper simply because most of them are dead.

In the graph, the peaks are where the average life expectancy is. If nobody smoked, health care costs would be lower for people aged up to ~73, but at that point, since the smokers' life expectancy has already peaked, a population consisting entirely of non-smokers suddenly becomes much more expensive.