US National Healthcare Debate

[FromTheSouth]

Let me surprise you. I am against a government run healthcare initiative.

Fortunately for me, so is America. Zogby and Rasmussen both have national healthcare scoring minus nine in opinion polls. Senator McCaskill, Senator Carnaghan, and the entire Maryland congressional delegation have faced staunch opposition in their home districts while having town halls in support of the idea.

Let's look at some of the hotter topics involved.

According to President Obama, 40 million Americans are uninsured. Upon further review, it has been determined that 12 million of these people are illegal aliens. I honestly don't think that they deserve my tax money for anything when they are in this country illegally. There are lines around the block, so to speak, to get into this country legally, and those that usurp the rules should not be rewarded. I understand that they are here, and we need to deal with it, but until they start paying federal income tax, they shouldn't get the benefits of mine. Another 15-20 million are employed 20 and 30 somethings who choose not to have healthcare coverage. The question was asked at Maryland town hall, "If I choose not to have healthcare, why am I being fined $2500 a year so that others can?" In all honesty, I agree here.

Secondly, the CBO has scored the current initiative in the trillions of dollars. The typical US budget in the last twenty years (not including Social Security and Medicare, which are funded through a separate tax called FICA) has beena round 650 billion dollars a year. Just passing national healthcare would cost over a trillion dollars every year. How are we going to pay for this? Simple math tells me that income taxes would need to tripled across the board. Or are we going to raise a trillion dollars annually by taxing sodas and candy bars?

Third, other countries with socialized medicine have flawed plans. Canada's fastest growing industry is the private healthcare clinic. People are going to these clinics and paying for MRI's and simple procedures rather that wait years. Clinics are on the rise across Europe as well. The waits are killing people, literally. I think this quote echos my sentiments.

There is nothing inherently different about cancer in the U.S. and Britain to explain why more people are dying here.
-Dr. Karol Sikora, of Cancer Partners UK.

Fourth, congress cannot come to an agreement on the bill. Rep. John Conyers (D - Mi) said there is no use reading the bill because "it would take two days and two lawyers" to read the thousand pages. I guess he means would should blindly accept it as good because Obama said it was? Well, those who have read it have found that there are 33 entitlement programs within the bill. This bill is going to lead to an exodus of doctors to places where they can make money, rationing of care, and out of control spending in the neighborhood of trillions of dollars in new taxes. This is not a party line debate. 53 democratic representatives have decided that they cannot vote for a plan that would spend their constituents money so wildly that small businesses in America would be taxed to death.

 

[Razor]

First of all, I was afraid you would cry about having a government bureaucrat running your insurance policy. I would have died a little on the inside at the fact that you would actually argue that. As if a government bureaucrat would be any worse than having the multi-billion dollar insurance companies deciding what you can and can't have.

With that out of the way....I have to agree with you. I mean, you know there's something wrong when the medical industry is against the plan for Universal Healthcare. They take an oath to do no harm, and have given their lives to healing the sick. You would think that if this initiative could really heal and help loads of people than they would back it. There must be something really flawed when over half of the American Medical Association refuses to back it.

Now, with all that said, I do support healthcare reform. As does the AMA. However, this plan seems incredibly flawed. SO much money is being spent, and some estimates (not pessimistic Republican estimates. Actual, legit estimates) say that not even all of the uninsured will be covered. I'm your typical bleeding heart liberal, and I still can't help but shake my head at this plan.

So I suppose my stance on Universal Healthcare is yes, if we can make it work. But this plan, with its nearly 3 trillion dollar cost (according to the Treasury office or some official government agency like that) and what not....I just can't support it. Maybe if we had this instead of the government bailouts. But you can't have both. This government can't handle it.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I like how it is in England. You are entitled to free healthcare if you live here. But if you don't want to wait as long as you'd have to with it free you can pay at a private clinic and get care quicker. In general, if you have the money to pay for your care, that's great. But I don't want to stay at home when I'm really ill because I'm afraid of the healthcare bills which I wouldn't be able to afford.

 

[Tastycles]

Right, as per usual we have the classic right wing American arguments saying somthing is evil, based on hammed up estimates, and well, bullshit. Here we go, I live in the UK, healthcare is free here, and so, I am well aware of its problems and also it's successes. Here we go...

Let me surprise you. I am against a government run healthcare initiative.

Shocker.

Fortunately for me, so is America. Zogby and Rasmussen both have national healthcare scoring minus nine in opinion polls. Senator McCaskill, Senator Carnaghan, and the entire Maryland congressional delegation have faced staunch opposition in their home districts while having town halls in support of the idea.

I don't know what about 70% of the nouns in that sentence are, but I am going to say what this is: people are afraid of change, and that is why the poll scores are low. It's like people hating the European Union here, the press is against it, people don't understand it, so they don't like it. Polls mean nothing, just because the majority of people don't trust politiicians, should we abandon democracy? No.

Let's look at some of the hotter topics involved.

According to President Obama, 40 million Americans are uninsured. Upon further review, it has been determined that 12 million of these people are illegal aliens. I honestly don't think that they deserve my tax money for anything when they are in this country illegally. There are lines around the block, so to speak, to get into this country legally, and those that usurp the rules should not be rewarded. I understand that they are here, and we need to deal with it, but until they start paying federal income tax, they shouldn't get the benefits of mine. Another 15-20 million are employed 20 and 30 somethings who choose not to have healthcare coverage. The question was asked at Maryland town hall, "If I choose not to have healthcare, why am I being fined $2500 a year so that others can?" In all honesty, I agree here.

I think there is a point to be made here, but your looking at the wrong end of the problem. The solution is to find the people living illegally, and deport them, or at worst make them pay tax, which presuambly would happen if they announced themselves at a hospital. But, you do have a point with illegal immigrants.

As for the other point, people completely miss the point of taxation, and that is a classic example. The point of tax isn't to redistribute wealth, or to improve the life of individuals, it is to improve society as a whole. Take these guys here, you have people saying that they don't take the governments health care so why contribute to it? Well, I don't have children, shall I deduct the percentage of Tax that goes on schooling? I don't drive, shall I deduct the amount used on roads? I don't own a multinational corperation, shall I deduct the amount given in handouts to them to stay in the country? Where would it end?

It's better for everyone to have healthcare than for only a few, in't it? If you can afford it, but the hospital orderly can't, and your both ill at the same time, who will push your hospital bed aroound? Who will feed you while your there? You have to look after everyone, because everyone is needed in society.

Secondly, the CBO has scored the current initiative in the trillions of dollars. The typical US budget in the last twenty years (not including Social Security and Medicare, which are funded through a separate tax called FICA) has beena round 650 billion dollars a year. Just passing national healthcare would cost over a trillion dollars every year. How are we going to pay for this? Simple math tells me that income taxes would need to tripled across the board. Or are we going to raise a trillion dollars annually by taxing sodas and candy bars?

Well, you spent a trillion dollars to kill one man, so why not spend it to save potentially millions?

The money it'd cost is a huge problem, but the savings made from insurance etc would contribute. I don't understand why or how it'd cost more proportionally than ours though, it's not as if you don't already have the most expensive things like equipment, so the installation of it should be far easier than it was for the NHS. Britain spends around $150bn on health, so I don't understand why yours would be any more than $750bn. Still a lot, but not as big a deficit.

Third, other countries with socialized medicine have flawed plans. Canada's fastest growing industry is the private healthcare clinic. People are going to these clinics and paying for MRI's and simple procedures rather that wait years. Clinics are on the rise across Europe as well. The waits are killing people, literally. I think this quote echos my sentiments.

The quote doesn't say anything, nor does it come from a legitimate health organisation or one of the top 3 cancer charities in the country, I've never even heard of it, and I have a fair deal of experience with cancer charities. However, England and Wales do have higher cancer death rates than the US, but there are so many more factors than the health service. It's naive to think otherwise.

Lets look at the figures in more detail, to illustrate my point. The rate in the US is about 20% lower than that in the UK, but the rate in Sweden, another country with a national health service is free and in existence, so the figures mean nothing. This is further illustrated by the disparity between Scotland and England and Wales, two regions with exactly the same health service.

As for the waiting lists, they are getting shorter here, not longer. The problem is in times when we have a right wing government, who cut the budget to it. When we have a vaguley left wing government, we end up with a working health service. The waiting list isn't very long at all. My dad had major surgery earlier this year for free, about 3 weeks after he was healthy enough from a previous operation to have it. If you've got less time than that, you aren't going to live anyway.

Fourth, congress cannot come to an agreement on the bill. Rep. John Conyers (D - Mi) said there is no use reading the bill because "it would take two days and two lawyers" to read the thousand pages. I guess he means would should blindly accept it as good because Obama said it was?

I suppose he means that the congressmen should read it in their own time, and not waste the time they have in session to do it. That's what they should do if they are doing their job properly. Alternatively they could watch the abridged Fox News version which is sure to be an unbiased view of things.

Well, those who have read it have found that there are 33 entitlement programs within the bill. This bill is going to lead to an exodus of doctors to places where they can make money, rationing of care, and out of control spending in the neighborhood of trillions of dollars in new taxes.

Yes, this has happened in Britain. You get Dr. Nick off the Simpsons in and sometimes he's been working for several hundred hours. Or you don't, because, and you'll be shocked by this, not everyone is motivated by money, doctors included. The doctors we have are fine, and if you genuinely believe that your doctors will just go where the money is, then you are actually less socially evolved than 19th century Britain, and you have a problem.

This is not a party line debate. 53 democratic representatives have decided that they cannot vote for a plan that would spend their constituents money so wildly that small businesses in America would be taxed to death.

The same small businesses that can no longer afford to give their employees health insurance, no doubt.

First of all, I was afraid you would cry about having a government bureaucrat running your insurance policy. I would have died a little on the inside at the fact that you would actually argue that. As if a government bureaucrat would be any worse than having the multi-billion dollar insurance companies deciding what you can and can't have.

It'd actually be quite a lot better. I can change my health minister, you can't change your insurance CEOs.

With that out of the way....I have to agree with you. I mean, you know there's something wrong when the medical industry is against the plan for Universal Healthcare. They take an oath to do no harm, and have given their lives to healing the sick. You would think that if this initiative could really heal and help loads of people than they would back it. There must be something really flawed when over half of the American Medical Association refuses to back it.

Again, I think it's a matter of fearing change. With the system as it is, there's more job security. If you lose your job in the NHS, you won't work in medicine in this country again, if you lose your job in the US, there are a lot of other practices who will. However, that's actually quite a good thing, when you think about it.

Now, with all that said, I do support healthcare reform. As does the AMA. However, this plan seems incredibly flawed. SO much money is being spent, and some estimates (not pessimistic Republican estimates. Actual, legit estimates) say that not even all of the uninsured will be covered. I'm your typical bleeding heart liberal, and I still can't help but shake my head at this plan.


So I suppose my stance on Universal Healthcare is yes, if we can make it work. But this plan, with its nearly 3 trillion dollar cost (according to the Treasury office or some official government agency like that) and what not....I just can't support it. Maybe if we had this instead of the government bailouts. But you can't have both. This government can't handle it.

The thing is is that 5-10 years from now, those banks will be ripe for selling off at a huge profit, provided the same mistakes that Russia made aren't repeated. That is going to free an enormous amount of capital, which will probably be given as tax cuts to the rich, or some sort of half hearted rebate, when in reality, it could set up free, universal healthcare, and bring the equality and standard of living in the US to the level it should be in the richest country on the planet.

The other thing is, it's worth remembering that the World was in the worst shape it had ever been when socialised health care first came to the fore in the late 1940s. The money is well worth it in the end.

I like how it is in England. You are entitled to free healthcare if you live here. But if you don't want to wait as long as you'd have to with it free you can pay at a private clinic and get care quicker. In general, if you have the money to pay for your care, that's great. But I don't want to stay at home when I'm really ill because I'm afraid of the healthcare bills which I wouldn't be able to afford.

This is kind of true, but, and I think this is important, is that the amount of people who earn above the threhold to be able to pay, and the amount of people who actually do are nowhere near the same. In short, if free care was a bad thing, then those who could afford not to have it, wouldn't.

Everyone in the US can get medical care ANYTIME they want, even worthless illegal aliens, go to an emergency room and they have to take care of you.

Great, the land of the free and you can have an Accident and Emergency. I don't think there's anywhere outside of Africa that doesn't have this, but great. Of course, terminal cancer isn't an emergency, neither is say, an anuerysm or a gall stone, but that's ok, because this conversation was clearly about injuries that can be dealt with in a matter of minutes. Jesus Christ, think before you speak.

I went to the emergency room at 4am last Oct. for shingles, hurt like hell, I don't have medical insurance and the bill is over $1000. I am making payments and don't need insurance.

I snapped the ligaments in my ankles. I had to have morphine, an x-ray, an air cast, a consultation with an osteopath, crutches and two months of physiotherapy, as well as a subsequent visit to A & E when it seized up a year later. I also don't have health insurance. I am not making payments.

If obuma wants to 'reform' health care why doesn't he concentrate on the UNINSURED, instead of taking over the entire health care system? Why? Because he is a socialist piece of SHIT!!!!!

Or because it's not going to work is it. As soon as you start paying for the uninsured, nobody will buy insurance. This way, it avoids that inevitible problem.

Sofar this sob, has taken over 2 car companies and forced banks to take money they didn't want and now he wants to take over 1/7th of the economy.

Do you realise what would have happened if governments hadn't stepped in and taken control of the banks that they would have continued on the same path. Do you know what that would mean?

Ask these guys.

Fuck other countries and their socialised medical care, where do canadians go for ANYTHING they need to get quickly? THE U.S., I have a friend who's brother lives in canada and he needed knee surgery, HE WAITED 2 YEARS for surgery and that caused PERMANENT DAMAGE and he now has constant pain, but atleast it was FREE!!!!

That's anecdotal, and it doesn't matter. Canada and the UK have a higher life expectancy rate, and a lower infant mortality rate than the US. It is the macroscopic truth and not the individual cases where the comparison matters.

The bottom line is you get what you PAY for. If you like the DMV you will LOVE government run healthcare.

Yes, they're the same. We should get rid of free education too. It should be everyone works for everything. Kids, forget school, get down them fucking mines. Poor? Sick? Then off to the poor house for you. Seriously, analyse what you are saying there.

In all honesty, it is something that can't be done by halfs, and I'm not sure it is the right thing for the American political mentality. If your next two presidents are as forward thinking as Obama, then it'll work, if you don't then it won't. Basically, it's something tat is great, but it needs the monaaay.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I don't know what about 70% of the nouns in that sentence are, but I am going to say what this is: people are afraid of change, and that is why the poll scores are low. It's like people hating the European Union here, the press is against it, people don't understand it, so they don't like it. Polls mean nothing, just because the majority of people don't trust politiicians, should we abandon democracy? No.

Those nouns were polling services who have determined that the Obama lovefest is over outside of Hollywood, MSNBC, and Keith Olberman's wet dreams. Plus, Obama was elected on the promise that he would bring us national healthcare. Now that people know what his plan is, because like everything else he said in the election, he was vague, they don't like it. People are shouting down their representative in town hall meetings because they feel that the government is taking their money and spending it on control instead of services.

I think there is a point to be made here, but your looking at the wrong end of the problem. The solution is to find the people living illegally, and deport them, or at worst make them pay tax, which presuambly would happen if they announced themselves at a hospital. But, you do have a point with illegal immigrants.

We can't do that. There are 12-20 million in the country. What we need to do is give them citizenship and start taking an income tax. Conservative estimates add a billion dollars in tax revenue. That used to be a lot of money.

As for the other point, people completely miss the point of taxation, and that is a classic example. The point of tax isn't to redistribute wealth, or to improve the life of individuals, it is to improve society as a whole.

Right you are. The current plan is about control, not service. If you watch American politics at all, you will notice that the President has already spent a trillion dollars on control, with no signs of stopping.

Take these guys here, you have people saying that they don't take the governments health care so why contribute to it? Well, I don't have children, shall I deduct the percentage of Tax that goes on schooling?

I don't know. Do you have schooling money already deducted from your pay check? In America, schools are funded through property taxes. Schools are funded by everyone because everyone is forced to go. You are taking up payment for the people who paid for it while you were there.

I don't drive, shall I deduct the amount used on roads?

Even if you're not operating the car, I'm sure you ride in other's cars, or take buses, of buy products that are delivered to you, all of which happens, wait a minute, on roads. The police that protect you, well, they also use roads. And don't get me started on mail service.

I don't own a multinational corperation, shall I deduct the amount given in handouts to them to stay in the country? Where would it end?

I'm betting you use products from multinational companies. I'm sure those tax breaks show up in the cost of the item, especially, since it doesn't have to be imported.

It's better for everyone to have healthcare than for only a few, in't it? If you can afford it, but the hospital orderly can't, and your both ill at the same time, who will push your hospital bed aroound? Who will feed you while your there? You have to look after everyone, because everyone is needed in society.

Only a few? 260 million Americans do. It's not like a great majority are uninsured. And you're bleeding heart arguments don't apply. Hospital employees get discounted insurance from the company that owns the hospitals.

Well, you spent a trillion dollars to kill one man, so why not spend it to save potentially millions?

Isn't a bit of a shortsighted generalization. We spend a trillion dollars to further democracy in a region dominated by thoecratic dictators who execute homosexuals and the handicapped becuase they are inferior. And judging by the demonstrations in Iran, I would think we are making some headway. Thank your country for their help in that, by the way. The British were an invaluable asset in our mission.

The money it'd cost is a huge problem, but the savings made from insurance etc would contribute.

But people can keep their insurance, and then pay extra taxes for someone elses.

I don't understand why or how it'd cost more proportionally than ours though, it's not as if you don't already have the most expensive things like equipment, so the installation of it should be far easier than it was for the NHS.

Well, we're all fat for one. We are more at risk for cancer, diabetes, etc.

Britain spends around $150bn on health, so I don't understand why yours would be any more than $750bn. Still a lot, but not as big a deficit.

And here I was, thinking we were talking real money.

The quote doesn't say anything, nor does it come from a legitimate health organisation or one of the top 3 cancer charities in the country, I've never even heard of it, and I have a fair deal of experience with cancer charities. However, England and Wales do have higher cancer death rates than the US, but there are so many more factors than the health service. It's naive to think otherwise.

Lets look at the figures in more detail, to illustrate my point. The rate in the US is about 20% lower than that in the UK, but the rate in Sweden, another country with a national health service is free and in existence, so the figures mean nothing. This is further illustrated by the disparity between Scotland and England and Wales, two regions with exactly the same health service.

As for the waiting lists, they are getting shorter here, not longer. The problem is in times when we have a right wing government, who cut the budget to it. When we have a vaguley left wing government, we end up with a working health service. The waiting list isn't very long at all. My dad had major surgery earlier this year for free, about 3 weeks after he was healthy enough from a previous operation to have it. If you've got less time than that, you aren't going to live anyway.

The quote says exactly what you say it does. It says that the countries with national health care have higher rates of death. I think it's because bureaucrats get to ration healthcare when the governments in control. I mean, the utilitarian ideals are strong, the human rights, not so much.

I suppose he means that the congressmen should read it in their own time, and not waste the time they have in session to do it. That's what they should do if they are doing their job properly. Alternatively they could watch the abridged Fox News version which is sure to be an unbiased view of things.

I suppose it means that he thinks that Obama likes it, so he does too. Nevermind, the entitlements that raise the cost, and have little to do with healthcare. Why would anyone sign anything without reading it? But thanks for telling me how Fox News edits. I'm sure Sarah Palin would agree with you that no other news network edits statements into soundbites to prove a point.

I have no idea how you claim that someone shouldn't read bills they sign until they are out of session though. And furthermore, Obama wants this railroaded through this week. Conyers wants to sign this bill because Obama wants it done, not based on the merits.

Yes, this has happened in Britain. You get Dr. Nick off the Simpsons in and sometimes he's been working for several hundred hours. Or you don't, because, and you'll be shocked by this, not everyone is motivated by money, doctors included. The doctors we have are fine, and if you genuinely believe that your doctors will just go where the money is, then you are actually less socially evolved than 19th century Britain, and you have a problem.

OK fine. Maybe it will push those bright young minds who would go to medical school into engineering or law. Some people are motivated by money, and it's usually the people with the most marketable of skills. So, it's a win for the space program, but long term, I'm thinking that there will be less access to medicine.

The same small businesses that can no longer afford to give their employees health insurance, no doubt.

Well, that's another taxation issue that we won't go into. What's wrong with a bit of deregulation that lets the uninsured apply in a massive group plan? I mean, if every employee of a company can enroll in a group plan for tremendous discounts, why can't an insurance company be allowed to make a "public" group plan? Why does the government need to run it?

It'd actually be quite a lot better. I can change my health minister, you can't change your insurance CEOs.[quoted]

Let's see, replacing the CEO through a shareholder vote seems to empower me to change more than overthrowing a "czar" appointed by the President. We now have more czars than a Romanov family reunion, and that's OK? Everytime we appoint a czar, there is a plan in the works for the government to gain a measure of control over that industry. There is a mortgage czar, checks, a car czar, check, an energy czar, check, and an insurance czar, fucking a right, check! This is absolutely amazing to me that people see this as anything other that a powergrab. The disenfranchsied have gained power, and appointed an executioner to exact revenge on those that have locked them out over the last 40 years. Nothing the government takes over is getting better. The mortgage industry is not growing again and companies are hemorrhaging money. GM is a mess. Does anyone see government run healthcare as working any better?

 

[Tastycles]

Those nouns were polling services who have determined that the Obama lovefest is over outside of Hollywood, MSNBC, and Keith Olberman's wet dreams. Plus, Obama was elected on the promise that he would bring us national healthcare. Now that people know what his plan is, because like everything else he said in the election, he was vague, they don't like it. People are shouting down their representative in town hall meetings because they feel that the government is taking their money and spending it on control instead of services.

Well yes, but if you will vote based on rhetoric, this is what happens. You don't like what you vote for, but realise too late. This is why stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

We can't do that. There are 12-20 million in the country. What we need to do is give them citizenship and start taking an income tax. Conservative estimates add a billion dollars in tax revenue. That used to be a lot of money.

I actually think you are completely right, I just didn't suggest it because I thought you'd hate the idea of mass citizenship and we'd get somewhere. You're not as much of a stereotype as you seem, evidently.

Right you are. The current plan is about control, not service. If you watch American politics at all, you will notice that the President has already spent a trillion dollars on control, with no signs of stopping.

It's about the ultimate goal though, I'll judge it in a few years, not a few months. If the control goes nowhere, then it's shit, but if it doesn't, then be it on his head.

I don't know. Do you have schooling money already deducted from your pay check? In America, schools are funded through property taxes. Schools are funded by everyone because everyone is forced to go. You are taking up payment for the people who paid for it while you were there.

I was being facaetious. It is mostly council tax, which you pay if you live in a house. I was saying how ridiculous it is to only pay for governmental services you use. I'm sure there have been periods of years in my life where I haven't been to a doctor or hospital, but it's there if I need it. Just as national healthcare would be there for those people if their insurance didn't cover it.

Even if you're not operating the car, I'm sure you ride in other's cars, or take buses, of buy products that are delivered to you, all of which happens, wait a minute, on roads. The police that protect you, well, they also use roads. And don't get me started on mail service.

Fair point, but what about, say trains. There are plenty that don't use them, but they are still maintained by the government. Or maybe what about all of the people who die before 60 and never get a pension, should their relatives get the money they would have had? My house has never burned down, should I get a missed Fire Brigade allowance? No. Everyone paying for everything necessary makes for a good society.

I'm betting you use products from multinational companies. I'm sure those tax breaks show up in the cost of the item, especially, since it doesn't have to be imported.

WHAT ON EARTH WOULD I DO IF MY COCA-COLA WAS A PENNY DEARER?!?

Only a few? 260 million Americans do. It's not like a great majority are uninsured. And you're bleeding heart arguments don't apply. Hospital employees get discounted insurance from the company that owns the hospitals.

Good for them, I'm sure lots of people with shit, but important jobs don't though. Bin men? The point still stands. I sincerely doubt that if swine flu was as bad as spanish flu was, then this would be a more serious problem in the UK.

Isn't a bit of a shortsighted generalization. We spend a trillion dollars to further democracy in a region dominated by thoecratic dictators who execute homosexuals and the handicapped becuase they are inferior. And judging by the demonstrations in Iran, I would think we are making some headway. Thank your country for their help in that, by the way. The British were an invaluable asset in our mission.

Yup, Iraq is one stable country now isn't it? I kind of see your point, but the whole thing has become a bit of a black hole. It also shows that the money can be found. You went from spending zero on Iraq in 2002 to spending a trillion dollars in five years.

But people can keep their insurance, and then pay extra taxes for someone elses.

Why would you though? Hardly anyone has health insurance here, and our taxes aren't significantly any higher than yours and everyone has fre health care. Why keep insurance when you don't need it? More foolyou if you do.

Well, we're all fat for one. We are more at risk for cancer, diabetes, etc.

Well pay more tax then, you'll have less disposible income to spend on pies.

And here I was, thinking we were talking real money.

Well it is about half of the amount you said, a significant difference.

The quote says exactly what you say it does. It says that the countries with national health care have higher rates of death. I think it's because bureaucrats get to ration healthcare when the governments in control. I mean, the utilitarian ideals are strong, the human rights, not so much.

No, it says one country has a higher death rate than another. Why has Thailand got the best when it is one of the only developing countries to have introduced universal healthcare? Why is Sweden, the most stable socialist state in the world got better rates in just about everything than the US? Sweden does have horrendous human rights though.

I suppose it means that he thinks that Obama likes it, so he does too. Nevermind, the entitlements that raise the cost, and have little to do with healthcare. Why would anyone sign anything without reading it? But thanks for telling me how Fox News edits. I'm sure Sarah Palin would agree with you that no other news network edits statements into soundbites to prove a point.

I didn't tell you how they do, but I can if you want. They take the news. Then they ask Rupert Murdoch what he thinks about it, then they air it. Simple. If you don't think it's true, find something remotely negative about China on Fox News from when Murdoch was trying to get Sky into China. It was used as a classic study in Media in school. I couldn't say about the other networks, I don't get them here, but I imagine it is much the same. The news has got an agenda, always. That's why I don't take my facts from any one source, if they are politically motivated anyway.

I have no idea how you claim that someone shouldn't read bills they sign until they are out of session though. And furthermore, Obama wants this railroaded through this week. Conyers wants to sign this bill because Obama wants it done, not based on the merits.

Not what I said, I fail to see how a bill being to complicated is a problem. If the congressmen find it too hard, perhaps they shouldn't be in poilitics.

OK fine. Maybe it will push those bright young minds who would go to medical school into engineering or law. Some people are motivated by money, and it's usually the people with the most marketable of skills. So, it's a win for the space program, but long term, I'm thinking that there will be less access to medicine.

But if that hasn't happened here, or anywhere else with socialized healthcare, why would it there. A doctor still makes a lot of money, just they no longer have a licence to print their own.

Well, that's another taxation issue that we won't go into. What's wrong with a bit of deregulation that lets the uninsured apply in a massive group plan? I mean, if every employee of a company can enroll in a group plan for tremendous discounts, why can't an insurance company be allowed to make a "public" group plan? Why does the government need to run it?

Because a workplace is a closed group. The population of the United States isn't. If my workforce could get insurance for free, why would I bother setting it up for them? I wouldn't. The result is this, everyone ends up having to use the public system, but it isn't designed for everyone, cue nightmare.

Let's see, replacing the CEO through a shareholder vote seems to empower me to change more than overthrowing a "czar" appointed by the President. We now have more czars than a Romanov family reunion, and that's OK? Everytime we appoint a czar, there is a plan in the works for the government to gain a measure of control over that industry. There is a mortgage czar, checks, a car czar, check, an energy czar, check, and an insurance czar, fucking a right, check! This is absolutely amazing to me that people see this as anything other that a powergrab. The disenfranchsied have gained power, and appointed an executioner to exact revenge on those that have locked them out over the last 40 years. Nothing the government takes over is getting better. The mortgage industry is not growing again and companies are hemorrhaging money. GM is a mess. Does anyone see government run healthcare as working any better?

We all have a vote, we don't all have the money to own shares. If you change the president, they will change the czars. Do you understand the depth of the problems at GM? YOu can't turn a company that has been pissing away money around in a few months. The mortgage industry has stabilised, which is better than the situation it was in a year ago. There wouldn't even be a GM if Obama didn't buy it, because it would be bankrupt.

Governments have been bailing out companies for years, but the difference now is that they are taking something for their efforts. Rover was saved no fewer than 4 times by the British government, and in the end it went tits up because the exact same mistakes were made by people looking to make a quick buck.

 

[Razor]

It'd actually be quite a lot better. I can change my health minister, you can't change your insurance CEOs.

That's what I figured. These insurance CEOs completely fuck you in the ass. They routinely refuse to pay for life-saving treatment because they aren't covered. Or if they are, they just hike up the premiums for that patient to the point where they simply have to drop their healthcare. It's called purging or some shit like that. A patient on your plan suddenly develop heart disease? Hike his premiums, please.

Again, I think it's a matter of fearing change. With the system as it is, there's more job security. If you lose your job in the NHS, you won't work in medicine in this country again, if you lose your job in the US, there are a lot of other practices who will. However, that's actually quite a good thing, when you think about it.

True. According to the AMA though, these are their goals:

1. Protects the sacred relationship between patients and their physicians, without interference by insurance companies or the government
2. Provides affordable health insurance for all through a choice of plans and eliminates denials for pre-existing conditions
3. Promotes quality, prevention and wellness initiatives
4. Repeals the Medicare physician payment system that harms seniors' access to care
5. Eases the crushing weight of medical liability and insurance company bureaucracy

If these aren't met by the Healthcare Initiative, then I would suppose that is why they opposed it a few months ago. But I'm under the impression Obama worked out a deal with them, so those goals may very well be met.

The thing is is that 5-10 years from now, those banks will be ripe for selling off at a huge profit, provided the same mistakes that Russia made aren't repeated. That is going to free an enormous amount of capital, which will probably be given as tax cuts to the rich, or some sort of half hearted rebate, when in reality, it could set up free, universal healthcare, and bring the equality and standard of living in the US to the level it should be in the richest country on the planet.

It'll depend on who's in power. The Republicans will give it away as tax cuts and higher Defense spending. The Democrats will probably send it down towards education, healthcare, and poverty spending.

The other thing is, it's worth remembering that the World was in the worst shape it had ever been when socialised health care first came to the fore in the late 1940s. The money is well worth it in the end.

Yeah, but you don't know our government. They'll fuck it up. Promise. I wish I didn't believe that..but they somehow agreed to cut millions and millions in education spending to get the Republicans to vote for the stimulus package. Bullshit that is. Cut it from fucking Defense, where we spend billions to private contractors that don't even do half the shit they promised they would in the contract....and then not take them to court.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I'm not going to debate whether private or socialized health care is the best way to go, but I believe that we are inevitably heading towards a socialized health system. Why this is so mainly has to with declining fertility rates and the growth of an older population in the US. By 2030, the Census Bureau projects that one in five people will be a senior citizen. I don't think this would normally be a problem, but it is when we think of intergenerational inequity; undoubtedly, old people in the US get much, much more in terms of governmental assistance than do other people who are needy. The incidence of poverty among senior citizens is only a third of that among children in the US.

Simply put, the elderly in the US are a political force that can't be stopped; their lobbying power knows no bounds. Definitely look for fairness and equity among America's generations to be a key political issue in the coming years, due to the fact that our society is "graying." If senior citizens won't budge on their welfare assistance, then I think the only option will be to give people of other age demographics similar assistance (financial feasibility will be another issue altogether from this one, as our government tends to spend first, ask questions later).

 

[FromTheSouth]

Well yes, but if you will vote based on rhetoric, this is what happens. You don't like what you vote for, but realise too late. This is why stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I don't know why this country refused to vote on record, and instead vote solely on rhetoric. But this is what we get.

I actually think you are completely right, I just didn't suggest it because I thought you'd hate the idea of mass citizenship and we'd get somewhere. You're not as much of a stereotype as you seem, evidently.

No, this is what is known as the Bush/Kennedy plan. Bush isn't as much of stereotype as you think either.

It's about the ultimate goal though, I'll judge it in a few years, not a few months. If the control goes nowhere, then it's shit, but if it doesn't, then be it on his head./quote]

The President feels that the more services he provides, the more beholden the people come to the government. The more beholden they are, the more likely they are to vote for even bigger government. It's a power grab for the democratic party.

I was being facaetious. It is mostly council tax, which you pay if you live in a house. I was saying how ridiculous it is to only pay for governmental services you use. I'm sure there have been periods of years in my life where I haven't been to a doctor or hospital, but it's there if I need it. Just as national healthcare would be there for those people if their insurance didn't cover it.

You're wrong on that last sentence. You get either your insurance, at an increasing rate, OR government insurance. And, as the industry becomes more regulated, the private rates go up, forcing everyone into the government plan.

Fair point, but what about, say trains. There are plenty that don't use them, but they are still maintained by the government. Or maybe what about all of the people who die before 60 and never get a pension, should their relatives get the money they would have had? My house has never burned down, should I get a missed Fire Brigade allowance? No. Everyone paying for everything necessary makes for a good society.

But how is universal health care necessary? I don't understand how paying for non tax payers and people who choose not to have insurance should be forced. Medicaid exists for the poor. The percentage of people who do not have insurance and want it is very small. Charging everyone $2500 for a few people seems like a bad idea.

WHAT ON EARTH WOULD I DO IF MY COCA-COLA WAS A PENNY DEARER?!?

It's all imports, for instance corn, which is in everything. This is how inflation happens.

Good for them, I'm sure lots of people with shit, but important jobs don't though. Bin men? The point still stands. I sincerely doubt that if swine flu was as bad as spanish flu was, then this would be a more serious problem in the UK.

Bin men in the US are city employees and get better insurance and pensions than everyone else.

Yup, Iraq is one stable country now isn't it? I kind of see your point, but the whole thing has become a bit of a black hole. It also shows that the money can be found. You went from spending zero on Iraq in 2002 to spending a trillion dollars in five years.

The stability of Iraq is improving. We will be spending less for the next five years until we can leave. And the "found" money is nothing more than less money we can borrow from China, not money we can use to fundamentally change the orientation of American economics.

Why would you though? Hardly anyone has health insurance here, and our taxes aren't significantly any higher than yours and everyone has fre health care. Why keep insurance when you don't need it? More foolyou if you do.

Because if I don't use the government plan, then there is no bureaucrat pill rationer telling me that my condition is too terminal to get medication, or telling me to wait for treatment. Universal health care is population control.

Well pay more tax then, you'll have less disposible income to spend on pies.

You meant to say less freedom here.

Well it is about half of the amount you said, a significant difference.

But my amount was the amount announced by the government, your's was some extrapolation based on one factor, population, and zero economic indicators.

No, it says one country has a higher death rate than another. Why has Thailand got the best when it is one of the only developing countries to have introduced universal healthcare? Why is Sweden, the most stable socialist state in the world got better rates in just about everything than the US? Sweden does have horrendous human rights though.

It shows a correlation between universal healthcare and population control.

I didn't tell you how they do, but I can if you want. They take the news. Then they ask Rupert Murdoch what he thinks about it, then they air it.

You are full of shit here. For one, Rupert Murdoch was a Hillary Clinton supporter, and the network hammered her. Secondly, I have shown you in other debates how institution that study the news media rank Fox the fairest. You just have a problem with facts when they don't support your side. But, let's continue with your empty rhetoric.

Simple. If you don't think it's true, find something remotely negative about China on Fox News from when Murdoch was trying to get Sky into China.

You're trying to prove that they are unfair. Why don't you find an example of that. Conservative does not equal false. I can show you liberal fabrications in the media of stories about Bush, you can't do the same with Fox. But once again, why let facts get in the way of a good rant?

It was used as a classic study in Media in school. I couldn't say about the other networks, I don't get them here, but I imagine it is much the same. The news has got an agenda, always. That's why I don't take my facts from any one source, if they are politically motivated anyway.

Please, you're going to tell me that a liberal professor has a problem with Fox News? Give me a break. Get into the real world and away from college, and you'll see that fair and balanced is something the other news outlets could learn from. I can't believe you want to lecture me on biases sources and then tell me that a journalism professor is a fair source. Laughable at best.

Not what I said, I fail to see how a bill being to complicated is a problem. If the congressmen find it too hard, perhaps they shouldn't be in poilitics.

True, but it's the entitlements that raise the price, and congressmen who don't read the bill are blindly spending money, which is reckless and irresponsible.

But if that hasn't happened here, or anywhere else with socialized healthcare, why would it there. A doctor still makes a lot of money, just they no longer have a licence to print their own.

Why shouldn't they? We are a capitalist nation, and that means that people can charge whatever the market with bear for marketable skills, and government intervention in this is supposed to be unconstitutional.

Because a workplace is a closed group. The population of the United States isn't. If my workforce could get insurance for free, why would I bother setting it up for them? I wouldn't. The result is this, everyone ends up having to use the public system, but it isn't designed for everyone, cue nightmare.

Private industry can run anything better than the government can. Look at the mess in the auto industry, mortagage industry, postal service, etc...

We all have a vote, we don't all have the money to own shares. If you change the president, they will change the czars.

This whole czar thing is new. If we change the President, I would hope they eliminate the czars.

Do you understand the depth of the problems at GM?

I'm an economic analyst, so yes.

YOu can't turn a company that has been pissing away money around in a few months.

So, let it fail. It's the unions that brought that company down, and now they have control along with the government. It's only going to get worse. They released a statement that they don't have to declare bankruptcy, and the stock never went up. The American people have no faith in the government to run that company, just like the polls show that they have no faith in the government to run healthcare. This is what I don't get. The people are against this, and yet their elected representatives are trying to ram it through.

The mortgage industry has stabilised, which is better than the situation it was in a year ago.

Wrong. The banks have all but stopped giving mortgages. This will destroy the industry completely, probably so the government can control that in entirety too.

There wouldn't even be a GM if Obama didn't buy it, because it would be bankrupt.

And this is bad, why?

Governments have been bailing out companies for years, but the difference now is that they are taking something for their efforts.

The government is not a for profit business. The fact that you think this is OK illustrates that you do not grasp the concepts involved in this debate.

Rover was saved no fewer than 4 times by the British government, and in the end it went tits up because the exact same mistakes were made by people looking to make a quick buck.

Or maybe it went tits up because the government took more control every time they bailed it out.

 

[Tastycles]

I don't know why this country refused to vote on record, and instead vote solely on rhetoric. But this is what we get.

And no doubt what you will continue to get.

No, this is what is known as the Bush/Kennedy plan. Bush isn't as much of stereotype as you think either.

I never really thought of him as a sterotype, just somebody who was in over his head. I still think that, but in all honesty I don't chastise Bush as much as most people. Do I agree with his politics? No. Do I think he was cut out for presidency? No, but it didn't show too badly. Do I think he's a complete moron who doesn't know how to speak English? No, that is clearly bullshit.

The President feels that the more services he provides, the more beholden the people come to the government. The more beholden they are, the more likely they are to vote for even bigger government. It's a power grab for the democratic party.

Is it? Do you ever consider that some politicians do things for the reasons they set out. There are far more benefits to healthcare than a larger government down the road. I don't understand why that would ever be anyone's ultimate goal.

You're wrong on that last sentence. You get either your insurance, at an increasing rate, OR government insurance. And, as the industry becomes more regulated, the private rates go up, forcing everyone into the government plan.

So what though? You still get health insurance either way, but here any surplus from you not using it goes back into the economy as opposed to into the insurance company coffers.

But how is universal health care necessary? I don't understand how paying for non tax payers and people who choose not to have insurance should be forced. Medicaid exists for the poor. The percentage of people who do not have insurance and want it is very small. Charging everyone $2500 for a few people seems like a bad idea.

According to a 2007 study, 60% of poor Americans don't get medicaid. I'm sorry, but that 60% is worth helping, in my eyes at least. In fact it found that all but 19 states had programmes half as good as they should be. Medicaid isn't working.

It's all imports, for instance corn, which is in everything. This is how inflation happens.

Corn is in everything American because 90% of the world's corn is in Iowa. Corn is in hardly anything here, including Coke. Little fact for you there.

Bin men in the US are city employees and get better insurance and pensions than everyone else.

So, their employers are governmental, and they get governmental insurance. Everyone who works contributes somehow to the country, its not that big a step to give them governmental insurance either.

The stability of Iraq is improving. We will be spending less for the next five years until we can leave. And the "found" money is nothing more than less money we can borrow from China, not money we can use to fundamentally change the orientation of American economics.

I don't understand why Chinese money can't be spent on healthcare if it can on Iraq. It's not as if you are going to stop borrowing off the Chinese as soon as Iraq is over anyway, is it?

Because if I don't use the government plan, then there is no bureaucrat pill rationer telling me that my condition is too terminal to get medication, or telling me to wait for treatment. Universal health care is population control.

Jesus Christ, get real. Until I read this I didn't feel the need to respond, but this is obscene. I have never in my life heard of the NHS refusing to treat anyone. However, insurance companies regularly refuse to treat people with a terminal illness. My mother, who was terminally ill with cancer, wasn't given health insurance when she wanted to go to Australia for precisely that reason. You really think that a for-profit organisation like an insurance company is going to be leaner and more ready to give out money than a governmental agency?

You meant to say less freedom here.

No I didn't, but could have done it was said in jest and wouldn't have made any difference.

But my amount was the amount announced by the government, your's was some extrapolation based on one factor, population, and zero economic indicators.

Whatever, I was saying I was suprised it was that high.

It shows a correlation between universal healthcare and population control.

How does it? This is the best three for countries for low death rates from cancer

Thailand- public funded healthcare
Mexico - either partially or completely govermentally subsidized healthcare
Ecuador - 60-40 private-government spend

It proves nothing whatsoever, except that you are wrong.

You are full of shit here. For one, Rupert Murdoch was a Hillary Clinton supporter, and the network hammered her. Secondly, I have shown you in other debates how institution that study the news media rank Fox the fairest. You just have a problem with facts when they don't support your side. But, let's continue with your empty rhetoric.

You know what, I was wrong that Murdoch pulls all the shots, but we'll get back to this in a minute. I kind of jumped to the conclusion based on the way he runs The Sun, I do apologise for that.

You're trying to prove that they are unfair. Why don't you find an example of that. Conservative does not equal false. I can show you liberal fabrications in the media of stories about Bush, you can't do the same with Fox. But once again, why let facts get in the way of a good rant?

Well, this White House official claimed on TV that the Republican party used to give Fox News commentators pro-governmental things to say. Of course, because he said it on MSNBC, you will say they put the words in his mouth.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25885493/.html

The basic

Please, you're going to tell me that a liberal professor has a problem with Fox News? Give me a break. Get into the real world and away from college, and you'll see that fair and balanced is something the other news outlets could learn from. I can't believe you want to lecture me on biases sources and then tell me that a journalism professor is a fair source. Laughable at best.

Yes, my liberal ex-electrcian teacher who worked at a conservative military school has a vendetta against Fox News... I lecture you because Fox News blatantly has a bias towards the right wing, and that is unarguable. You are lecturing me on the facts, which are facts, and to prove me wrong show me an Anti-China story from the turn of the century on Fox or Sky. That is a fact. I lecture you because the source you use is right wing, you are lecturing me about the political leanings of a man you have never met based on a stereotype about American professors, despite the fact he is neither an American nor a professor. That's the difference.

I don't have MSNBC, I don't have the proper CNN, I can't speak for them. I do have Fox News, and I can see that compared to most news networks I have seen, it leans significantly to the right. The difference in our opinions seems to be that while I accept that News I watch and value the opinion of is left biased, you don't seem to be able to acknowledge that Fox is biased.

What I wil say is this, the news commentator is a rare thing in Britain, and our news is essentially just the facts. Obviously, the stories put in reflects the ideologies of the channel, but it is rare to see someone like Bill O'Reilly on our screens. Fox News, and the stylistically similar Sky News, are the only channels I get which have these commentators, so to me, with no CNN equivalent to compare them to, and no commentators at all on BBC or ITN, they seem wildly biased news channels. That is why I give Fox such a hard time, because by British standards, it is incredibly biased.

True, but it's the entitlements that raise the price, and congressmen who don't read the bill are blindly spending money, which is reckless and irresponsible.

Congressmen not reading any bill is reckless and irresponsible on their behalf, I don't see how this is any worse.

Why shouldn't they? We are a capitalist nation, and that means that people can charge whatever the market with bear for marketable skills, and government intervention in this is supposed to be unconstitutional.

Because then youstart pricing people out of the market, which is fine if your skill is to make or provide non essential services, but it simply isn't fare when you hold the key to somebody's life. That being said, I've never met a poor doctor in this country, which was my point.

Private industry can run anything better than the government can. Look at the mess in the auto industry, mortagage industry, postal service, etc...

Auto industry and mortgage industry have had no time. There is no company that could even come close to the service provided by the Royal Mail, but couldn't speak for the US Postal Service. On a car programme here they had somebody in a Porsche race a letter from the bottom of Britain to the top, and the letter won. That just isn't going to happen without the kind of infrastructure that the Royal Mail has. Government run quite a lot of things better, one only needs to see the difference between the British, private, railway and its far superior nationalised contentinental cousins to know that public transport runs better governmentally. Things that don't need to make money, basically.

This whole czar thing is new. If we change the President, I would hope they eliminate the czars.

I'm sure they would.

I'm an economic analyst, so yes.


So, let it fail. It's the unions that brought that company down, and now they have control along with the government. It's only going to get worse. They released a statement that they don't have to declare bankruptcy, and the stock never went up. The American people have no faith in the government to run that company, just like the polls show that they have no faith in the government to run healthcare. This is what I don't get. The people are against this, and yet their elected representatives are trying to ram it through.

The amount of people who would be out of work if GM went under is quite enormous, surely? That number of unemployed is seriously going to trouble the economy, although I don't know if you help the unemployed there really. People's lack of faith ahs absolutely never stopped governments before, the UK going into Iraq being a classic example. Sometimes, governments do know better, and it is a question of time to see if this is one of those instances.

Wrong. The banks have all but stopped giving mortgages. This will destroy the industry completely, probably so the government can control that in entirety too.

I'll take your word for it. The mortgage industry here has completely stabilised. I don't know, maybe it's just your government that can't do anything right. Ours seems ok.

And this is bad, why?

Unemployment.

The government is not a for profit business. The fact that you think this is OK illustrates that you do not grasp the concepts involved in this debate.

It's the same criticism that I gave you for not understanding why a beaurocrat was less likely to pull the plug than an insurer, so touche, I guess.

Or maybe it went tits up because the government took more control every time they bailed it out.

No it didn't. It sold it off, usually to a foreign company, who'd take something away, e.g. BMW stealing the Mini, and then sell it on to "investors", who would invariably run it into the ground, get the government to pay the debts and then sell the company at a huge personal proftit to another foreign company, and the cycle repeats. The government was never directly involved in any of it.

 

[Felderino]

Gotta agree with my fellow Brit Tastycles on eveything he said.
I cannot comprehend how most other countries on this planet don't have free healthcare it just blows my mind, especially the USA which is supposed to be an advanced nation but a large chunk of it's citizens are quite happy for poor people to suffer from ailments that would be easily treated in the UK just because they don't have the ability to pay, in the UK we don't judge the value of a human life on the size of their bank account.
I thank god that I was lucky enough to be born here and I know the NHS will look after me if anything happens.
I think the US public should examine their conscience because if they are happy with their current healthcare situation they need their heads testing.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Gotta agree with my fellow Brit Tastycles on eveything he said.

Yeah, whatever.

I cannot comprehend how most other countries on this planet don't have free healthcare it just blows my mind,

Because that shit is expensive, and we are taxed to hell as it is. Raising taxes in a stagnant economy must be a good idea though, huh?

especially the USA which is supposed to be an advanced nation

Oh, we are. That's why we don't rely on the government for everything in our lives.

but a large chunk of it's citizens are quite happy for poor people to suffer from ailments that would be easily treated in the UK just because they don't have the ability to pay,

The poor have Medicaid which pays for their medical bills. My brother in law has been living quite fine with HIV for over a decade on the taxpayer's dime. This initiative is mainly for the middle class and illegals.

in the UK we don't judge the value of a human life on the size of their bank account.

Apparently, you don't understand what is going on. We don't either. The poor are taken care of. It's the middle class that this plan is supposed to help. The funny thing is that half the uninsured in this nation simply choose to not have insurance and another 30% aren't even citizens, so do you have a point?

I thank god that I was lucky enough to be born here and I know the NHS will look after me if anything happens.

Believe me, you would be a lot more thankful to be born here. But it's cool, I'm sure the government will take care of everything you need. Why work? The EU will pay for you to live comfortable. Shit, 75% of the people who live below the poverty line in this country have cable (government subsidized) and internet (yep, that too). Those people also get free medical care and prescriptions.

I think the US public should examine their conscience because if they are happy with their current healthcare situation they need their heads testing.

Our conscience is clear. We don't hide criminal records because a rapist might get their feelings hurt. And, with the American people being so against this idea, I think we'll all sleep just fine tonight.

 

[Tastycles]

Yeah, whatever.

What can I say? The man's got taste.


As for the rest of the post, I'll say this. Like I said before, some 60% of poor Americans are not entitled to Medicaid. Your own figures listed 12 million being illegals and a further 12 choosing not to have it. That still leaves 16 million, roughly 5% of the population being in need of health insurance that they cannot afford.

You can belittle the EU countries all you want, but get some perspective. Here, I can walk into a doctors and get free treatment, potentially to save my life. There, I couldn't, but it's ok because at least I get subsidised cable? Come on, think that through a second. Cable television and the internet are not essential items and if your government is giving away money for that, but 16 million people are suffering without adequate healthcare, then you have a serious problem.

I think you have a seriously warped idea of how much money one gets. My flatmate just signed on, which means he got his free unemployment money. He got £50, and has to go to a job interview as a housing agent for LGBT people who have been domestically abused, something he has no desire to do. £50 is not a living wage, especially not in London were it would barely cover half of someone's rent. What it does do is stop people from starving whilst looking for wmployment, something I think is positive.

I do chastise you regularly, but maybe it'd be different if I lived there. It seems to me like Americans don't really get value for money from their tax, and that it just gets pissed away somewhere. [cough]unecessary cold war relics[/cough]. After all, you pay proportionally more income tax than we do, and although your sales tax is less, fewer things are exempt. I don't know, I know it isn't as simple, but when I look at the quality and standard of pubically provided services here and there, it just really doesn't compare, for what is comparitively the same amount of money.

 

[FromTheSouth]

What can I say? The man's got taste.

Debatable.

As for the rest of the post, I'll say this. Like I said before, some 60% of poor Americans are not entitled to Medicaid. Your own figures listed 12 million being illegals and a further 12 choosing not to have it. That still leaves 16 million, roughly 5% of the population being in need of health insurance that they cannot afford.

That's a warped stat. Half of our poor are elderly who get Medicare.

The people who need a national healthcare intitiative comes to about roughly 3% of our population. Wouldn't it jsut be easier to address this 3% that fundamentally change our economic structure. Like I have said, this initiative is not about altruism, it's about control.

You can belittle the EU countries all you want, but get some perspective. Here, I can walk into a doctors and get free treatment, potentially to save my life.

That's great. You can also walk into a clinic, fake a cough, and get promethyzine for free just to get fucked up on. Medicaid is rife with abuse. A national system would be even worse, and all on the tax payer's dime.

There, I couldn't, but it's ok because at least I get subsidised cable? Come on, think that through a second. Cable television and the internet are not essential items and if your government is giving away money for that, but 16 million people are suffering without adequate healthcare, then you have a serious problem.

This is my point though. Presidnet Clinton decided that the internet is essential in the global economy we live in, so the projects got it hooked up. We can't continue to pay for everything for everyone. We are not the EU. The sense of personal responsibility is leaving Europe, and the leftist governments have done everything they can to make the people dependent upon the government so they can continue to win reelection. Once again, socialism is a power grab, and the altruistic benefits just kind of happen, but they are not the ultimate goal.

I think you have a seriously warped idea of how much money one gets. My flatmate just signed on, which means he got his free unemployment money. He got £50, and has to go to a job interview as a housing agent for LGBT people who have been domestically abused, something he has no desire to do. £50 is not a living wage, especially not in London were it would barely cover half of someone's rent. What it does do is stop people from starving whilst looking for wmployment, something I think is positive.

50 Pounds is roughly $125. That is not 20% of rent in most places in America. If it is that cheap to live in England, then good for you. Then you can afford to pay more taxes, and that's fine. The problem here is that some people are taxed over half of their income, and the government is still in debt. The inefficiency of government in America is reason number one to be against a US national healthcare system. Medicaid and Medicare are balckholes for tax revenue. The essential services are still provided, but the money could be used so much better by private industry. The government has convinced itself that just because it is not trying to make a profit, that it can operate at a loss. A private company, trying to make a profit, will use every dollar as efficiently as it can. Time and again, private industry has outperformed the government in competing agencies.

I do chastise you regularly, but maybe it'd be different if I lived there. It seems to me like Americans don't really get value for money from their tax, and that it just gets pissed away somewhere.

True

[cough]unecessary cold war relics[/cough].

Like protecting Europe? Or do you mean the CIA? Do you not think that intelligence services are essential? Do you not think that militaries are essential? What exactly do you mean?

After all, you pay proportionally more income tax than we do, and although your sales tax is less, fewer things are exempt. I don't know, I know it isn't as simple, but when I look at the quality and standard of pubically provided services here and there, it just really doesn't compare, for what is comparitively the same amount of money.

It's not necessarily the standard of those services. It's just that we don't need them. You don't either, but you are so used to being dependent upon the government, that you would refuse to give them up and take responsibility for yourself.

I didn't grow up with a lot of money, but I got scholarships and grants, and made something of myself, and I don't feel like I should be in the last generation to have to pull myself up. The opportunities exist in this country for everyone to succeed, and just because a certain segment of the population refuses to take advantage of them, doesn't mean I need to foot the bill for their laziness. And that is what a national healthcare initiative is. It is paying for people who consistently make bad decisions about their lives.

 

[Felderino]

Hmm, fromthesouth does have some good arguments and is clearly an intelligent guy.
I guess that us Brits are always gonna support the system we grew up with, the same as the Yanks will support theirs.
This subject is incidental to me anyway as it will never effect me, however I see news reports of pensioners in the US who have worked all their lifes but now cannot afford health insurance, these people haven't made consistently bad decisions about their lives, so why should they have to rely on charities to get basic healthcare?
Doctors and drug companies in the US have been lobbying against Obama saying that his universal healthcare benefits scheme will reduce the quality of care citizens receive under current health insurance.
A lot of people get rich out of overcharging Americans for every kind of medical service from emergency hospitalisation to cosmetic surgery.They are fighting like tigers to protect their racket.
Oh, and trust me mate if I had been born in the states, which would have been possible as my grandfather was from Tennessee, I would have moved to Europe at the first oppurtunity. A country riddled with guns and racial undercurrents isn't a place I want to live. Although the way things seem to be going here I might have to leave the UK soon anyway!

 

[Dexter]

Just a blanket statement that I'd apply to any kind of government initiative like this (health care, drug coverage, social security, welfare, etc etc)... anything that takes away from the people and gives to the government is bad. Forever and ever, without excuse or exception, amen.

I think it all stems from a learned helplessness... we as a nation have somehow allowed ourselves to be convinced that we're unable to solve our own problems and we need the government to solve them for us. That alone, far and away, is the biggest caper ever pulled over on this country. Until that changes and people realize that they're more than capable of solving their own problems without throwing their money at the government hoping it will rescue them, things like this are going to continue to be a problem.

 

[Tastycles]

That's a warped stat. Half of our poor are elderly who get Medicare.

No it was medicare and medicaid. I assumed it was two names for the same thing, the stat was about both though.

The people who need a national healthcare intitiative comes to about roughly 3% of our population. Wouldn't it jsut be easier to address this 3% that fundamentally change our economic structure. Like I have said, this initiative is not about altruism, it's about control.

I don't understand why you thing its about control. How would the government controlling what you can and can't have treatment for be any worse than the insurance companies doing so. Private care won't die overnight, you won't be without a choice if you can afford to go elsewhere, that's a pretty shit method for obtaining control as far as I can see.

That's great. You can also walk into a clinic, fake a cough, and get promethyzine for free just to get fucked up on. Medicaid is rife with abuse. A national system would be even worse, and all on the tax payer's dime.

Or I can't, because I have to pay for prescriptions. Uh-oh. Also, my doctors have a vested intrest in my health, so they won't prescribe anything unless i am diagnsed.. Anyway, promethazine is available over the counter here, and just about everywhere outside the US.

This is my point though. Presidnet Clinton decided that the internet is essential in the global economy we live in, so the projects got it hooked up. We can't continue to pay for everything for everyone.

So stop paying for the unessentials? Doesn't seem too hard to me.

We are not the EU. The sense of personal responsibility is leaving Europe, and the leftist governments have done everything they can to make the people dependent upon the government so they can continue to win reelection.

Which is why Germany, Italy and France have all elected conservative governments in the last five years, and Britain will next year, leaving Spain as the only amjor EU player with a left wing one, which was elected purely on the basis that they'd leave Iraq. There is absolutely no truth in your statement whatsoever.

Once again, socialism is a power grab, and the altruistic benefits just kind of happen, but they are not the ultimate goal.

How is it? Socialism is not communism, surely you realise that? I can only speak for Britain, but here socialist governments have given us, the health system, the railways, better education, twice, and various other things. What they have never done is seek to extend the period of office, or indeed do the one thing that would guarantee that a conservative government could never form and introduce Proportional representation, which would all but guarantee a labour-lib dem coalition for the rest of time. Nothing to suggest power grabbing there.

50 Pounds is roughly $125. That is not 20% of rent in most places in America. If it is that cheap to live in England, then good for you.

It's closer to $80 actually, and no it isn't that cheap. That amount would probably cover electricty, water, gas (as in heating gas not petroleum), and maybe food, if you just ate bread. It wouldn't cover your rent unless you lived in a bedsit, in which case you don't get as much. You were the one who implied that the EU would subsidise my life.

Then you can afford to pay more taxes, and that's fine. The problem here is that some people are taxed over half of their income, and the government is still in debt.

If the highest earners in the US were actually taxed what the law says they should be, and didn't employ accountants to find loopholes, or earn bonuses instead of salaries, then the problem wouldn't be as bad. IT's true accross the board, including in this country. Our standard income tax is 20%, similar to yours I believe.

The inefficiency of government in America is reason number one to be against a US national healthcare system. Medicaid and Medicare are balckholes for tax revenue. The essential services are still provided, but the money could be used so much better by private industry.

That shouldn't be the case. The government should be able to obtain the same services for the same price. It shouldn't make a profit, and thus the government way should be cheaper than a privat company. That it isn't implies that yes, your government is inefficient. To me, that suggests that rejecting this sort of thing is just papering over the cracks that will eventually lead to disaster down the way. I don't know, but the more I speak to you, the more I think American government is on the brink of collapse.

The government has convinced itself that just because it is not trying to make a profit, that it can operate at a loss. A private company, trying to make a profit, will use every dollar as efficiently as it can. Time and again, private industry has outperformed the government in competing agencies.

This shouldn't be the case, and as with the example of the railways, it can be seen not to be the case around the world. I'm not sure that penny pinching is an all together good idea when it comes to providing care.

Like protecting Europe? Or do you mean the CIA? Do you not think that intelligence services are essential? Do you not think that militaries are essential? What exactly do you mean?

Yes militaries are essential, protecting West Germany was important, the CIA serves a purpose. I'm talking about things like high altitude fighters and destroyers. There will absolutely never be another war fought in dogfights nor at sea, and they are completely unessential.

It's not necessarily the standard of those services. It's just that we don't need them. You don't either, but you are so used to being dependent upon the government, that you would refuse to give them up and take responsibility for yourself.

Good point. Except I don't use any of them but the health service, and I'm happy that I have it, yes. I don't have the means to pay for things like dental surgery. I had treatment last week, it cost me £45. Had I gone private, it would have been £800. My government doesn't control me, it's my choice. I can have a grey ugly filling that noone will ever see for £45 or I can spend 20 times that to have slightly better treatment. I have a choice, that isn't control. I could even get dental insurance to pay it if I want. To me, there isn't a catch.

I didn't grow up with a lot of money, but I got scholarships and grants, and made something of myself, and I don't feel like I should be in the last generation to have to pull myself up. The opportunities exist in this country for everyone to succeed, and just because a certain segment of the population refuses to take advantage of them, doesn't mean I need to foot the bill for their laziness. And that is what a national healthcare initiative is. It is paying for people who consistently make bad decisions about their lives.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Well done to you for dragging yourself up, I mean that, and I appreciate that you feel that other people don't deserve help, but it isn't that simple. This country certainly helps it's poor out more than yours, but there's still enough of a gulf between the haves and have nots to mean there isn't success stories like yours. It means that the children of the poorly motivated in this country at least have a fighting chance of getting out of their parent's trough.

 

[Dexter]

I don't understand why you thing its about control. How would the government controlling what you can and can't have treatment for be any worse than the insurance companies doing so. Private care won't die overnight, you won't be without a choice if you can afford to go elsewhere, that's a pretty shit method for obtaining control as far as I can see.

I just want to touch on this point Tastycles brought up because I think it's really what's at the heart of this whole debate.

Yeah, it's a shit method for obtaining control if your goal is to obtain control all at once. That's not the goal, though, because it's too obvious. I don't mean to come off here like a conspiracy theorist. I don't really think a bunch of men in suits are sitting in a dark, smoky room plotting to seize power. I don't always agree with the methods of politicians, but I do believe that the vast majority of them think they're doing what's right.

It's just that a great many of them think that the right thing to do is to solve everyone's problems themselves. I would very vehemently disagree with that. The best thing they can do is get the hell out of the way and let us solve our own problems (I touched on this in my last post in this thread, I know, but it's still relevant to what I'm saying now). The problem with their way of thinking is that solving our problems for us necessarily means more and more power and control for them.

In other words, control isn't specifically the goal of a program like national health care... it's just a very unfortunate side effect. That side effect is compounded every time a program like this is introduced. More social programs, more spending, more taxing, more control. It's not a conspiracy, it's just a bunch of well-meaning men and women taking too much upon themselves and eventually, we as a nation have to draw a line in the sand. Judging by the backlash this issue is getting at town hall meetings all across the country, including one at a grocery store in my home town attended by the President last week, this might just be where the nation is drawing its line.

 

[FromTheSouth]

No it was medicare and medicaid. I assumed it was two names for the same thing, the stat was about both though.

Fine, but we're talking about a very small percentage of people. Welfare, food stamps, WIC, all of these programs help the poor, and there is a higher percentage of poor than uninsured.

I don't understand why you thing its about control. How would the government controlling what you can and can't have treatment for be any worse than the insurance companies doing so. Private care won't die overnight, you won't be without a choice if you can afford to go elsewhere, that's a pretty shit method for obtaining control as far as I can see.

I am saying it is part of a trend. It is a very apparent trend. The government is taking control of industry. It is a fundamental change in the way America has been established. Furthermore, the government can't run anything efficiently. Private industry always does better. You really seem to be latching on to details and ignoring my main points.

Or I can't, because I have to pay for prescriptions. Uh-oh. Also, my doctors have a vested intrest in my health, so they won't prescribe anything unless i am diagnsed..

Right. Because all of those people in California who have pot licenses need it.

Anyway, promethazine is available over the counter here, and just about everywhere outside the US.

Way to brag about your country's lax control on a substance that is highly addictive and causes heart problems.

Which is why Germany, Italy and France have all elected conservative governments in the last five years, and Britain will next year, leaving Spain as the only amjor EU player with a left wing one, which was elected purely on the basis that they'd leave Iraq. There is absolutely no truth in your statement whatsoever.

But what I consider conservative and what most of Europe considers conservative are two completely different things.

How is it? Socialism is not communism, surely you realise that? I can only speak for Britain, but here socialist governments have given us, the health system, the railways, better education, twice, and various other things. What they have never done is seek to extend the period of office, or indeed do the one thing that would guarantee that a conservative government could never form and introduce Proportional representation, which would all but guarantee a labour-lib dem coalition for the rest of time. Nothing to suggest power grabbing there.

If we introduced proportional representation in America, we would be center right.

But onto the point. The fundamental differences between the parties in America are the size of government. The more the liberals give, the more beholden America becomes to the government. The conservatives could never run a conservative campaign because all it would wind down to is cutting this worthless program and that worthless program. The problem is that Americans would rather over pay the government to ruin whatever the program is, then have a private company run it.

It's closer to $80 actually, and no it isn't that cheap. That amount would probably cover electricty, water, gas (as in heating gas not petroleum), and maybe food, if you just ate bread. It wouldn't cover your rent unless you lived in a bedsit, in which case you don't get as much. You were the one who implied that the EU would subsidise my life.

I'm going to come back to this.

If the highest earners in the US were actually taxed what the law says they should be, and didn't employ accountants to find loopholes, or earn bonuses instead of salaries, then the problem wouldn't be as bad. IT's true accross the board, including in this country. Our standard income tax is 20%, similar to yours I believe.

17%, furthermore, why should the highest earners pay the most when they use the least? I want a straight up consumption tax. Those that use things pay for them. Sounds simple to me. And before your heart starts bleeding for the poor, there are exceptions and exemptions in a fair tax state.

That shouldn't be the case. The government should be able to obtain the same services for the same price.

If you think this is true in America, then you really don't understand America. The government does not run anything efficiently.

It shouldn't make a profit, and thus the government way should be cheaper than a privat company.

But the government has thousands of redundant employees. Even more so under the lefties. This is why the government is so inefficient.

That it isn't implies that yes, your government is inefficient. To me, that suggests that rejecting this sort of thing is just papering over the cracks that will eventually lead to disaster down the way.

Hyperbole at best, flat out propaganda at worst.

I don't know, but the more I speak to you, the more I think American government is on the brink of collapse.

Funny, we say the same thing over here about you.

This shouldn't be the case, and as with the example of the railways, it can be seen not to be the case around the world. I'm not sure that penny pinching is an all together good idea when it comes to providing care.

America's railways are nationalized too. And they suck as well.

Yes militaries are essential, protecting West Germany was important, the CIA serves a purpose. I'm talking about things like high altitude fighters and destroyers. There will absolutely never be another war fought in dogfights nor at sea, and they are completely unessential.

We have no idea how wars in the future will be fought. If anything though, we should switch from the "Cold War relics" to "more advanced combat" but the money should stay in defense.

Good point. Except I don't use any of them but the health service, and I'm happy that I have it, yes. I don't have the means to pay for things like dental surgery. I had treatment last week, it cost me £45. Had I gone private, it would have been £800. My government doesn't control me, it's my choice. I can have a grey ugly filling that noone will ever see for £45 or I can spend 20 times that to have slightly better treatment. I have a choice, that isn't control. I could even get dental insurance to pay it if I want. To me, there isn't a catch.

But in a private system, the better filling would have been cheaper. Simply put, the company making the fillings will ask what they can get. In a freer market, they will sell more, needing less per order to profit.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Well done to you for dragging yourself up, I mean that, and I appreciate that you feel that other people don't deserve help, but it isn't that simple. This country certainly helps it's poor out more than yours, but there's still enough of a gulf between the haves and have nots to mean there isn't success stories like yours. It means that the children of the poorly motivated in this country at least have a fighting chance of getting out of their parent's trough.

So much is done for the poor in this country, and, as a former social worker, I can tell you that they choose not to take advantage of it.

But, all your arguments about the poor don't even apply here. The poor are taken care of my Medicaid. This initiative is aimed at middle class families, but might wind up helping less than 2% of the population.

 

[Dexter]

Speaking as a hardcore, dyed-in-the-wool Libertarian idealist here, the perfect solution would be to eliminate all social programs from the government, eliminate the federal income and social security taxes, and let people be good human beings and help each other. Maybe that sounds a little far-fetched and naive, but I have faith in humanity. I think we can do it if we were given the chance to try. It's just that we've never been given that chance.

You could almost say this goes all the way back to the Reconstructon after the American Civil War, but it's easier to look at it from the more modern example of the Great Depression. In the face of real adversity, people turned to the government to save them. Had the government taken the tough love approach and said "no, fix it yourselves", that may seem callous, but I do firmly believe that we as a nation would have done exactly that... we'd have fixed it ourselves.

Instead, FDR came swooping in, our Knight in Shining Leg Braces, and handed us The New Deal. Among other things, this New Deal gave us such wonderful things as the Federal Income Tax (which is, by the way, on very shaky ground constitutionally speaking) and Social Security. Boy, shouldn't we be thankful!? It's just been one big slippery slope ever since. The first time the government steps in and helps one group of people in distress, they have to help them all, or it's unfair and discriminatory.

Given the choice, I'd MUCH rather give my money to churches, non-profit organizations and other charities to fix our problems than a monolithic bureaucracy. But that's just me.

Oh, and BTW. Just a fun fact for the night before I head to bed. Speaking of FDR and the New Deal? Obama was, on more than one occasion, compared to FDR directly during his campaign, and his social programs have been labeled "The New New Deal." Just saying.

 

[Tastycles]

Fine, but we're talking about a very small percentage of people. Welfare, food stamps, WIC, all of these programs help the poor, and there is a higher percentage of poor than uninsured.

Look, the study said the medical system was seriously deficient for 60% of the poor. As far as I can see, even if it isn't changing to this proposed system, this calls for a pretty radical overhaul of the medicaid medicare system.

I am saying it is part of a trend. It is a very apparent trend. The government is taking control of industry. It is a fundamental change in the way America has been established. Furthermore, the government can't run anything efficiently. Private industry always does better. You really seem to be latching on to details and ignoring my main points.

I'm latching on to your main point: that this is about control. If I was trying to control a population, offering a non compulsory alternative to a private system isn't how I'd do it. The government has been forced to buy the banks, and while you completely ignored my point about the amount of unemployment not saving GM would have caused, to me that was grounds to save it too.

Right. Because all of those people in California who have pot licenses need it.

I'm sorry, did I say I lived in California? Does Californa have public healthcare? I said my doctors weren't as easily influenced by patients paying more for unecessary extras. There would be no benefit whatsoever for our doctors to unecessarily prescribe something, you do realise that.

Way to brag about your country's lax control on a substance that is highly addictive and causes heart problems.

No, way to brag about my country trusting me not to get addicted to drugs. Of course, they're trying to control every aspect of my life.

But what I consider conservative and what most of Europe considers conservative are two completely different things.

I am genuinely interested in hearing the difference.

If we introduced proportional representation in America, we would be center right.

Oh, so would we, but it wouldn't win by enough to have an out right majority, so the two centre-left parties would probably form a coalition. Or the left parties and the scottish nationalists maybe.

But onto the point. The fundamental differences between the parties in America are the size of government. The more the liberals give, the more beholden America becomes to the government. The conservatives could never run a conservative campaign because all it would wind down to is cutting this worthless program and that worthless program.

But if they were worthless, then people would vote on removing them. If somebody ran on a "we'll cut this and give you tax breaks" thing and lost, then it is obvious that the provision of whatever it is is more important to the average voter than money. It seems to me like you are against any social mobility.

The problem is that Americans would rather over pay the government to ruin whatever the program is, then have a private company run it.

Right, so if that's the case, why are you so adamant that they're against this healthcare inititive?

17%, furthermore, why should the highest earners pay the most when they use the least? I want a straight up consumption tax. Those that use things pay for them. Sounds simple to me. And before your heart starts bleeding for the poor, there are exceptions and exemptions in a fair tax state.

Because rich people don't use the least. They do in terms of publically funded services, yes. However, the companies that the extremely well off work for benefit from the tax breaks, hand outs and all round niceties of the government towards big business. A guy who earns a $200,000 bonus on top of a $300,000 salary is getting it because the government let big earners avoid tax by earning bonuses ontop of salary. If he pays 33% tax on his $300,000 salary, he takes home $400,000. If he paid what, to all intents and purposes he should, 35% on the lot, he would take home $325,000. Very few people are going to be using $75,000 worth of public services, so yes the government, by doing his employers, do him a huge favour.

If you think this is true in America, then you really don't understand America. The government does not run anything efficiently.


But the government has thousands of redundant employees. Even more so under the lefties. This is why the government is so inefficient.

Now you say this....

Then you say

Hyperbole at best, flat out propaganda at worst.



Funny, we say the same thing over here about you.

You say your government is inefficient and can't run anything, well that means that it will eventually fall apart. If the government starts with 100 units of money, power, quality etc, and loses, say, one every year through inefficiency, then it means it will end up with nothing. If it can't run anything, and it is pissing money away, then it stands to reason that eventually it will have none.

My government is efficient. Under Labour, health spending has quitnupled, without effecting any other public service nor without sending us significantly into debt, but with steady tax increases across the board. I'm intrigued to know how it is destined to fall apart.

America's railways are nationalized too. And they suck as well.

The railways aren't suited to the US, no matter who runs them, due to its size.

We have no idea how wars in the future will be fought. If anything though, we should switch from the "Cold War relics" to "more advanced combat" but the money should stay in defense.

Well, put it this way. There hasn't been a dogfight since Vietnam, and yet you still have 2,500 fighters, the cheapest of which costs 30 million dollars. The programme for the F-22, the most advanced plane that will never be used in anger, cost $65 billion.

The navy is spending $14 billion on an aircraft carrier for an aircraft that will cost $40 billion and will never be used. The enemy in the modern world is not well equiped. There won't be a war between superpowers, and if there is, it's not going to last long enough for an aircraft carrier to get there. Should the US spend money on things like Nukes and cruise missiles? Yes. Should it spend money on bombers and enough fighters to ensure they aren't sitting ducks? Yes. Do they need a $150 million stealth aircraft to fight men with beards in a cave? No.

But in a private system, the better filling would have been cheaper. Simply put, the company making the fillings will ask what they can get. In a freer market, they will sell more, needing less per order to profit.

It is a private system. My dentist is a private dentist that treats students atmy university on NHS prices. Dentistry is the only area where private care has survived.

So much is done for the poor in this country, and, as a former social worker, I can tell you that they choose not to take advantage of it.

People who don't take advantage of welfare need educating as to why they should. They don't deserve to be ignored, because they are largely ignorant of the help they can get.

But, all your arguments about the poor don't even apply here. The poor are taken care of my Medicaid. This initiative is aimed at middle class families, but might wind up helping less than 2% of the population.

AN INDEPENDANT STUDY FOUND MEDICAID DIDN'T COVER 60% OF THE POOR IN THE US!!!

As for your figures, well it went from 12 million, which is 4% then 3% and now 2%. Seems to me that you are lowering it with every post. Even if it is 2%, that is still almost 7 million people with inadequate health care. That is the population of Scotland without access to decent care, which, to me, is abhorrent.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I don't feel like going point by point anymore, so I'll settle with a few closing thoughts, and then I'm done with this until there's something new to report or debate. It has been fun though, as always.

I do not think that there are people who don't deserve healthcare. I don't claim that the poor should die, but often times, I think standing firm on a side makes me look like a fascist, which I am not. I simply feel that the promises made by the government on this particular plan will either not be kept or fail to be achieved.

The promise, first and foremost, that I will be allowed to keep my healthcare will hold true. However, so many uneducated people will be bailing out of their plans, that prices are assuredly going to rise, even on my plan. The government plan costs roughly $200 a month, while mine costs $80. With less people in the plan, my costs will rise, and I will be ushered into the government's socialized care, against my will. I do not want to pay an extra $1400 a year for something I don't even use.

Being whisked into socialized medicine will result in longer waits and healthcare rationing. The problems aren't going to arise when I have a cold and need some albuterol. The problems will arise when I have chronic pain in my ankle from playing football, and have to wait six months in agony for an MRI and six more months for surgery. The Canadian Healthcare system is rife with these stories. You can tell me time and again how you can walk into any clinic and get help for your immediate needs. Well, the problem arises when the concerns are not life threatening, but still debilitating. I'm not going to go quote a hundred stories, but you can find them in seconds. This is why Canadians flood America for healthcare, this is why the fastest growing industry in Canada is the private health clinic. The problem is, once they have wiped the insurance companies off the board in America, the private clinics will be too expensive for most people, and we fall back into the same problem. I would rather live with with the devil I know than the devil I don't.

Furthermore, the control aspect is a simple one to follow. The government is finding excuses to buy out industries that aren't necessary. The banks probably were, but GM was not. Before you mention all the unemployment again, let me explain how bankruptcy works. They would not have filed Chapter Seven Liquidation, they would have filed for Reorganization. Under reorganization, GM would have been allowed to hire nonunion employees. The unions, especially the UAW, are the reason GM needed bailouts. The workers have continued to elect union representatives that drive their wages and pensions up. Good for them. The problem is that those costs have be absorbed into the price of the car. The unions have priced GM out of the market, and that is why they are failing. Non-union employees could work for half the cost (which would still pay over $40,000 a year) to screw on lug nuts or install windshields. Union employees can simply disavow the union, and get rehired. This way, GM could sell cars at a competitive price, and allow them to pay their debts, with ZERO PUBLIC MONEY, which means that the Union, Canadian Government, and President Obama wouldn't own the company, and force it to make shitty cars and hybrids, or as I like to call them, cars that people don't want. It limits innovation, in that money has to go to pay employees. The government is just fine running GM as a not for profit company as well. The government wants to limit executive compensation. The government wants to force companies to buy carbon credit, and it wants control of the health industry so that it can ration medical care. If it doesn't want to, it will be forced to ration care when they blow it up.

I assume that it will get blown up because the government never runs anything efficiently. Insurance representatives have been on TV explaining how they could run coops. In a coop, as I have explained without the fancy terminology, means that people who do not have insurance from their jobs can all join into a multiple payer plan, like from a job, and get health insurance for a lower price (like the one I play) with better coverage, and no bureaucrat telling me that he won't have the money for my MRI for six months.

 

[ipswichicon80]

Ok I'm from the UK and we have this apprantly "evil" thing here called the NHS. This gives free dentel care to under 16's,expectent mothers(who also get free prescriptions). And provides free healthcare to all regardless of status or money.Barrack Obama has talked about bringing in a system like this in the states. As it does not affect me and I don't know alot about the nature of the objections I would like to ask US posters (pro and against) for thier views on if the US should adopt this system...any thoughts?

 

[Motor City Mayhem]

Couldn't find anything that this has been done in the last 30posts or so.

Health Care. I am a Canadian. I have a Health Care system that is amazing, sure we have slightly higher Taxes but who cares? We pay an extra 2k a year but when we get cancer, lets say, we don't financially get fucked because we have to pay off all the hospital bills that go along with it. Cancer can cost a family up to 500k, health care costs a family around 500k, in 250 years.

So what I don't get, is why Americans don't just copy our health care, its so simple, thousands of people in America are poor, well maybe thats because when you go to the Doctor and you need X-rays that it costs you 500 bucks, or when you need to have stitches and surgery that it costs you 10-15 thousand.

I'm sick and tired of hearing CNN discuss this. I want to hear it from you guys.

Why don't Americans like our Health Care?

 

[FromTheSouth]

Health Care. I am a Canadian. I have a Health Care system that is amazing, sure we have slightly higher Taxes but who cares?

The people that have to pay the taxes. The American plan doesn't tax everyone equally, therefore, the people who are already paying for superior private healthcare have to pay for the national plan as well.

We pay an extra 2k a year but when we get cancer, lets say, we don't financially get fucked because we have to pay off all the hospital bills that go along with it. Cancer can cost a family up to 500k, health care costs a family around 500k, in 250 years.

I don't either. I pay $1,000 a year for insurance, and after my first $500, the company pays for everything else. With a national plan costing small business hundreds of thousands of jobs (and taking people out of plans), my health insurance will cost more. That is unfair to me. So I care.

So what I don't get, is why Americans don't just copy our health care,

Because we don't want to wait six months for MRI's, or have a board of bureaucrats telling us what healthcare we need or don't against our doctor's wishes. Some of us want experimental procedures because they may be out last hope. If your healthcare system is so perfect, answer me two questions.


1. Why do so many Canadians come to America for treatment rather than waiting?

2. Why is the fastest growing industry in your economy PRIVATE healthcare?

You are so wrong on everything you have said. Of course, if you would have looked for the identical thread before posting yours, you would have realized that all of these arguments have been made already, and quite epically by Tastycakes and myself.

its so simple, thousands of people in America are poor,

And these people have Medicaid, which pays their medical bills. Our national healthcare plan is supposed to be benefit to the middle class, and it's going to wind up being nothing more than an expansion of medicaid, unfortunately. You see, the government runs several industries in America, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Amtrak, etc., and they are all bankrupt and mismanaged. Let's put our lives in their hands!!!! What a terrible idea.

well maybe thats because when you go to the Doctor and you need X-rays that it costs you 500 bucks, or when you need to have stitches and surgery that it costs you 10-15 thousand.

Costs me $1500 a year if I use it, even if I catch AIDS, Cancer, and dysentary, break my leg twice, and catch a cold. Costs me $1000 otherwise. This is, of course cheaper than the $2500 it would cost me for federal healthcare, whether I use it or not.

I'm sick and tired of hearing CNN discuss this. I want to hear it from you guys.

Then change the channel.

Why don't Americans like our Health Care?

Judging by all the Canadians that come over hear for treatment, I would say that we don't like it for the same reasons you don't.