# Myth busting universal healthcare



## Chris (Jul 26, 2008)

2008 is shaping up to be the election year that we finally get to have the Great American Healthcare Debate again. Harry and Louise are back with a vengeance. Conservatives are rumbling around the talk show circuit bellowing about the socialist threat to the (literal) American body politic. And, as usual, Canada is once again getting dragged into the fracas, shoved around by both sides as either an exemplar or a warning -- and, along the way, getting coated with the obfuscating dust of so many willful misconceptions that the actual facts about How Canada Does It are completely lost in the melee.

I'm both a health-care-card-carrying Canadian resident and an uninsured American citizen who regularly sees doctors on both sides of the border. As such, I'm in a unique position to address the pros and cons of both systems first-hand. If we're going to have this conversation, it would be great if we could start out (for once) with actual facts, instead of ideological posturing, wishful thinking, hearsay, and random guessing about how things get done up here. 

To that end, here's the first of a two-part series aimed at busting the common myths Americans routinely tell each other about Canadian health care. When the right-wing hysterics drag out these hoary old bogeymen, this time, we need to be armed and ready to blast them into straw. Because, mostly, straw is all they're made of.

1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly for the state. In Canada (and many other countries with universal care), doctors run their own private practices, just like they do in the US. The only difference is that every doctor deals with one insurer, instead of 150. And that insurer is the provincial government, which is accountable to the legislature and the voters if the quality of coverage is allowed to slide.

The proper term for this is "single-payer insurance." In talking to Americans about it, the better phrase is "Medicare for all."

2. Doctors are hurt financially by single-payer health care.
True and False. Doctors in Canada do make less than their US counterparts. But they also have lower overhead, and usually much better working conditions. A few reasons for this:

First, as noted, they don't have to charge higher fees to cover the salary of a full-time staffer to deal with over a hundred different insurers, all of whom are bent on denying care whenever possible. In fact, most Canadian doctors get by quite nicely with just one assistant, who cheerfully handles the phones, mail, scheduling, patient reception, stocking, filing, and billing all by herself in the course of a standard workday.

Second, they don't have to spend several hours every day on the phone cajoling insurance company bean counters into doing the right thing by their patients. My doctor in California worked a 70-hour week: 35 hours seeing patients, and another 35 hours on the phone arguing with insurance companies. My Canadian doctor, on the other hand, works a 35-hour week, period. She files her invoices online, and the vast majority are simply paid -- quietly, quickly, and without hassle. There is no runaround. There are no fights. Appointments aren't interrupted by vexing phone calls. Care is seldom denied (because everybody knows the rules). She gets her checks on time, sees her patients on schedule, takes Thursdays off, and gets home in time for dinner.

One unsurprising side effect of all this is that the doctors I see here are, to a person, more focused, more relaxed, more generous with their time, more up-to-date in their specialties, and overall much less distracted from the real work of doctoring. You don't realize how much stress the American doctor-insurer fights put on the day-to-day quality of care until you see doctors who don't operate under that stress, because they never have to fight those battles at all. Amazingly: they seem to enjoy their jobs.

Third: The average American medical student graduates $140,000 in hock. The average Canadian doctor's debt is roughly half that.

Finally, Canadian doctors pay lower malpractice insurance fees. When paying for health care constitutes a one of a family's major expenses, expectations tend to run very high. A doctor's mistake not only damages the body; it may very well throw a middle-class family permanently into the ranks of the working poor, and render the victim uninsurable for life. With so much at stake, it's no wonder people are quick to rush to court for redress. 

Canadians are far less likely to sue in the first place, since they're not having to absorb devastating financial losses in addition to any physical losses when something goes awry. The cost of the damaging treatment will be covered. So will the cost of fixing it. And, no matter what happens, the victim will remain insured for life. When lawsuits do occur, the awards don't have to include coverage for future medical costs, which reduces the insurance company's liability.

3. Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
True and False again -- it depends on which province you live in, and what's wrong with you. Canada's health care system runs on federal guidelines that ensure uniform standards of care, but each territory and province administers its own program. Some provinces don't plan their facilities well enough; in those, you can have waits. Some do better. As a general rule, the farther north you live, the harder it is to get to care, simply because the doctors and hospitals are concentrated in the south. But that's just as true in any rural county in the U.S.

You can hear the bitching about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey. 

And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it's certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it's far worse than it is.

Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It's the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do.

4. You have to wait forever to get a family doctor.
False for the vast majority of Canadians, but True for a few. Again, it all depends on where you live. I live in suburban Vancouver, and there are any number of first-rate GPs in my neighborhood who are taking new patients. If you don't have a working relationship with one, but need to see a doctor now, there are 24-hour urgent care clinics in most neighborhoods that will usually get you in and out on the minor stuff in under an hour.

It is, absolutely, harder to get to a doctor if you live out in a small town, or up in the territories. But that's just as true in the U.S. -- and in America, the government won't cover the airfare for rural folk to come down to the city for needed treatment, which all the provincial plans do.

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org


----------



## Diuretic (Jul 27, 2008)

Good reference.  I read the article and also the comments from readers.  Put the two together and it's a damn fine read.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 27, 2008)

sounds nice to me, nice and expensive that is. If I could be convinced a universal health care system would not just massively increase deficits. I would be for it. However I am far from convinced. especially when your talking even paying their damn airfair and shit all on the governments dime.

I mean really how much is this all going to cost in real dollars per year. That is what I want to know.

please believe me when I say, If I could be convinced I would support it. God knows I went a good many years with no health coverage myself.


----------



## Voltaire (Jul 27, 2008)

Why bother with a national healthcare system, when Our Savior Barak will just walk up and down the streets, performing miracles with his messiah magic, laying hands on the poor and infirm?  Sorry Kirk, I know you're a big Obama supporter, and I couldn't help myself...

My problem is this:  the Chaoulli v. Quebec case.  Canada's own Supreme court ruled (in an admittedly close decision) that a prohibition on the use of private insurance violates people's right to life and security of person.

I simply cannot support anything that limits an American's choice to take care of their health and the health of their family the way THEY see fit.  I've even heard that one method the Canadians are considering, in order to gradually bring in the option of private insurance, is too demand that Canadian doctors provide a certain quota of work in the public sector.  So now doctors have to be told who they can and can't see as well?  I just don't trust that.

Furthermore, do you think anybody in America will seriously emulate a system where it takes over 6 months to get a hip replacement, when we've got this giant cohort of baby boomers leaving the workforce?  

I'm not trying to make fun, I just would also like to know how this could possibly be feasible.


----------



## Diuretic (Jul 27, 2008)

It ticks off the purists but in my country (Australia) we have a two-tier system that is officially frowned on in Canada.  It's not perfect here but it works pretty well.  But then we're a small population, only 21m people so what works for us may not work for the US.

Still, it's good to read an informative article that rebuts the myths attributed by some in the debate in the US to single-payer schemes.  It's a shame when ideology - at either end of the spectrum - gets in the way of a decent health care system.


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 27, 2008)

Silly me.. I thought we already have universal healthcare.. oh wait.. we do.. its just expensive, outdated and extremely inefficient... dont believe me.. spend a day in an emergency room... thats probably how long you'd have to wait...


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 27, 2008)

Excellent post. There is no question Americans would want a similar system but spin will turn heaven into hell and truth will be confused by corporate conservative MSM which desires only more.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 27, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I mean really how much is this all going to cost in real dollars per year. That is what I want to know.



How often do you seriously ask that question of our military budget?


----------



## editec (Jul 27, 2008)

Voltaire said:


> Why bother with a national healthcare system, when Our Savior Barak will just walk up and down the streets, performing miracles with his messiah magic, laying hands on the poor and infirm? Sorry Kirk, I know you're a big Obama supporter, and I couldn't help myself...


 
You think this has to do with _Obama?_ 



> My problem is this: the Chaoulli v. Quebec case. Canada's own Supreme court ruled (in an admittedly close decision) that a prohibition on the use of private insurance violates people's right to life and security of person.


 
I was under the impression tha tCanadians could also have private health care insurance if they choose.



> I simply cannot support anything that limits an American's choice to take care of their health and the health of their family the way THEY see fit.


 

If one see fit to have a doctor but one cann't afford one.  Where's your choice?




> Furthermore, do you think anybody in America will seriously emulate a system where it takes over 6 months to get a hip replacement, when we've got this giant cohort of baby boomers leaving the workforce?


 
Yes, I think they will.  Many insured _now_ still cannot afford medical care because their sharee of the costs exceeds their ability to pay.  Throw in the 50,000,000 Americans with no coverage however bad, and I think you've got the political force to change things



> I'm not trying to make fun, I just would also like to know how this could possibly be feasible.


 
Despite the fact that I have disagreeded with your every objection, I also thing that single payer universal health care, as currently proposed, is, in the long run, going to fail us.

A socialized payment system feeding the insatable greed of a "what ever the market will bear"  private market?

The cost of health care will go so high, eventually, that having a card will be meaningless, just as we already see happening with medicade/medicare.

I'm NOT for the system we have now, but as yet, no solution that I think will work in the long run is out there.


----------



## Chris (Jul 27, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> sounds nice to me, nice and expensive that is. If I could be convinced a universal health care system would not just massively increase deficits. I would be for it. However I am far from convinced. especially when your talking even paying their damn airfair and shit all on the governments dime.
> 
> I mean really how much is this all going to cost in real dollars per year. That is what I want to know.
> 
> please believe me when I say, If I could be convinced I would support it. God knows I went a good many years with no health coverage myself.



We are paying 14% of our GDP for healthcare. A single payer system has inherent cost savings, and that is why other countries pay HALF per capita what we do for healthcare. Our system is expensive, bloated, and costs are going up faster than inflation. That is why every other Western country has universal healthcare. It makes sense and it is the right thing to do.


----------



## Red Dawn (Jul 27, 2008)

Yes, its appalling that we are the only developed country on the planet that doesn't have universal healthcare, and that our health metrics (longevity, etc) are among the worst in spite of spending the most money on healthcare. 

However, I don't know why Canada always gets held up as the model of universal healthcare.  They're not even ranked as one of the better universal healthcare systems.  France is consistently ranked as the best healthcare system in the world.  Maybe we should look at the French model. 


World Health Organization Ranking of Healthcare Systems:

1         France
2         Italy
3         San Marino
4         Andorra
5         Malta
6         Singapore
7         Spain
8         Oman
9         Austria
10        Japan
11        Norway
12        Portugal
13        Monaco
14        Greece
15        Iceland
16        Luxembourg
17        Netherlands
18        United  Kingdom
19        Ireland
20        Switzerland
21        Belgium
22        Colombia
23        Sweden
24        Cyprus
25        Germany
26        Saudi Arabia
27        United  Arab  Emirates
28        Israel
29        Morocco
30        Canada
31        Finland
32        Australia
33        Chile
34        Denmark
35        Dominica
36        Costa Rica
*37        United States of America*
38        Slovenia
39        Cuba
40        Brunei


----------



## editec (Jul 27, 2008)

Kirk said:


> We are paying 14% of our GDP for healthcare. A single payer system has inherent cost savings, and that is why other countries pay HALF per capita what we do for healthcare. Our system is expensive, bloated, and costs are going up faster than inflation. That is why every other Western country has universal healthcare. It makes sense and it is the right thing to do.


]


All that really shows us in the inherent inefficiency of the market.

Yeah, that's right, capitalism in some kinds of markets is not the most efficient system.

That's why I still think any univseral health care insurance scheme that does not outlaw private insureance is bound to fail in the long run.

I mean I want to see universal health care, but I think the current proposals aren't going to work to out benefit, either.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 27, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> How often do you seriously ask that question of our military budget?



midcan5 do I really have to post social spending compared to defense spending again....or can your dumbass remember like yesterday when it was posted on another thread? How many times must I post it for you?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 27, 2008)

editec said:


> ]
> 
> 
> All that really shows us in the inherent inefficiency of the market.
> ...



A prime example of how well the government has served us through their socialistic programs; Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid....
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d061077r.pdf
In 1992 GAO said: The federal budget is structurally unbalanced. *This will do increasing damage to the economy and is unsustainable in the long term.* Regardless of the approach chosen, prompt and meaningful action is essential. The longer it is delayed, the more painful it will be. These words are as relevant today as when GAO first published them.

*The spending that drives the outlook is primarily spending on the large federal entitlement programs (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid).*


So basically Universal Healthcare proponents want to speed up the process at which America goes bankrupt.....


----------



## busara (Jul 27, 2008)

jreeves said:


> midcan5 do I really have to post social spending compared to defense spending again....or can your dumbass remember like yesterday when it was posted on another thread? How many times must I post it for you?



yeah, $450 billion is nothing at all. not even worth mentioning. and the extra-budgetary supplements for the iraq war ($170 billion in '07), chump change.

yes, social spending is expensive. but wont universal healthcare cut the costs of medicare and medicaid? or should we just get rid of health assistance for poor pregnant women, uninsured children, low income elderly, the disabled, etc?


----------



## Chris (Jul 27, 2008)

jreeves said:


> midcan5 do I really have to post social spending compared to defense spending again....or can your dumbass remember like yesterday when it was posted on another thread? How many times must I post it for you?



That wasn't the question. The question was about defense spending per se, and you respond with an insult. Typical.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 27, 2008)

I have yet to hear a convincing argument detailing why it's a system that works everywhere it is established in except the US. I want to hear which countries have been bankrupted by their health care system, which countries' population wants it done away with, and any instances in which a universal health system has gotten dismantled because it somehow destroys the country.

What I do know is that despite having a GDP per capita that is a fifth that of the US, the Social Security system here isn't somehow an impossible cost. I also _know_ that like in most countries' with universal SS, any party, candidate, or president that even remotely implied privatizing the industry would be committing political suicide. If it was ever attempted there'd be revolution on the streets. So I want to know, if even crappy third world countries can do it, why can't the richest nation on earth?


----------



## Chris (Jul 27, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> I have yet to hear a convincing argument detailing why it's a system that works everywhere it is established in except the US. I want to hear which countries have been bankrupted by their health care system, which countries' population wants it done away with, and any instances in which a universal health system has gotten dismantled because it somehow destroys the country.
> 
> What I do know is that despite having a GDP per capita that is a fifth that of the US, the Social Security system here isn't somehow an impossible cost. I also _know_ that like in most countries' with universal SS, any party, candidate, or president that even remotely implied privatizing the industry would be committing political suicide. If it was ever attempted there'd be revolution on the streets. So I want to know, if even crappy third world countries can do it, why can't the richest nation on earth?



Because our government is controled by corporate lobbyists.


----------



## editec (Jul 27, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Because our government is controled by corporate lobbyists.


 

_Bingo!  _


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 27, 2008)

jreeves said:


> midcan5 do I really have to post social spending compared to defense spending again....or can your dumbass remember like yesterday when it was posted on another thread? How many times must I post it for you?



Wrong again or should I say as usual. 

The Federal Pie Chart

World Military Spending - Global Issues


----------



## jreeves (Jul 28, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Wrong again or should I say as usual.
> 
> The Federal Pie Chart
> 
> World Military Spending - Global Issues



War Registers league, don't think they could be a little partisan do you?

How about this outlay, with numbers from government sources? Like say the Commerce Dept.....


----------



## Chris (Jul 29, 2008)

jreeves said:


> War Registers league, don't think they could be a little partisan do you?
> 
> How about this outlay, with numbers from government sources? Like say the Commerce Dept.....
> View attachment 5706




And you got your chart from Michael Hodges right wing blog.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 29, 2008)

Kirk said:


> And you got your chart from Michael Hodges right wing blog.



The data came from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which is a part of the Department of Commerce. Whereas, the cite by midcan doesn't include a cite to any government source, at least that I could see.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 29, 2008)

jreeves said:


> The data came from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which is a part of the Department of Commerce. Whereas, the cite by midcan doesn't include a cite to any government source, at least that I could see.



Furthermore...

 Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid accounted for more than $1 trillion of the $2.3 trillion the federal government spent in 2005, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, which publishes the only consolidated source of data on the geographic distribution of federal expenditures. 
US Census Press Releases


----------



## Chris (Jul 29, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Furthermore...
> 
> Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid accounted for more than $1 trillion of the $2.3 trillion the federal government spent in 2005, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, which publishes the only consolidated source of data on the geographic distribution of federal expenditures.
> US Census Press Releases



But SS taxes are a trust fund supposedly seperate from the general fund. That is the difference in the two graphs.


----------



## busara (Jul 29, 2008)

Kirk said:


> But SS taxes are a trust fund *supposedly *seperate from the general fund. That is the difference in the two graphs.



i think thats why there are different opinions on the budget here.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 29, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> How often do you seriously ask that question of our military budget?



Funny.. the federal government is constitutionally charged with nation defense... not to kiss your boo-boos


----------



## editec (Jul 29, 2008)

Social security payments aren't spending taxes, they're returning our investments.

Thought you Republicanistas were all about giving us our money back?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 29, 2008)

editec said:


> Social security payments aren't spending taxes, they're returning our investments.
> 
> Thought you Republicanistas were all about giving us our money back?



If you think social security is an investment, i dont want you anywhere near any national budget.


----------



## KMAN (Jul 29, 2008)

Kirk said:


> 2008 is shaping up to be the election year that we finally get to have the Great American Healthcare Debate again. Harry and Louise are back with a vengeance. Conservatives are rumbling around the talk show circuit bellowing about the socialist threat to the (literal) American body politic. And, as usual, Canada is once again getting dragged into the fracas, shoved around by both sides as either an exemplar or a warning -- and, along the way, getting coated with the obfuscating dust of so many willful misconceptions that the actual facts about How Canada Does It are completely lost in the melee.
> 
> I'm both a health-care-card-carrying Canadian resident and an uninsured American citizen who regularly sees doctors on both sides of the border. As such, I'm in a unique position to address the pros and cons of both systems first-hand. If we're going to have this conversation, it would be great if we could start out (for once) with actual facts, instead of ideological posturing, wishful thinking, hearsay, and random guessing about how things get done up here.
> 
> ...




This is a good article but how much does it cost?  How high are canadian taxes? Just want to be as informed as possible. Thanks.


----------



## Chris (Jul 29, 2008)

KMAN said:


> This is a good article but how much does it cost?  How high are canadian taxes? Just want to be as informed as possible. Thanks.



Read the whole article on the link. Americans pay almost twice per capita what the rest to the Western world pays for healthcare.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 29, 2008)

Avatar4321 said:


> If you think social security is an investment, i dont want you anywhere near any national budget.





Actually stealing from trust funds is a major contributor to the national debt.


----------



## KMAN (Jul 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Read the whole article on the link. Americans pay almost twice per capita what the rest to the Western world pays for healthcare.



Ok, then let me put it this way...  What percentage of your income do you pay in taxes?

Thanks.


----------



## Chris (Jul 30, 2008)

KMAN said:


> Ok, then let me put it this way...  What percentage of your income do you pay in taxes?
> 
> Thanks.



If you read the article, it tells you.


----------



## KMAN (Jul 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> If you read the article, it tells you.




My bad, I thought you included the whole article here in your post... guess you only took portions of it...And  since you don't want to tell me what percentage you pay I looked it up...  For this person who wrote the article he said he pays about 10% more than the US in taxes...  So if you make $100,000 you pay an extra $10,000 a year...  Which is basically what it costs for healthcare in this country....  If I didn't have a kidney disease it would cost me and my family about $500/month $6000 a year, with my kidney disease I pay $1000 a month....

So the cost is about the same...  the only difference is in Canada the government pays for it and in the US the individual pays for it... 

Call me crazy but I would rather make my own financial decisions than let a congress with a 10% approval rating make the decisions for me...

You are lucky, it sounds like people like the government in Canada... here they are all crooks.


----------



## busara (Jul 30, 2008)

KMAN said:


> My bad, I thought you included the whole article here in your post... guess you only took portions of it...And  since you don't want to tell me what percentage you pay I looked it up...  For this person who wrote the article he said he pays about 10% more than the US in taxes...  So if you make $100,000 you pay an extra $10,000 a year...  Which is basically what it costs for healthcare in this country....  If I didn't have a kidney disease it would cost me and my family about $500/month $6000 a year, with my kidney disease I pay $1000 a month....
> 
> So the cost is about the same...  the only difference is in Canada the government pays for it and in the US the individual pays for it...
> 
> ...



i will admit i didnt read the whole article, but youre assuming the only difference is healthcare, everything else is equal. but canada has far cheaper college tuition and a cheaper cost of living, for example. so it seems their money goes much further than ours, and their tax dollars give them more benefits, not just healthcare.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 30, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> How often do you seriously ask that question of our military budget?



The cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and indeed the invasion of the Chinese mainland, will pale in comparison to the cost of national health insurance for 300 million people. Talk about straw men. Geeez!


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 30, 2008)

So it sounds pretty much like it's a crap shoot in Canada.

I know I can get treated anywhere I go in the US. For anything I've got. Within hours.

Pretty simple.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Read the whole article on the link. Americans pay almost twice per capita what the rest to the Western world pays for healthcare.



The primary problem with the American health care system which feeds many of the major problems with the system is delinking who consumes the health service from who pays for the health service. Until this problem is resolved, you can only have increasing costs. You may choose to lower costs by artificially keeping prices low, but in the end you'll pay for that by breaking the system.

Only when the consumer has to make rational purchasing choices based on having to spend money he considers his own, will the system be repaired and brought back into balance. Consider the following system as an example:

I have an amount of money set aside, for the moment, let's assume we don't care how it got there. This amount of money is enough to deal with the average health issues of a normal healthy family or individual. It covers a couple of prescriptions per year, a couple of visits to the doctor etc. If I consume more than that amount, my insurance kicks in. So, I'm covered in case something bad happens. 

If I don't use all the money I have set aside, I get to keep it and it bears interest so I can keep it from year to year. If I don't use all of it the following year the amount continues to grow. Over the course of a lifetime of health care, it could grow to a large sum if I were healthy. If I had health issues, I would really be no worse off, but I wouldn't have this additional source of wealth because I would probably spend most of my funds each year.

Who provides the insurance? Here's one place that government might be able to lend a hand. I would not be opposed to government mandated risk pools. "If you want to insure people in our state, you have to accept everyone who applies and you have to accept rates we set." I'm a little ify on that last part. I don't know if I like it, but sake of discussion let's leave it in. So, insurance companies become a regulated utility with "x" amount of profit. The pools will be large enough that the healthy will offset the sick because real insurance doesn't kick in until you REALLY get sick. Other than that, you pay for your own health care costs out of your set aside money.

So, how does the money get there? If you are poor, the government puts it there and buys your insurance. If you can afford it, you put it there and you buy your own insurance.

So what is so good about this? Because the vast majority of health services are consumed in the under $5,000 range, real consumer activity will take place. Right now, there is no incentive for you to shop around or even put the same effort you use to pick a dishwasher to purchase health services. This model encourages you to be picky and demanding. It also provides an incentive to save, but the flexibility not to save if you really need care.


----------



## Chris (Jul 30, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> So it sounds pretty much like it's a crap shoot in Canada.
> 
> I know I can get treated anywhere I go in the US. For anything I've got. Within hours.
> 
> Pretty simple.



You really are living in a fantasy world.


----------



## Chris (Jul 30, 2008)

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States lags behind other industrialized nations in the quality of its healthcare despite having the costliest system in the world, according to a report released on Thursday.

The US healthcare system is plagued by inefficiency, inequality and an incoherent national policy, said the report from the private Commonwealth Fund foundation.

"The US spends twice per capita what other major industrialized countries spend on health care, and costs continue to rise faster than income," said the report.

"We should expect a better return on this investment."

The foundation used a 100-point scorecard to rate the system based on 37 categories, including access to health care, quality of care and efficiency.

The US average came to 65, two points down from a previous measure in 2006. The score is compared to other countries and the best performing US states, counties or hospitals.

The measures showed "that the US is losing ground in providing access to care and has uneven health care quality" and also revealed "broad evidence of inefficient and inequitable care," it said.

The United States ranked last among 19 industrialized states when it comes to preventing premature deaths from conditions such as heart attacks that can be treated with timely, effective care, the report said.

Up to 101,000 less people would die prematurely if the US achieved the lower mortality rates of top performing countries such as France or Japan, it said.

Infant mortality rates also remain high in the United States compared to other industrialized nations.

Access to health care was on the decline, with more Americans without health insurance or without adequate insurance. In 2007, 75 million working-age adults were either uninsured or underinsured, up from 61 million in 2003.

Americans reported more delays in securing appointments with doctors. "In 2007, as in 2005, less than half of US adults with health problems were able to get a rapid appointment with a physician when they were sick," it said.

The US scored poorly on efficiency, with patients subjected to duplicate tests, unnecessary hospital admissions, high administrative costs and outdated record keeping, it said.

Only 28 percent of US doctors use electronic medical records, compared to nearly 100 percent in leading countries.

The report, based on data from US government agencies and other sources, underlined some areas of progress, including improved safety at hospitals and better control of diabetes and high blood pressure.

US healthcare costs more, delivers less: study - Yahoo! News


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 30, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> How often do you seriously ask that question of our military budget?



Our military budget costs are posted each year, so why would I have to ask? 

This Universal Health care idea, is not part of the bedget, so I can not go look and see how much it will cost.

therefore I ask again. HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST A YEAR!!!!!!!!!!

I think that is a perfectly reasonable question, and franky the only numbers someone has given so far, seem WAY TO LOW to me.

My father died of Cancer only 1.4 years after being diagnosed. His insurance company paid 338,000 dollars for his treatment during that time. Now I do not know about you, but things like that lead to believe that the real costs of Universal health care will be exponentially more than 59 billion a year. In fact I think the real costs will make the military budget and the war in Iraq seem cheap! Now seeing we are running near half tillion dollar deficits, we really need to take a step back, and find out how much this will really cost before we jump into it.


----------



## busara (Jul 30, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Our military budget costs are posted each year, so why would I have to ask?
> 
> This Universal Health care idea, is not part of the bedget, so I can not go look and see how much it will cost.
> 
> ...



how far along was the cancer before he was diagnosed?


----------



## Chris (Jul 30, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Our military budget costs are posted each year, so why would I have to ask?
> 
> This Universal Health care idea, is not part of the bedget, so I can not go look and see how much it will cost.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 30, 2008)

Kirk, you understand why that chart is meaningless right?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 30, 2008)

Thanks for making my case for me With your graph Kirk. Health care is expsensive as hell in this nation, and you think if the govrnment is paying for it that it will what? Get cheaper? and at what costs will that come? At the cost of lower quality, and less inovation. It is the money to be made in health care, that keeps the best doctors in the world here, and the best inovations in medicine here. If you force the costs down with regulations, it will come at the cost of those things. You will trade quality for Quantity.

Your little chart only proves that Universal health care in this country will either lower the quality of our health care, or be extrodinarily exspenive, Or Both, and all those costs will be born by our Government. Either taxes will sky rocket, or the Deficits will.


----------



## Chris (Jul 30, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> Kirk, you understand why that chart is meaningless right?



You understand why that chart is meaningful right?


----------



## busara (Jul 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You understand why that chart is meaningful right?



is it showing the cost per person? i believe tech thinks it is showing total costs or something


----------



## Chris (Jul 30, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Thanks for making my case for me With your graph Kirk. Health care is expsensive as hell in this nation, and you think if the govrnment is paying for it that it will what? Get cheaper? and at what costs will that come? At the cost of lower quality, and less inovation. It is the money to be made in health care, that keeps the best doctors in the world here, and the best inovations in medicine here. If you force the costs down with regulations, it will come at the cost of those things. You will trade quality for Quantity.
> 
> Your little chart only proves that Universal health care in this country will either lower the quality of our health care, or be extrodinarily exspenive, Or Both, and all those costs will be born by our Government. Either taxes will sky rocket, or the Deficits will.



My little chart proves that universal healthcare has inherent cost savings and can provide healthcare for everyone better than our current bloated for profit system. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems. 
Source: WHO World Health Report - See also Spreadsheet Details (731kb) 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rank       Country  

1         France
2         Italy
3         San Marino
4         Andorra
5         Malta
6         Singapore
7         Spain
8         Oman
9         Austria
10        Japan
11        Norway
12        Portugal
13        Monaco
14        Greece
15        Iceland
16        Luxembourg
17        Netherlands
18        United  Kingdom
19        Ireland
20        Switzerland
21        Belgium
22        Colombia
23        Sweden
24        Cyprus
25        Germany
26        Saudi Arabia
27        United  Arab  Emirates
28        Israel
29        Morocco
30        Canada
31        Finland
32        Australia
33        Chile
34        Denmark
35        Dominica
36        Costa Rica
37        United States of America
38        Slovenia
39        Cuba
40        Brunei


----------



## Chris (Jul 30, 2008)

There is a chart on this link that shows healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP. It is quite interesting...

CHARTS. Healthcare costs; by nation, yearly dollars, GDP percent. Also, total taxes as GDP percentage by nation. Americans pay more per person for healthcare and taxes than people in many other nations. The USA prefers to imprison its population rath


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> My little chart proves that universal healthcare has inherent cost savings and can provide healthcare for everyone better than our current bloated for profit system.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The World Health Organization's ranking
> ...




as I have pointed out in the past, that list is based on access to health care, not on quality of health care.

Besides nothing you are saying does anything to dispute our claims that universal health care in the US will cost TRILLIONS of dollars a year.


----------



## busara (Jul 30, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> as I have pointed out in the past, that list is based on access to health care, not on quality of health care.
> 
> Besides nothing you are saying does anything to dispute our claims that universal health care in the US will cost TRILLIONS of dollars a year.



but you couldnt back up your claims. as you said, it's just a 'feeling.' and the other guy was including medicare and medicaid in his budget proj's (which i'm guessing you are doing that too). and they will exist and cost money whether obama is elected or not


----------



## Chris (Jul 30, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> as I have pointed out in the past, that list is based on access to health care, not on quality of health care.
> 
> Besides nothing you are saying does anything to dispute our claims that universal health care in the US will cost TRILLIONS of dollars a year.



Healthcare takes up 15% of our GDP right now. Most of the other developed countries pay about half that percentage, and they cover everyone. Universal healthcare will save us trillions of dollars in the long run.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Healthcare takes up 15% of our GDP right now. Most of the other developed countries pay about half that percentage, and they cover everyone. Universal healthcare will save us trillions of dollars in the long run.




COMPLETE AND TOTAL BS. But as I said believe what you want, I will not waste time arguing with a blind partisan hack.


----------



## Chris (Jul 30, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> COMPLETE AND TOTAL BS. But as I said believe what you want, I will not waste time arguing with a blind partisan hack.



I just showed you the data that shows that the other developed countries pay almost half what we do for healthcare and cover everyone. 

How is that BS?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Healthcare takes up 15% of our GDP right now. Most of the other developed countries pay about half that percentage, and they cover everyone. Universal healthcare will save us trillions of dollars in the long run.



How about including in your analysis only those countries that have 300 million or more people. Then tell us how we stack up. It's one thing to do it with countries less than 100 or 150 million. It is quite another to double or triple those numbers.


----------



## busara (Jul 30, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> How about including in your analysis only those countries that have 300 million or more people. Then tell us how we stack up. It's one thing to do it with countries less than 100 or 150 million. It is quite another to double or triple those numbers.



can you include in your 'analysis' (i used that word lightly, as you have offered nothing but conjecture) why that would make it so much more impossible and expensive? or can you back up anything you say with hard data? and i'm not talking just showing how much medicare and medicaid cost, as that will be spent regardless (as i already told you, but you seem to ignore)


----------



## Chris (Jul 30, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> How about including in your analysis only those countries that have 300 million or more people. Then tell us how we stack up. It's one thing to do it with countries less than 100 or 150 million. It is quite another to double or triple those numbers.



This always cracks me up. Oh, we're too big to have alternative energy.....Oh, we're too big to have universal healthcare. Bullsh*t!

We are THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. We have more resources and usable land than any country in the world. The only thing holding us back are the Republicans and the corporate lobbyists.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 30, 2008)

busara said:


> can you include in your 'analysis' (i used that word lightly, as you have offered nothing but conjecture) why that would make it so much more impossible and expensive? or can you back up anything you say with hard data? and i'm not talking just showing how much medicare and medicaid cost, as that will be spent regardless (as i already told you, but you seem to ignore)



I don't think I've attempted to analyze anything on this thread. I've made a suggestion as to the real problem with the health care system. I've taken a couple of pot shots at kirk that I believe he has inadequately responded to, but I haven't attempted an analysis.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> This always cracks me up. Oh, we're too big to have alternative energy.....Oh, we're too big to have universal healthcare. Bullsh*t!
> 
> We are THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. We have more resources and usable land than any country in the world. The only thing holding us back are the Republicans and the corporate lobbyists.



I thought we were in debt up to our eyeballs because of Bush. Which is it ?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jul 30, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> I thought we were in debt up to our eyeballs because of Bush. Which is it ?



You are...


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 30, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> You are...



Tell Kirk


----------



## jreeves (Jul 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> This always cracks me up. Oh, we're too big to have alternative energy.....Oh, we're too big to have universal healthcare. Bullsh*t!
> 
> We are *THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD*. We have more resources and usable land than any country in the world. The only thing holding us back are the Republicans and the corporate lobbyists.



The 9 trillion dollar national debt proves this right?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jul 30, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Tell Kirk



Being up to eyeballs in debt doesn't necessarily mean it was caused by health costs.


----------



## Chris (Jul 30, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> I thought we were in debt up to our eyeballs because of Bush. Which is it ?



We are misusing our resources, but with the right leadership, we could turn things around in a hurry.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 30, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Being up to eyeballs in debt doesn't necessarily mean it was caused by health costs.



never said it was---he simply claimed we were the richest country on earth


----------



## Dr Grump (Jul 30, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> never said it was---he simply claimed we were the richest country on earth



On paper you are. However, if you are going to continue to mispend money on unnecessary wars you'll soon be swimming in debt, high inflation and unemployment...something has to give...


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 30, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> On paper you are. However, if you are going to continue to mispend money on unnecessary wars you'll soon be swimming in debt, high inflation and unemployment...something has to give...



DOH


----------



## jreeves (Jul 30, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> On paper you are. However, if you are going to continue to mispend money on unnecessary wars you'll soon be swimming in debt, high inflation and unemployment...something has to give...



Endless social spending is the biggest culprit behind the US national debt, not military spending.


----------



## Chris (Jul 30, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Endless social spending is the biggest culprit behind the US national debt, not military spending.



No, 90% of the National Debt was created by Reagan and Bush.


ReaganBushDebt.org


----------



## jreeves (Jul 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> No, 90% of the National Debt was created by Reagan and Bush.
> 
> 
> ReaganBushDebt.org



Here we go again, President's don't control the US's purse strings Congress does.


----------



## busara (Jul 31, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Endless social spending is the biggest culprit behind the US national debt, not military spending.



i would say unresponsible spending caused the debt, both military and social


----------



## Chris (Jul 31, 2008)

busara said:


> i would say unresponsible spending caused the debt, both military and social



No, actually it was Reagan's ridiculous military buildup and Bush's borrowing of $700 billion dollars from China to finance the occupation of Iraq.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 31, 2008)

Kirk said:


> No, actually it was Reagan's ridiculous military buildup and Bush's borrowing of $700 billion dollars from China to finance the occupation of Iraq.



You are truly clueless


----------



## editec (Jul 31, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> My father died of Cancer only 1.4 years after being diagnosed. His insurance company paid 338,000 dollars for his treatment during that time. Now I do not know about you, but things like that lead to believe that the real costs of Universal health care will be exponentially more than 59 billion a year. In fact I think the real costs will make the military budget and the war in Iraq seem cheap! Now seeing we are running near half tillion dollar deficits, we really need to take a step back, and find out how much this will really cost before we jump into it.


 
I have read that over 50% of the cost of health care in aggregate, is spent on the last year of life.

I saw the government do the same damned thing for my mother.

*They literally spent more on medical treatments in her last year of life, when it was totally apparent that she was toast, than she'd made in her entire life.*


I pray to GOD I have the balls not to saddle my children and yours with those kinds of costs when I get my traveling papers.


----------



## KMAN (Jul 31, 2008)

Once again if someone can show me where in our constitution it says the all Americans have a right to healthcare I will be all for it...


----------



## editec (Jul 31, 2008)

KMAN said:


> Once again if someone can show me where in our constitution it says the all Americans have a right to healthcare I will be all for it...


 

The moment we return to the 18th century, I'm right there with ya'.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 31, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Endless social spending is the biggest culprit behind the US national debt, not military spending.


that's such bullshit....

the social programs like social security are bringing in SURPLUSSES in taxes, they are bringing in cash MORE than what the social program, social security is paying out....

*disgressionary programs* ARE NOT bringing in enough taxes to pay for themselves....

and the republican medicare PILL BILL that the pharma industry actually wrote, which passed in the middle of the night, 3am, with arm twisting, without the ability to buy drugs via bulk discounts and without the ability to buy from other countries is the worst bill our congress has ever passed.....

care


----------



## Care4all (Jul 31, 2008)

KMAN said:


> Once again if someone can show me where in our constitution it says the all Americans have a right to healthcare I will be all for it...




life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness along with securing our general welfare provides the words you are looking for....

*life*, in today's world...takes health care......

i don't believe the constitution stops congress from pursuing universal health care if they feel it necessary to provide for this general welfare of its citizens....

i'm not really for it.....not without major system reforms, but i do not see where the constitution prevents it....

care


----------



## editec (Jul 31, 2008)

Care4all said:


> life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness along with securing our general welfare provides the words you are looking for....
> 
> *life*, in today's world...takes health care......
> 
> ...


 
You, me, Congress and the Supreme Court agree, but what do we know compared constitutional scholars like Mr. KMAN?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 31, 2008)

Care4all said:


> life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness along with securing our general welfare provides the words you are looking for....
> 
> *life*, in today's world...takes health care......
> 
> ...



The preamble of the Constitution is does not confer powers on any branch of government and should be read only to provide context and flavor to the powers actually granted.

Explanation of the Constitution's Preamble and Supreme Court's interpretation thereof


----------



## Care4all (Jul 31, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> The preamble of the Constitution is does not confer powers on any branch of government and should be read only to provide context and flavor to the powers actually granted.
> 
> Explanation of the Constitution's Preamble and Supreme Court's interpretation thereof



 yes, true....thus giving clearer meaning to ''general welfare'' in the constitution!


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 31, 2008)

Care4all said:


> yes, true....thus giving clearer meaning to ''general welfare'' in the constitution!



You know what Care, as much as it pains me to say it, Article I, Section 8 specifically provides "...and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...."

A fair reading of this clause in the current legal context with all the gloss that has been laid on the Constitution by previous Supreme Court decisions would find legal power for the Congress to provide for a system of Nationalized Health care.

Given the location of the clause, I think a court would say you have to give the "general Welfare" portion the same expansive reading as the "common Defence" portion. So, there you have it Constitutional support for the provision.

That said, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 31, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> You know what Care, as much as it pains me to say it, Article I, Section 8 specifically provides "...and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...."
> 
> A fair reading of this clause in the current legal context with all the gloss that has been laid on the Constitution by previous Supreme Court decisions would find legal power for the Congress to provide for a system of Nationalized Health care.
> 
> ...



I honestly don't think we should either, certainly not as our healthcare system stands now, without any reform, it would bankrupt us....

I am also weary on the gvt cutting off certain procedures or surgeries or medicines that might give you a 10% better chance of surviving because the expence did not justify the possible results....not that insurance companies do not do this already, because they do....but i can see gvts doing this in foreign countries with universal plans even moreso, in my humble opinion....

What i do know, is that we can not continue on the same road we are on now with our country's healthcare....buinesses are being hurt by these higher costs here and so are we.....some drastic reforms are needed, what they should be, i don't know....

care


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 31, 2008)

Plus I would suggest looking up what was meant by general welfare by the founding fathers.... it did not mean taking away personal responsibility... it did not mean nanny state...


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 31, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> You know what Care, as much as it pains me to say it, Article I, Section 8 specifically provides "...and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...."
> 
> A fair reading of this clause in the current legal context with all the gloss that has been laid on the Constitution by previous Supreme Court decisions would find legal power for the Congress to provide for a system of Nationalized Health care.
> 
> ...



Well Damn Me! James Madison, in the form of Publius, says I'm wrong.

quoting from Federalist 41:


> Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.
> 
> ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.



Not to speak for Madison, when he does so in unmatched eloquence, but I think he's saying that the initial clause of Article I, Section 8, should be read to provide the nature and character of the actual power granting subsequent clauses. So, the Congress does NOT have the power to legislate in every case that concerns either Defense or Welfare, but only in the specifically enumerated cases.

Thanks Dave for pointing out the error of my ways.

I would still say that in the current climate, the court would go the other way with it and find it legal, but Constitutionally, I'm not seeing such a power in Article I, Section 8. Anybody want to argue with Madison?


----------



## Care4all (Jul 31, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> Well Damn Me! James Madison, in the form of Publius, says I'm wrong.
> 
> quoting from Federalist 41:
> 
> ...



i agree with madison....just because national defense is a priority and duty of congress does not give them the right to spend our tax dollars willy nilly on defense, or to overspend on defense for ill reasons.....

same with general welfare....all expenditures of the federal gvt should be scrutinized, spent as efficiently as possible, and limited as much as possible....

i still don't see inacting a universal healthcare plan, or regulating the industry somehow, as being unconstitutional nor do i believe this supreme court would either....?

what am i missing?

care


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 31, 2008)

Care4all said:


> i agree with madison....just because national defense is a priority and duty of congress does not give them the right to spend our tax dollars willy nilly on defense, or to overspend on defense for ill reasons.....
> 
> same with general welfare....all expenditures of the federal gvt should be scrutinized, spent as efficiently as possible, and limited as much as possible....
> 
> ...



Care,

Your last statement, I think is correct. This Supreme Court would have no problem with it (Ok, well, Scalia et al. would, but they would be outnumbered by the "I'm sure the power is here somewhere" folks on the other side.

The distinction in what Madison says in Federalist 41 and what the Supremes would see is this. Madison tries to defend the new Constitution against those making essentially the argument that you, and I'm sure the Supreme Court would make saying that in clause 1 it says provide for the common defense and the general welfare so you can pretty much do anything and that gives the Congress too much power. 



> "... for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.



Madison says only and idiot would read it that way (in 18th century language). He says first, if we wanted it to say that we sure as hell know how to write it better than that (give us some credit). But, further, he says you have to do some mental gymnastics to believe such a thing when we go on to say, in the same sentence, what those things are. We enumerate them in the same sentence, only a semi-colon between each enumeration. So, it would be ridiculous indeed for someone to think that Congress was granted this extraordinary power when the limits are so clearly evident.

Thus, you must find the power to create the National Health care system in the *enumerated powers* of Article I, Section 8 in order to do right by Madison. Of course the Supreme Court has long since used the Constitution as so much toilet paper and flushed it, so they'll have no problem finding the power someplace.


----------



## Mr. Right (Jul 31, 2008)

First off this is not about your "Health" at all.

  1- It's about nationalising about 12% of the nation's GDP.

  2- This is about control over you and your behavior. Look at history. Adolph Hitler did this too. We all know what happened there. 

  3- You can pursue good health but it is not a right or a guarantee.

  4- this is dangerous.

 How do you feel? 

    How does your wallet feel after Barrack O'bama leaves you with change?

 Vote for the Old Dude. 

 We have the best health care in the world. Socialising it will only lead to a sense of entitlement and rationing of services.

  The rich will still pay for better care. You'll just have less of a chance at becoming rich.


----------



## editec (Jul 31, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> Care,
> 
> Your last statement, I think is correct. This Supreme Court would have no problem with it (Ok, well, Scalia et al. would, but they would be outnumbered by the "I'm sure the power is here somewhere" folks on the other side.
> 
> ...


 
So the repeal of slavery?

Also a power the Federal government has taken, in your opinion, without actully having the right to do so, since that is clearly not okayed in the constitution?

Much of government appears to be, under you're strict interpretation, as not within the powers granted to the Feds.

Where do you draw that line in the constitution and what measure are you using to draw it?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 31, 2008)

editec said:


> So the repeal of slavery?
> 
> Also a power the Federal government has taken, in your opinion, without actully having the right to do so, since that is clearly not okayed in the constitution?
> 
> ...



I didn't say you couldn't amend the Constitution. The repeal of slavery is the XIII amendment. So it clearly is ok'd in the Constitution.

There is plenty of wiggle room in the Constitution as it was written to have a very reasonable government fully capable of doing all the modern things we expect our government to do. There are a few places where the genie has got out of the bottle and it shouldn't have. 

Hmmm...where do I draw the line. Let's say I'm pretty good with decisions up to about 1938 or so. I'm a big opponent of Darby v. US and its progeny. I think it was a stretch to say that because a local restaurant got its paper products from another state that it was "engaged in Interstate Commerce" and therefore should be directly regulated by the Federal Government. I think that goes too far. I think using the Supreme Court to cure social ills, while it was great at the time is about to come back and bite us in the ass big time. You don't think so? Imagine 9, 40 year old Antonin Scalias on the court. You think you want 50 years of his absolute no recourse except amendment decisions?

Nope, we gave the court too much power and now we're going to reap what we've sown.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 31, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> Nope, we gave the court too much power and now we're going to reap what we've sown.



I could not agree more. The power of the courts has grown well beyond what was intended by the Framers of the constitution, and just as Imparticality is the Media is now Dead, so is non-partisanship in the courts. 

This should worry us all.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 31, 2008)

Care4all said:


> that's such bullshit....
> 
> the social programs like social security are bringing in SURPLUSSES in taxes, they are bringing in cash MORE than what the social program, social security is paying out....
> 
> ...



Sigh...

The federal government is facing difficult decisions about its finances, with a growing national debt and long-term fiscal problems that could seriously undercut the nation's prosperity.

The federal deficit has declined in the last several years, but national debt has surged, topping $9 trillion. The nation's long-term obligations are staggering, as the baby boom generation retires and begins to strain the Social Security and Medicare systems. *Former U.S Comptroller General David Walker, the federal government's auditor, calls the baby boomers' retirement a "demographic tsunami" that will overwhelm the federal budget. By 2040, there will be little money for anything else other than Social Security, Medicare and interest on the debt -- unless something is done. *

The Federal Budget | Public Agenda

Tell me again how social spending isn't a problem??


----------



## jreeves (Jul 31, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Plus I would suggest looking up what was meant by general welfare by the founding fathers.... it did not mean taking away personal responsibility... it did not mean nanny state...



I wonder how much the founding fathers set aside in their budgets for welfare, entitlement programs and other social programs for the general welfare of the US?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 31, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Sigh...
> 
> The federal government is facing difficult decisions about its finances, with a growing national debt and long-term fiscal problems that could seriously undercut the nation's prosperity.
> 
> ...



Yep, and if Obama is elected he will only Multiply this problem with More spending, and Economy killing tax increases.


----------



## Chris (Jul 31, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Yep, and if Obama is elected he will only Multiply this problem with More spending, and Economy killing tax increases.



The last Democratic president gave us eight years of peace and prosperity.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 31, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I wonder how much the founding fathers set aside in their budgets for welfare, entitlement programs and other social programs for the general welfare of the US?



how can we find out?  that would be cool to find out what they actually legislated and appropiated in their day....!!!  

care


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 31, 2008)

Care4all said:


> how can we find out?  that would be cool to find out what they actually legislated and appropiated in their day....!!!
> 
> care



Don't we have some time traveler here who predicts the future and stuff ? Maybe she travels backwards too.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 31, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Don't we have some time traveler here who predicts the future and stuff ? Maybe she travels backwards too.


)
funny, smart ass!


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 31, 2008)

Care4all said:


> )
> funny, smart ass!



We DO !!!  China was supposed to be totally destroyed in July. Just ask Aurora


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 1, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The last Democratic president gave us eight years of peace and prosperity.




Try endangerment from not battling back against terrorism and a false boom economy that was based on internet speculation and shady venture capital schemes

Clinton was one of the 3 worst presidents in the 2nd 1/2 of the 20th century


----------



## Chris (Aug 1, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Try endangerment from not battling back against terrorism and a false boom economy that was based on internet speculation and shady venture capital schemes
> 
> Clinton was one of the 3 worst presidents in the 2nd 1/2 of the 20th century



Bwha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,hhaaaahahahahhahaaaaaa!!!

Thanks, I needed a good laugh this early in the morning.


----------



## Chris (Aug 1, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I wonder how much the founding fathers set aside in their budgets for welfare, entitlement programs and other social programs for the general welfare of the US?



The "founding fathers" had a social program.

They called it, "slavery."


----------



## busara (Aug 1, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Try endangerment from not battling back against terrorism and a false boom economy that was based on internet speculation and shady venture capital schemes
> 
> Clinton was one of the 3 worst presidents in the 2nd 1/2 of the 20th century



not battling back? yeah, i guess august 20 of 1998 our military did nothing.

and those attacks against us in the middle east, we really should have fought back hard. under bush and his response we havent had a single attack against us in the middle east .......


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 1, 2008)

busara said:


> not battling back? yeah, i guess august 20 of 1998 our military did nothing.
> 
> and those attacks against us in the middle east, we really should have fought back hard. under bush and his response we havent had a single attack against us in the middle east .......



Yeah... not going after terrorists... trying terrorists in local courts... not taking attacks seriously...

He was horrid in dealing with the growing threat of terror during his terms

The only worse presidents during the 2nd 1/2 of the 20th century were Carter and GHWB


----------



## Chris (Aug 1, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Yeah... not going after terrorists... trying terrorists in local courts... not taking attacks seriously...
> 
> He was horrid in dealing with the growing threat of terror during his terms
> 
> The only worse presidents during the 2nd 1/2 of the 20th century were Carter and GHWB



4,100 Americans dead, 30,000 wounded, and $700 billion dollars wasted. 

Thanks, GOP.


----------



## editec (Aug 1, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> I didn't say you couldn't amend the Constitution. The repeal of slavery is the XIII amendment. So it clearly is ok'd in the Constitution.


 
Naturally I can agree with that. Adherents to a stricter interpretation of the Constitution (states righters, in many cases) might disagree, of course.



> There is plenty of wiggle room in the Constitution as it was written to have a very reasonable government fully capable of doing all the modern things we expect our government to do. There are a few places where the genie has got out of the bottle and it shouldn't have.


 
Ah yes, there's the rub, isn't it? That wriggle room is entirely a question of where you come down on each particular wriggle the courts take.



> Hmmm...where do I draw the line. Let's say I'm pretty good with decisions up to about 1938 or so. I'm a big opponent of Darby v. US and its progeny. I think it was a stretch to say that because a local restaurant got its paper products from another state that it was "engaged in Interstate Commerce" and therefore should be directly regulated by the Federal Government.


 
Is that how you read it? 

I read it that a Georgia Lumber corporation, one which is _clearly_ engaged in interstate business is subject to Federal workplace safety laws. 

By handing down that finding the court  prevented states from having a race to the bottom (regards workplace safety) by trying to seduce large corporations from moving to those states to take advantage of shoddy state's workplace safety laws. (sort of a civil rights for workers law, ya know?)

What have I missed?



> I think that goes too far. I think using the Supreme Court to cure social ills, while it was great at the time is about to come back and bite us in the ass big time.
> 
> You don't think so? Imagine 9, 40 year old Antonin Scalias on the court. You think you want 50 years of his absolute no recourse except amendment decisions?


 
I'm not really versed in legal philosophy to have a coherent argument, be honest, tech esp.  I question lifetime appointments generally. 

I think the law is so idiotically self referential, that it often verges on incestuous thinking, and the outcome of that propensity is that justice that the average person can understand and sign onto is the forgotten stepchild of the legal mindset, generally.

Of course, I have to agree with your opinion about abuse of this Interstate commerce clause in some that cases that are near and dear to my own heart, too.

For example, when the Feds use interstate commerce laws to negate the will of the people of a state as it regards medical marijuana, I'm all about stricter interpretations, just as you are.

So to be honest I can say I've got a consistent view on that issue.  I am partisan _and know it. _

I'm more interested in social justice and a viable society generally, than I am in theoretical legal arguments. (probably because I don't have the training to fully appreciate them, and partically because I am a pragmatist) 



> Nope, we gave the court too much power and now we're going to reap what we've sown.


 
Seems to me the courts gave the courts too much power and "_WE the people_" have very little to do with it.

And depending on which power they gave themselves to decide issues, and how it shakes out for us, I suspect people on _all sides of the wire_ will completely agree or disagree with you, but its usually not based on the law, but case dependent on how it affects them.

I think the law, as much as I understand that we need to be a land of laws, is often an ass, TE.

It's breathtaking complete reversals in intepretations about the Constitution, are, I suspect, evidence that my view of it isn't all that far off the mark, either.


----------



## editec (Aug 1, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I could not agree more. *The power of the courts has grown well beyond what was intended by the Framers of the constitution,* and just as Imparticality is the Media is now Dead, so is non-partisanship in the courts.
> 
> This should worry us all.


 

The Constitution of the United States is NOT a suicide pact, Charles.

Going beyond this particular issue, if a strict adherence to the consitution is going to wrech our nation, I'm all for blowing it off.

I've got reservations about fixing the health care problem, but fix it WE MUST.

_HOW??!??_ is the question.


----------



## editec (Aug 1, 2008)

kirk said:


> the "founding Fathers" Had A Social Program.
> 
> They Called It, "slavery."


 
ouch!!!!​


----------



## Care4all (Aug 1, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Sigh...
> 
> The federal government is facing difficult decisions about its finances, with a growing national debt and long-term fiscal problems that could seriously undercut the nation's prosperity.
> 
> ...



stop being soooo obtuse reeves!!!

It was not social security payouts that was the problem but the FACT that this administration and this congress has OVERSPENT THEIR BUDGET and used all of the SS SURPLUS funds that were meant for the boomers when they do retire, for what Income taxes should be paying.

OVER 1 TRILLION in SS surplus funds for the Boomers has been USED AND SPENT on OTHER THINGS in the last 8 years that has bankrupted the SS program.....MAINLY BECAUSE they will not have the money to pay the SS surplus funds BORROWED from SS.

TALK ABOUT STEALING from the poor to pay for what the rich want.....

What percentage of SS funds taken in each year in taxes do the WEALTHIEST pay....do you know?

Funny how everyone includes SS in our general fund expenditures BUT THEY DON'T INCLUDE what they collect from us peons in SS taxes and always tout that the top 1% pay for nearly ALL TAXES which is an outright lie....

SS only needed MINOR TWEEKING to make it sound.....IF you include what they OVER COLLECTED in SS taxes to pay for the upcoming boomers.

Medicare is another story, it will bankrupt us if we do not come to a sollution and reforms to stop the double digit rise in cost each and every year for the past 10 years....

abolishing medicare for Seniors WILL NOT HAPPEN my dear....it will NEVER happen....

the insurance companies many years ago refused to cover the elderly and dropped them when they were old and after they had paid for insurance their entire lives, WHEN THEY WERE HEALTHY.....yep, the insurance companies dropped them when they were older and more prone to being sick......THUS THE CREATION of Medicare by our gvt, INSTEAD of FORCING the insurance companies to cover the healthcare of seniors...

it was  GIFTHORSE FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES BECAUSE THEY GOT TO INSURE US AND MAKE MONEY OFF OF US WHEN WE WERE YOUNG AND MORE THAN LIKELY HEALTHY, but when old...the gvt got to foot the bills.....the insurance companies made out like a bandit.

But let me ask you, do you think out government should HAVE FORCED insurance companies to cover the elderly via regulation of some sort?

Care


----------



## editec (Aug 1, 2008)

Care4all said:


> It was not social security payouts that was the problem but the FACT that this administration and this congress has OVERSPENT THEIR BUDGET and used all of the SS SURPLUS funds that were meant for the boomers when they do retire, for what Income taxes should be paying.
> 
> OVER 1 TRILLION in SS surplus funds for the Boomers has been USED AND SPENT on OTHER THINGS in the last 8 years that has bankrupted the SS program.....MAINLY BECAUSE they will not have the money to pay the SS surplus funds BORROWED from SS.
> 
> ...


 
Spot on.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 1, 2008)

Care4all said:


> stop being soooo obtuse reeves!!!
> 
> It was not social security payouts that was the problem but the FACT that this administration and this congress has OVERSPENT THEIR BUDGET and used all of the SS SURPLUS funds that were meant for the boomers when they do retire, for what Income taxes should be paying.
> 
> ...


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8877/12-13-LTBO.pdf
For decades, spending on Medicare and Medicaidthe
federal governments major health care programshas
been growing faster than the economy, as has health
spending in the private sector. The rate at which health
care costs grow relative to national incomerather than
the aging of the populationwill be the most important
determinant of future federal spending. *The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) projects that under current
law, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid measured
as a share of GDP will rise from 4 percent today to
12 percent in 2050 and 19 percent in 2082which, as a
share of the economy, is roughly equivalent to the total
amount that the federal government spends today.*

Under both scenarios, total primary spending (all spending
except interest payments on federal debt) would grow
sharply in coming decades, CBO estimates, rising from
its current level of 18 percent of GDP to more than
30 percent by 2082, the end of the 75-year period that
CBOs long-term projections span (see Figure 1-1). If
spending policy did not change and outlays did indeed
grow to such levels relative to the economy, maintaining a
sustainable budget path would require that federal taxation
rise similarly. In the past half-century, total federal
revenues have averaged 18 percent of GDP and peaked at
nearly 21 percent, well below projected levels of future
spending.
For much of its history, the United States devoted only a
small fraction of its resources to the activities of the federal
government. But the second half of the 20th century
marked a period of sustained higher peacetime spending
by the federal government. For the past 50 years, federal
outlays have averaged about 20 percent of GDP. In fiscal
year 2007, those outlays totaled $2.7 trillion.
Not only has the amount of such spending grown, but its
composition has changed dramatically. Spending for
mandatory programs has increased from less than onethird
of total federal outlays in the early 1960s to more
than one-half in recent years. Most of that growth has
been concentrated in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social
Security. *Together, gross outlays for those programs now
account for about 45 percent of federal outlays, compared
with 2 percent in 1950 (before the health programs
were created) and 25 percent in 1975.*

I'm not trying to be mean or anything but you seem to be in denial. These programs will bankrupt this country on their current spending outlays. It's a huge problem, not something that we can only do minor tweaks to. Actually high income workers pay just as much taxes as someone making $98,000. They pay in their fair share considering what they would get from the program, do you suggest they should be penalized for the government's ineptitude to run the program. Actually, the top 50% of wage earners do in fact pay 97% of federal income taxes.


----------



## Chris (Aug 1, 2008)

jreeves said:


> http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8877/12-13-LTBO.pdf
> For decades, spending on Medicare and Medicaidthe
> federal governments major health care programshas
> been growing faster than the economy, as has health
> ...



This is why we need universal healthcare. It has inherent cost savings that will save America.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> This is why we need universal healthcare. It has inherent cost savings that will save America.


BalancedPolitics.org - Universal Health Care (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)
There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in a long line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system?


"Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?


Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.


Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.


Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.


Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant.


Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.


Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?


A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.


Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency.


Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits. When you're dealing with any business, for example a privately-funded hospital, if an employee negligently causes an injury, the employer is ultimately liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that would mean the U.S. government, an organization with enormous amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible for the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for frivolous lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep pockets. Even if the health care quality is the same as in a government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to increase simply because attorneys know the government has the money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine potential punitive damages alone. When the government has the ability to spend several trillion dollars per year, how much will a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble, disfigured, or dying? 


Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms. With government-paid health care, any risky or healthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. Thus, politicians will be in a strong position to pass more "sin" taxes on things like alcohol, high-fat food, smoking, etc. They could ban trans fat, limit msg, eliminate high-fructose corn syrup, and so on. For some health nuts, this may sound like a good thing. But pretty soon, people will find they no longer have the option to enjoy their favorite foods, even in moderation, or alternatively, the cost of the items will be sky high. Also, it just gives the government yet another method of controlling our lives, further eroding the very definition of America, Land of the Free. 


Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramactically shorter. Now that people are regular living into their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush's intention to "take away your social security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program, especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost. 

BalancedPolitics.org - Universal Health Care (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)

Sure it would save us money...


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

Every other Western democracy has universal healthcare, and they pay half what we pay for healthcare and cover everyone.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Every other Western democracy has universal healthcare, and they pay half what we pay for healthcare and cover everyone.



God you are braindead aren't you, the US's GDP, adminstrative cost(labor costs, compliance cost...etc...) and Medical R&D account for the differences in costs.


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

jreeves said:


> God you are braindead aren't you, the US's GDP, adminstrative cost(labor costs, compliance cost...etc...) and Medical R&D account for the differences in costs.



I'm not brain dead. 

Our system is bloated, patchwork, and doomed to failure. All the other democracies in the Western world have universal healthcare and they like it. We will switch eventually, but as usual the Republican Party is standing in the way of progress.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> I'm not brain dead.
> 
> Our system is bloated, patchwork, and doomed to failure. All the other democracies in the Western world have universal healthcare and they like it. We will switch eventually, but as usual the Republican Party is standing in the way of progress.



Universal healthcare won't pass, Americans enjoy their freedoms too much. They enjoy being able to see the doctor when they need to without waiting in lines. They enjoy having access to medical imaging equipment. Americans don't want to be saddled with high taxes. As usual the democrats want to steal money from the real drivers of the economy small businesses and middle income Americans.


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Universal healthcare won't pass, Americans enjoy their freedoms too much. They enjoy being able to see the doctor when they need to without waiting in lines. They enjoy having access to medical imaging equipment. Americans don't want to be saddled with high taxes. As usual the democrats want to steal money from the real drivers of the economy small businesses and middle income Americans.



Our healthcare system is currently consuming 15% of our GDP. If costs keep going up, it will consume all of our yearly increases in GDP. They system has failed. It will be replaced.


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

Poll Shows Majority Back Health Care for All 

By ROBIN TONER and JANET ELDER
Published: March 1, 2007
A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll. 

Majority Back Health Care for All 

How the Poll Was Conducted (March 2, 2007) 
Complete Poll ResultsWhile the war in Iraq remains the overarching issue in the early stages of the 2008 campaign, access to affordable health care is at the top of the public&#8217;s domestic agenda, ranked as far more important than immigration, cutting taxes or promoting traditional values. Only 24 percent said they were satisfied with President Bush&#8217;s handling of the issue, despite his recent initiatives, and 62 percent said the Democrats &#8212; not the Republicans &#8212; were more likely to improve the health care system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Our healthcare system is currently consuming 15% of our GDP. If costs keep going up, it will consume all of our yearly increases in GDP. They system has failed. It will be replaced.



Nope, it will be reformed.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Poll Shows Majority Back Health Care for All
> 
> By ROBIN TONER and JANET ELDER
> Published: March 1, 2007
> ...



Here you go with your highly reliable polls....look at the 2000 presidential exit polls...


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Here you go with your highly reliable polls....look at the 2000 presidential exit polls...



Gore got more votes than Bush. Look it up.

Now even American doctors favor universal healthcare...


Doctors support universal health care: survey | Health | Reuters


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Gore got more votes than Bush. Look it up.
> 
> Now even American doctors favor universal healthcare...
> 
> ...



I bet you this guy doesn't....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXr_Ga_n0pY&feature=related]YouTube - America's Financial Future (Part 2)[/ame]


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I bet you this guy doesn't....
> 
> YouTube - America's Financial Future (Part 2)



You know that when the doctors are for it, that it will come about. Hillary's plan was the worst of both worlds. She wanted all of us to support the insurance companies.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Gore got more votes than Bush. Look it up.
> 
> Now even American doctors favor universal healthcare...
> 
> ...



That doesn't change the fact that the exit polling was highly unreliable. You mean those evil profiteers?


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You know that when the doctors are for it, that it will come about. Hillary's plan was the worst of both worlds. She wanted all of us to support the insurance companies.



It's a survey....
Nope when it is properly debated Americans will reject it...


----------



## Annie (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Gore got more votes than Bush. Look it up.
> 
> Now even American doctors favor universal healthcare...
> 
> ...



Yet, Bush won:

Online NewsHour: Media Recount: Bush Won



> An Online NewsHour Report
> 
> More than three months after Democrat Al Gore conceded the hotly contested 2000 election, an independent hand recount of Florida's ballots released today says he would have lost anyway, even if officials would have allowed the hand count he requested.
> 
> ...


----------



## Care4all (Aug 2, 2008)

a fresh recount in ALL counties of florida would have given Gore the win, your article states kathianne?  And isn't this what the Supreme court of florida ordered but then it was cut short?  Not certain on that, though....i believe so?

so, essentially, the citizens of florida DID elect and pick VP gore, NOT  Gov bush, according to your article, and that would have been using the same standards in ALL counties that were used in their counts of the initial recount counties....so i don't see how Bush definitively won according to the consortium's recount of the State in Full?

in addition to this, we know that over 10,000 votes for gore in palm beach county were not given to him, due to the butterfly ballot messup....even pat bucannon states he never even campaigned in palm beach county, he did not run one ad in palm beach county while he ran several in broward county and only received 3000 or so votes in Broward, with broward being much more populated than palm beach!  I think he got something like 17000 votes, i'm attributing 10,000 of those wrongly cast butterfly votes as gores, it could be even more...?

so, what we can acknowledge as truth imho, is that the citizens, all the voting citizens in the 2000 election in florida CHOSE VP Gore as their choice for president....thus, the USA chose Gore for president, with the electoral votes of florida truely meant for Gore....bringing him in as the Electoral victor.

Now, with the formalities, regulations, disqualification of the thousands of Butterfly ballots for him, and judicial rulings may not have resulted in the true will of the people, and thru those decisions... Gov Bush won the election in Florida and thus the presidency.

It is what it is, there is no turning back or twinkling of the nose or any kind of "do over" or "easy button" to press and make things go back to the beginning and come out the way they were "meant to be", I realize such and am not trying to say gwb is an illigitimate president, because i do not believe such...i think one has to take the cards they are dealt and deal with them, in this case it was the SC ruling that cut things short and put Bush in power....but as said in so many words, it is, what it is....

Care


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

Gore got 443,000 more votes than Bush, but we don't live in a democracy....

Presidential Election of 2000, Electoral and Popular Vote Summary &mdash; Infoplease.com


----------



## Care4all (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Gore got 443,000 more votes than Bush, but we don't live in a democracy....
> 
> Presidential Election of 2000, Electoral and Popular Vote Summary &mdash; Infoplease.com



unfortumately, we do not go by popular vote in the end, but by electoral college....

nor in the primaries, we do not go by popular vote, we go by delegates....hillary could be the nominee if by popular vote alone....

care


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Care4all said:


> *a fresh recount in ALL counties of florida would have given Gore the win, your article states kathianne?  And isn't this what the Supreme court of florida ordered but then it was cut short? * Not certain on that, though....i believe so?
> 
> so, essentially, the citizens of florida DID elect and pick VP gore, NOT  Gov bush, according to your article, and that would have been using the same standards in ALL counties that were used in their counts of the initial recount counties....so i don't see how Bush definitively won according to the consortium's recount of the State in Full?
> 
> ...



*That's not what the article states, it says if the recounts were done according to the Florida Supreme Court, Bush still would have won.* Only under a scenario in which Gore would have received votes for *all* improperly punched ballots would he have won.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 2, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Nope, it will be reformed.



What is funny is Kirk provided a link earlier that showed home many Socialized Medicine nations systems are consuming 15% of their GDP's as well.


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> What is funny is Kirk provided a link earlier that showed home many Socialized Medicine nations systems are consuming 15% of their GDP's as well.



Why do you lie?

Total health spending accounted for 15.3% of GDP in the United States in 2006, the highest share in the
OECD, and more than six percentage points higher than the average of 8.9% in OECD countries.
Following the United States were Switzerland, France and Germany, which allocated respectively 11.3%,
11.1% and 10.6% of their GDP to health.
The United States also ranks far ahead of other OECD countries in terms of total health spending per
capita, with spending of 6,714 USD (adjusted for purchasing power parity), more than twice the OECD
average of 2,824 USD in 2006. Norway follows, with spending of 4,520 USD per capita, then Switzerland
and Luxembourg with spending of over 4,300 USD per capita.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Why do you lie?
> 
> Total health spending accounted for 15.3% of GDP in the United States in 2006, the highest share in the
> OECD, and more than six percentage points higher than the average of 8.9% in OECD countries.
> ...



Wasn't a lie bud you once argued with me that Most Socialized Nations only spend about 15% of GDP on health care. At the time you claimed we spent 25% of ours on Health care. Deny it all you want now I don't care. It is you who have been inconsistent on your facts and figures. 

besides your numbers do nothing to address the fast rising costs in Socialized Nations as their populations grow older, and the costs rise.


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Wasn't a lie bud you once argued with me that Most Socialized Nations only spend about 15% of GDP on health care. At the time you claimed we spent 25% of ours on Health care. Deny it all you want now I don't care. It is you who have been inconsistent on your facts and figures.
> 
> besides your numbers do nothing to address the fast rising costs in Socialized Nations as their populations grow older, and the costs rise.



You are confusing me with someone else. I just posted the link I used again.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You are confusing me with someone else. I just posted the link I used again.



If I am I apologize kirk.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 2, 2008)

I had an interesting conversation with a 20 year old yesterday. I gave him a ride home from South bend Indiana to Grand Rapids Michigan.

During the ride, he Kept saying how can you be against "Free" Health care. It lead me to wonder how many people share his misguided view that Universal Health care is Free to the  user. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. Look at the Nations who have it, and look at their taxes. Nothing is free man. Universal health care comes at many costs, and 2 of them are HIGH taxes and Growing Debt.

The only people who get "free" health care under universal health care, are those who do not pay taxes, and are some how not effected by the rising debt and other issues it leads to.


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I had an interesting conversation with a 20 year old yesterday. I gave him a ride home from South bend Indiana to Grand Rapids Michigan.
> 
> During the ride, he Kept saying how can you be against "Free" Health care. It lead me to wonder how many people share his misguided view that Universal Health care is Free to the  user.
> 
> ...



The point is that a single payer system has inherent cost savings. It is more efficient than having 150 different insurance companies. All it means is that the government acts as the insurance company. That's it. Doctors still own there practices, and you can go to any doctor you chose.


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> If I am I apologize kirk.



God bless you.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The point is that a single payer system has inherent cost savings. It is more efficient than having 150 different insurance companies. All it means is that the government acts as the insurance company. That's it. Doctors still own there practices, and you can go to any doctor you chose.



Now that is BS, that may be how you envision it being here, but that is not how it is in most Nations with universal health care. You go where they tell you to go, and most of the time you wait in a long line to do it.

The thing is it works fine as long as you are healthy and only need regular scheduled check ups. The problems arise when you get sick and need quick treatment.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The point is that a single payer system has inherent cost savings. It is more efficient than having 150 different insurance companies. All it means is that the government acts as the insurance company. That's it. Doctors still own there practices, and you can go to any doctor you chose.



Yep shelling out millions of dollars for prescriptions that were written by dead doctors...

and denying people who need treatment like the people in Canada.

Not to mention it would create a serious doctor shortage which has been experienced in Canada with a lot less diverse economic marketplace than the US.


----------



## Prefx (Aug 2, 2008)

It's a misnomer if the tax rates equate to less spending than private insurance, which is the case for every country using a universal model, be it two or single-pronged. The debt problem you brought up is another straw man. Debt is not naturally incurred from spending, but the method of spending.  Private debt has just as much affect as federal debt, as well. Seeing how most private debt is incurred from necessities and not frivelous consumption (as the media would like to portray - it's *your* fault), the fact all universal systems provide to more for less should be a good indicator, not a bad one.   

Obviously free lunches don't occur; economics is a social science. It is never isolated to an individual case. What one does with a stick inevitably means another person can't use that stick.


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Now that is BS, that may be how you envision it being here, but that is not how it is in most Nations with universal health care. You go where they tell you to go, and most of the time you wait in a long line to do it.
> 
> The thing is it works fine as long as you are healthy and only need regular scheduled check ups. The problems arise when you get sick and need quick treatment.



That is just not true, and I have posted links showing the truth.


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Yep shelling out millions of dollars for prescriptions that were written by dead doctors...
> 
> and denying people who need treatment like the people in Canada.
> 
> Not to mention it would create a serious doctor shortage which has been experienced in Canada with a lot less diverse economic marketplace than the US.



You don't need to worry, your government job provides you with healthcare.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Prefx said:


> It's a misnomer if the tax rates equate to less spending than private insurance, which is the case for every country using a universal model, be it two or single-pronged. The debt problem you brought up is another straw man. Debt is not naturally incurred from spending, but the method of spending.  Private debt has just as much affect as federal debt, as well. Seeing how most private debt is incurred from necessities and not frivelous consumption (as the media would like to portray - it's *your* fault), the fact all universal systems provide to more for less should be a good indicator, not a bad one.
> 
> Obviously free lunches don't occur; economics is a social science. It is never isolated to an individual case. What one does with a stick inevitably means another person can't use that stick.



I shouldn't have to pay for other peoples healthcare through higher taxes. Besides the fact, creating regulations on small business, MCdonalds and Target type companies would create a terrible economic tailspin. Where unemployment and inflation rates would double due to higher costs for these businesses to operate.


----------



## Prefx (Aug 2, 2008)

I have friends in Canada, I have family in Canada, _heck_ - I've been to Canada, and not once have I seen/heard/smelled/telepathically sensed people denied treatment. This seems like another popular myth passed around the internets on unreliable websites. Certainly with a growth in the number of Americans fleeing North over the past 30 years, one has to wonder if these incidents are isolated in the remote tundra.


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

If you want to keep on lying about universal healthcare, don't read this link....

Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 2, 2008)

I am for a system that Covers those who really need it, but not one that lumps all 300 million of us into it. 

Seems reasonable to me. 

However there would need to be ways to make sure people are not abusing it. As in people who can afford their own coverage who choose instead to use the Government system. 

I am also for reasonable steps to organize the Insurance companies and stop wasteful spending and rediculas over charging.

I know over charging goes on all the time, You can not tell me that the follow up shots my dad got after each Chemo treatment really needed to cost his insurance Company 11,000 dollars.

11,000 dollars for one needle full of stuff. Now that is BS!!


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You don't need to worry, *your government job provides you with healthcare.*


When did I ever say that I work for the government? I don't, I work in the private sector.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 2, 2008)

Prefx said:


> I have friends in Canada, I have family in Canada, _heck_ - I've been to Canada, and not once have I seen/heard/smelled/telepathically sensed people denied treatment. This seems like another popular myth passed around the internets on unreliable websites. Certainly with a growth in the number of Americans fleeing North over the past 30 years, one has to wonder if these incidents are isolated in the remote tundra.




Nobody has said they are denied treatment bud. I have said they often have to wait a long time to get in to even be diagnosed. 

When all you are doing is getting regular check ups, that are scheduled Months in advance it works fine. It is when you start to feel sick and try to get in right away and find you have to wait months to do so that it becomes an Issue.

As far as people feeling north from the US? what are basing that on that is total BS. The opposite is the case. Many people come here from up there, and from Europe because they can not get timely treatment up there. I have provided links about this in the past, of course most just ignored them.


----------



## Prefx (Aug 2, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I shouldn't have to pay for other peoples healthcare through higher taxes.



That's the assertion. Are you basing it around the view that only negative liberties are legitimate? If so, the "right to an attorney" is an infringement of liberty. You're asserting that another person must be present. 

Positive liberties are quite within reason. They are not based in force, merely the progression of society. *If* we can guarantee food to every child, then we do so. *If* we can guarantee emergency medical care to anyone, then we do so. These are based in incentives. I might add they're not that different. Air pollution laws could be ascribed as positive liberty and a protection of property, food for children is a method of protecting life, etc. 

The call of taxation for this purpose being theft is really ludicrous considering the biggest act of theft is private ownership of natural resources. Products not made from man's toil should not become a source of wealth. Only labor. 



> Besides the fact, creating regulations on small business



I don't believe in regulating any companies for health care purposes, especially small businesses. I *am* a small business owner. 



> , MCdonalds and Target type companies would create a terrible economic tailspin. Where unemployment and inflation rates would double due to higher costs for these businesses to operate.



You're making the assumption that I'm behind the plan put forward by Obama and Clinton. I'm enraged about the prospects of a Democratic victory as well - and a Republican one. Both parties favor big government in the form of little r republicanism.

However, your claim about doubling unemployment and inflation seems far-fetched. From what I've read, small businesses will be exempt, and major corporations can either opt to provide their own plan, or pay into a tax system. If higher taxes did come about for corporations, it wouldn't be the first time, and one of the worst occasions of unemployment actually occured in 1985. Then again, for all his rhetoric, Reagan did pass some whopping tax increases... 



			
				Charles-Maine said:
			
		

> complete BS



cbc.ca /canada/story/2007/07/30 /immigrants-us.html?ref=rss

_The number of Americans admitted to Canada last year reached a 30-year high, with a 20 per cent increase over the previous year and nearly double the number that arrived in 2000.

The results of a survey, conducted by the Association for Canadian Studies, also revealed that the so-called "brain drain" of Canada appears to be narrowing.

The survey found that 10,942 Americans came to Canada in 2006, compared to just over 9,262 in 2005. In 2000, 5,828 came to the country.

While twice as many Canadians went to the States than Americans came to Canada, that ratio diminished between 2005 and 2006.

In 2006, 23,913 Canadians went to the U.S., resulting in a net loss of 12,971 to Canada when compared to the Americans coming to Canada.

But in 2005, the net loss to Canada was 14,668._

Just to reiterate: I said in my previous post, "[C]ertainly with a growth in the number of Americans fleeing North over the past 30 years, one has to wonder if these incidents are isolated in the remote tundra."


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Nobody has said they are denied treatment bud. I have said they often have to wait a long time to get in to even be diagnosed.
> 
> When all you are doing is getting regular check ups, that are scheduled Months in advance it works fine. It is when you start to feel sick and try to get in right away and find you have to wait months to do so that it becomes an Issue.
> 
> As far as people feeling north from the US? what are basing that on that is total BS. The opposite is the case. Many people come here from up there, and from Europe because they can not get timely treatment up there. I have provided links about this in the past, of course most just ignored them.



Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Care4all said:


> how can we find out?  that would be cool to find out what they actually legislated and appropiated in their day....!!!
> 
> care


Nearly 0 dollars...that's the answer.
New Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The New Deal represented a significant shift in political and domestic policy in the U.S., with its more lasting changes being increased federal government control over the economy and money supply, intervention to control prices and agricultural production. *This was the beginning of complex social programs and wider acceptance of trade unions*.[2] The success and effects of the New Deal still remain a source of controversy and debate amongst economists and historians.[3]


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Prefx said:


> That's the assertion. Are you basing it around the view that only negative liberties are legitimate? If so, the "right to an attorney" is an infringement of liberty. You're asserting that another person must be present.
> 
> Positive liberties are quite within reason. They are not based in force, merely the progression of society. *If* we can guarantee food to every child, then we do so. *If* we can guarantee emergency medical care to anyone, then we do so. These are based in incentives. I might add they're not that different. Air pollution laws could be ascribed as positive liberty and a protection of property, food for children is a method of protecting life, etc.
> 
> ...



I guess it all depends on what you call universal healthcare?
A Conservative Approach To Universal Health Care - Forbes.com
The National Federation of Independent Businesses--the largest U.S. small business lobbying group, with 350,000 members--announced its support for universal health care today, a seemingly surprising move from an openly right-leaning interest group. 

For small businesses, the pain wrought by soaring health care costs is acute. Roughly 63% of all uninsured workers are either self-employed or work for firms with fewer than 100 employees, estimates the Employee Benefit Research Institute. And according to research by the 2007 National Small Business Association, only 47% of businesses with fewer than 500 employees offer health insurance, down from 58% in 1997. 
*
There is one key difference between the NFIB's plan and the strategies trotted out by Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. While Democrats aim to mandate universal health care (by forcing some companies that don't provide it to pay a penalty), the NFIB is pushing to drive out enough cost in the system to make providing the coverage a more feasible choice for small business owners.

"You can't mandate something that people can't afford," says Todd Stottlemyer, president of the NFIB. "It's not that people don't want to provide coverage, but they can't afford to."

In many ways, the NFIB plan echoes strategies trotted out by Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee for president--though McCain falls short of declaring universal coverage as a goal. Two of the shared proposals: purchasing health insurance across state lines and changing the tax code to allow both employers and individuals to claim deductions for purchasing health insurance. (Currently, only individuals with employer-sponsored coverage can claim tax deductions.)*
*Other NFIB proposals include portable health insurance (so people don't lose coverage when they switch jobs); more transparency on health insurance costs; and policy pooling to spread risk and reduce premiums. *Their differences notwithstanding, both sides of the aisle seem to agree that expanding access to affordable health care is of dire importance.

To wit: Back in 1993, the NFIB played a key role in quashing the Clintons' health care plan. This time around, though, both the NFIB and the more moderate National Small Business Association (60,000 members) say they're willing to put the task of fixing a broken U.S. health care system ahead of partisan politics.

"A number of groups--particularly biz groups that historically have not been strongly in favor of universal coverage--seem to be going that direction," says Larry Levitt, vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based health care research group. "There's a much greater inclination to look at broader reforms than in previous debates." 

For its part, the NFIB has shown its willingness to make concessions to push health care legislation forward. Last November, it joined a coalition called Divided We Fail that includes two unlikely allies: the AARP; the Service Employees Union, the nation's largest union, with 1.8 million members; and the Business Roundtable, a big-business lobbying group. 

Says Stottlemyer: "If you can fix health care for small businesses, you can fix it for America."


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

Universal coverage is cheaper. That is the point you are missing.

There are inherent cost savings in universal healthcare.

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Universal coverage is cheaper. That is the point you are missing.
> 
> There are inherent cost savings in universal healthcare.
> 
> Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org



No, I don't support mandating coverage of healthcare through govermental regulation for people and businesses that can't afford it. I support increasing portability and decreasing healthcare costs through transparency.


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

jreeves said:


> No, I don't support mandating coverage of healthcare through govermental regulation for people and businesses that can't afford it. I support increasing portability and decreasing healthcare costs through transparency.



That's because you have a government job with free healthcare benefits.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> That's because you have a government job with free healthcare benefits.



I don't work for the government, Nostradamus...


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I don't work for the government, Nostradamus...



Who do you work for?


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Who do you work for?



I work in real estate management....


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I work in real estate management....



So you pay for health insurance or your company pays?


----------



## Glori.B (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Poll Shows Majority Back Health Care for All
> 
> By ROBIN TONER and JANET ELDER
> Published: March 1, 2007
> ...



there's a big difference between the government guaranteeing health coverage for every american, which i think falls under protecting the general welfare...and wanting the government to be the administrator of a universal single payer plan, which i think would be the wrong way to go.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 2, 2008)

Glori.B said:


> there's a big difference between the government guaranteeing health coverage for every american, which i think falls under protecting the general welfare...and wanting the government to be the administrator of a universal single payer plan, which i think would be the wrong way to go.



I owe you rep for that one----obviously from the mind of someone with super powers.


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 2, 2008)

Glori.B said:


> there's a big difference between the government guaranteeing health coverage for every american, which i think falls under protecting the general welfare...and wanting the government to be the administrator of a universal single payer plan, which i think would be the wrong way to go.



Again... someone else misinterpreting what promoting the general welfare means...

Promoting the general welfare is not about providing individuals something.... it revolves around actions for the country with the populace as a whole (the populace as an entity)... The founding fathers never set up this constitutional republic to be a nanny state, an insurance company, or an allowance system.... the founding fathers never intended for the government to take over the personal responsibilities of the individual citizens of this country... and yes, you are to be responsible for yourself which includes you taking care of your medical expenses, you paying for your meds (or buying into an insurance type program on your own for your own expenses)....


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

Glori.B said:


> there's a big difference between the government guaranteeing health coverage for every american, which i think falls under protecting the general welfare...and wanting the government to be the administrator of a universal single payer plan, which i think would be the wrong way to go.




A single payer system has inherent cost savings. Requiring everyone to pay an insurance company is the worst of both worlds.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Universal coverage is cheaper. That is the point you are missing.
> 
> There are inherent cost savings in universal healthcare.
> 
> Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org



I do not care how much you save. The end result will still be the Government not the private sector spending the money. Which will mean higher taxes, and or  large deficits.


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I do not care how much you save. The end result will still be the Government not the private sector spending the money. Which will mean higher taxes, and or  large deficits.



That is wrong. Large deficits only come from tax cut and spend Republicans.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> So you pay for health insurance or your company pays?



Both


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> That is wrong. Large deficits only come from tax cut and spend Republicans.



Wow, i mean just wow.  Everyone knows balancing a budget or cutting spending isn't even on the left's radar.  How exactley is your side planning on balancing the budget?

As to universal healthcare I can and have previoulsy gone on extensively as to why it's a bad idea.  Here are just a few problems.

1) As Diuretic pointed out early on it works in Australia and Canada partially because the have a small population.  The fact that we have over ten times as many people in our country to consider is going to be part of the problem.

2)  The WHO list was posted in here as somehow proof that our system isn't working.  But if one were to look a bit closer at how those numbers were derived you would see they put a heavy emphasis on cost per individual, Meanwhile in terms of efficiency and quality of health care we were ranked in the top 5 if I recall according to that very list.  

3) Contrary to popular opinion universal health care will be far from preventative.  All it will do is reprioritize people's pain.  Right now if you need doctor you will be seen.  To a very limited extent the prirotization currently goes those that are insured are seen first.  Under UHC you will simply prioritzie people's pain to the point where we are only treating people when it is absolutely critical.

4) On an ideological note, why is your health my responsibilty?  As such the actual cost of health care will go even higher, not lower, because while prices are high now, history has shown the government is thoroughly incapable of towing the line in saying we will not pay for this.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> That is wrong. Large deficits only come from tax cut and spend Republicans.



Sigh...

How many times are you going to repeat lies? Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the large deficits of this country. Social programs such Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Housing assistance, foodstamps, headstart programs, earned income tax credits and many, many more programs are by far the major contributors to large deficits, which were in most cases programs trumpeted by democrats.


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Wow, i mean just wow.  Everyone knows balancing a budget or cutting spending isn't even on the left's radar.  How exactley is your side planning on balancing the budget?
> 
> As to universal healthcare I can and have previoulsy gone on extensively as to why it's a bad idea.  Here are just a few problems.
> 
> ...



Everything in your post is wrong. Everything.

Clinton balanced the budget. Bush and Reagan created 90% of the National Debt with supply side economics, or as George Bush Sr. called it, "Voodoo economics."

ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details

1. EVERY OTHER WESTERN DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD HAS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE.  Size has nothing to do with it. We are the richest country in the world, and we have more resources than any other country in the world. We can do it.

2. What good is healthcare if you can't afford it. 47 million people in the U.S. don't have any health insurance.

3. Universal healthcare is not preventative? Boy, that's a head scratcher. A lot of people in America can't afford to go to the doctor, so they put it off until the condition becomes chronic and they end up in the emergency room, the most expensive care there is. So yes, if people have universal coverage it is preventative because they will go to the doctor sooner.

4. Why is my health your responsibility. Guess what? If you have insurance, and I have the same insurance, my health is your responsibility. That's how it works. A single payer system is the same way. There is only one insurance company and that produces cost savings so everyone can be covered.


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Sigh...
> 
> How many times are you going to repeat lies? Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the large deficits of this country. Social programs such Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Housing assistance, foodstamps, headstart programs, earned income tax credits and many, many more programs are by far the major contributors to large deficits, which were in most cases programs trumpeted by democrats.



Supply side economics was Reagan's idea. Do a little reading on it and get back to me.

ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Everything in your post is wrong. Everything.
> 
> *Clinton balanced the budget*. Bush and Reagan created 90% of the National Debt with supply side economics, or as George Bush Sr. called it, "Voodoo economics."
> 
> ...



Lie...national debt grew under Clinton. I can provide links if needed.

In addition...
The Democratic Congress&#39;s 2008 Budget: A Tax and Spending Spree
In January, a Democratic congressional majority was sworn in that was elected in part by promising fiscal responsibility. The Democrats specifically pledged to limit spending increases and employ pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting to keep the budget deficit in check.

As their first year moves toward a close, it has become clear that the members of this majority have failed to live up to their promises. In just 10 months, *Congress has passed legislation that would increase federal spending by a combined $454 billion over 10 years and raise taxes and fees by $98 billion over 10 years and has passed a budget resolution that would bring the tax increase to a projected $2.7 trillion.[1]

Despite the Democrats' PAYGO pledge of no new deficit spending, legislation enacted thus far has increased spending much faster than taxes, resulting in an additional $356 billion in deficit spending. *


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Supply side economics was Reagan's idea. Do a little reading on it and get back to me.
> 
> ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details



Debt in the Reagan years grew under a Democratic Congress, which is ultimately responsible for tax and spend policies. But do keep repeating the same boring lies...its really funny and shows your desperation.


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Debt in the Reagan years grew under a Democratic Congress, which is ultimately responsible for tax and spend policies. But do keep repeating the same boring lies...its really funny and shows your desperation.



The truth hurts doesn't it.

ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

According to Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999, the debt at the end of the 1980 fiscal year, on 9/30/1980, was $907,701,000,000. On 9/30/1981, it was $997,855,000,000. Averaging it out over the year gives a debt of $246,997,260.27 per day. 

Reagan took office 112 days later on January 20, 1981. The debt on that date could be estimated as $907,701,000,000 plus 112 x $246,997,260.27, or $935,364,693,151. 

Bill Clinton was the only president to slow the rate of the accrual of debt since the current out-of-control spending began with the Borrow and Spend Republicans in 1981. 

The final amount of the senior Bush debt was $4,174,218,594,232.91 (according to Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)), and Clinton took office on 1/20/1993. Bill Clinton saw $1,553,558,144,071.73 added to the national debt during the eight years of his presidency. 

However, from the start of fiscal year 1994 (7 months after Clinton took office), until the start of fiscal year 2002 (7 months after Bush took office), the amount of money paid toward interest on the existing Federal debt was $2,767,282,794,374.59 (Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding). 

Therefore, no amount of the national debt is attributable to Bill Clinton - his policies of higher taxes and reduced spending actually simultaneously reduced the debt and brought about the strongest economy since World War II, despite the fiscal disaster left in the wake of Reagan and the first Bush. 

That means that Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George Walker Bush's borrow-and-spend Republican administrations oversaw and approved almost all of the national debt, except for as much as $935,364,693,151.00.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The truth hurts doesn't it.
> 
> ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details



It's funny, that you attribute it to Reagan when in fact Congress is responsible for tax and spending policies...


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

jreeves said:


> It's funny, that you attribute it to Reagan when in fact Congress is responsible for tax and spending policies...





According to Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999, the debt at the end of the 1980 fiscal year, on 9/30/1980, was $907,701,000,000. On 9/30/1981, it was $997,855,000,000. Averaging it out over the year gives a debt of $246,997,260.27 per day. 

Reagan took office 112 days later on January 20, 1981. The debt on that date could be estimated as $907,701,000,000 plus 112 x $246,997,260.27, or $935,364,693,151. 

Bill Clinton was the only president to slow the rate of the accrual of debt since the current out-of-control spending began with the Borrow and Spend Republicans in 1981. 

The final amount of the senior Bush debt was $4,174,218,594,232.91 (according to Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)), and Clinton took office on 1/20/1993. Bill Clinton saw $1,553,558,144,071.73 added to the national debt during the eight years of his presidency. 

However, from the start of fiscal year 1994 (7 months after Clinton took office), until the start of fiscal year 2002 (7 months after Bush took office), the amount of money paid toward interest on the existing Federal debt was $2,767,282,794,374.59 (Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding). 

Therefore, no amount of the national debt is attributable to Bill Clinton - his policies of higher taxes and reduced spending actually simultaneously reduced the debt and brought about the strongest economy since World War II, despite the fiscal disaster left in the wake of Reagan and the first Bush. 

That means that Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George Walker Bush's borrow-and-spend Republican administrations oversaw and approved almost all of the national debt, except for as much as $935,364,693,151.00.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> According to Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999, the debt at the end of the 1980 fiscal year, on 9/30/1980, was $907,701,000,000. On 9/30/1981, it was $997,855,000,000. Averaging it out over the year gives a debt of $246,997,260.27 per day.
> 
> Reagan took office 112 days later on January 20, 1981. The debt on that date could be estimated as $907,701,000,000 plus 112 x $246,997,260.27, or $935,364,693,151.
> 
> ...




Democratic Congress passed each and every dollar of the debt that was incurred during Reagan's Presidency


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 2, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Everything in your post is wrong. Everything.
> 
> Clinton balanced the budget. Bush and Reagan created 90% of the National Debt with supply side economics, or as George Bush Sr. called it, "Voodoo economics."



Not really an answer to the question, but that doesn't surprise me.  So Obams is planning to cut spending?



Kirk said:


> 1. EVERY OTHER WESTERN DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD HAS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE.  Size has nothing to do with it. We are the richest country in the world, and we have more resources than any other country in the world. We can do it.



Size has nothing do with it?  the fact that we 10 times as many people to pay for means nothing? ooookaaay



Kirk said:


> 2. What good is healthcare if you can't afford it. 47 million people in the U.S. don't have any health insurance.



What good is cheap healthcare if I have to wait in line to get it and would most likely be of lesser quality?



Kirk said:


> 3. Universal healthcare is not preventative? Boy, that's a head scratcher. A lot of people in America can't afford to go to the doctor, so they put it off until the condition becomes chronic and they end up in the emergency room, the most expensive care there is. So yes, if people have universal coverage it is preventative because they will go to the doctor sooner.



Apparently you didn't take basic econ anytime in your life.  When cost decreases, demand increases.  And now that cost is out of the equation and demand has increased we will now have to somehow prioritize who gets seen when in a different way.  Last I checked the wait to get an appointment for most doctors wasnt exactley short here.  Now that demand has increased that time will be even longer.  And now that cost is a non-issue we will simply priortize people's pain. 

You also didn't take civics i take it and thus lack an understanding of who is ultimately responsible for spending. Here's a hint.  It is NOT the president.



Kirk said:


> Why is my health your responsibility. Guess what? If you have insurance, and I have the same insurance, my health is your responsibility. That's how it works. A single payer system is the same way. There is only one insurance company and that produces cost savings so everyone can be covered.



If it's the same thing why change? How BE SPECIFIC do you think government will cut costs in healthcare?


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Not really an answer to the question, but that doesn't surprise me.  So Obams is planning to cut spending?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's funny I wonder if Kirk can name one spending bill Bush has passed? Or one spending bill Reagan has passed?

Civics and economics are obviously not his strong suit.


----------



## Chris (Aug 3, 2008)

jreeves said:


> It's funny I wonder if Kirk can name one spending bill Bush has passed? Or one spending bill Reagan has passed?
> 
> Civics and economics are obviously not his strong suit.



Reagan is responsible for the budget and you know it.


Downside of Reagan legacy
David Lazarus

Wednesday, June 9, 2004

Ronald Reagan may have been a good and decent man. 

As president, though, Reagan pursued policies that were short-sighted, reckless and, for many, hurtful. His economic legacy is one of deplorable disregard for the consequences of his actions, and the ramifications of Reagan's decisions remain with us to this day. 

I'll focus here on just three issues: soaring budget deficits, homelessness and AIDS. 

On the matter of deficits, Reagan nearly tripled the gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent. He did this by cutting tax rates by an average 25 percent, while aggressively increasing defense spending. 

In 1981, shortly after taking office, Reagan lamented "runaway deficits" that were then approaching $80 billion, or about 2.5 percent of gross domestic product. Within only two years, however, his policies had succeeded in enlarging the deficit to more than $200 billion, or 6 percent of GDP. 

"It was an experiment," said Alan Auerbach, a professor of economics at UC Berkeley. "No one before Reagan had ever run such huge deficits during peacetime. He showed that you could smile and tell everyone not to worry and, politically, no one will call you to account." 

This lesson clearly wasn't lost on the current occupant of the White House, who has followed the Reagan economic playbook virtually step by step in taking a budget surplus and turning it into a deficit this year of more than $520 billion, or 4.5 percent of GDP. 

Runaway deficits 

But runaway deficits do have consequences. They can lead to higher interest rates, exacerbate high debt-servicing costs and cause funding to dry up for important social programs, such as education and health care. 

"It was up to the first President Bush, the loyal soldier, to clean up the mess by raising taxes, and he didn't get re-elected because of it," Auerbach observed. "Clinton also had to raise taxes because of Reagan." 

Over time, the Reagan deficit became the Clinton surplus. We may not be as fortunate, though, in our efforts to sweep away the current Bush deficit. The looming retirement of millions of Baby Boomers, Auerbach noted, will soon place a huge burden on government coffers.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/09/BUGBI72U8Q1.DTL


----------



## jreeves (Aug 3, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Reagan is responsible for the budget and you know it.
> 
> 
> Downside of Reagan legacy
> ...



I know he didn't pass any budgets, Congress did. Now post me one budget that Reagan made law....waiting


----------



## Care4all (Aug 3, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I know he didn't pass any budgets, Congress did. Now post me one budget that Reagan made law....waiting



reagan, or the president issues each years budget, and vetos the budget passed by congress if it does not meet the president's standards.  If he signed the budget in to law, then reagan approved it....can't go in to law without his signature or a veto override.

reagan vetoed everything he did not agree with, for the most part.....that, he was strong at....imo.

care


----------



## Chris (Aug 3, 2008)

Care4all said:


> reagan, or the president issues each years budget, and vetos the budget passed by congress if it does not meet the president's standards.  If he signed the budget in to law, then reagan approved it....can't go in to law without his signature or a veto override.
> 
> reagan vetoed everything he did not agree with, for the most part.....that, he was strong at....imo.
> 
> care



Don't bother jreeves with the facts. He would rather live in a fantasy world.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 3, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Don't bother jreeves with the facts. He would rather live in a fantasy world.



Again apparently you don't understand basic civics.  The President can onlys sign off on what congress has ALREADY signed off on.  Which in the Reagan administration was controlled by democrats.  Are you trying to argue that congress, again controlled by the democrats in the House for all of Regean's administration and roughly half in the Senate, bears no responsibility for the budget?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 3, 2008)

Care4all said:


> reagan, or the president issues each years budget, and vetos the budget passed by congress if it does not meet the president's standards.  If he signed the budget in to law, then reagan approved it....can't go in to law without his signature or a veto override.
> 
> reagan vetoed everything he did not agree with, for the most part.....that, he was strong at....imo.
> 
> care



You think a president should not veto things he disagrees with ?


----------



## Chris (Aug 3, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Again apparently you don't understand basic civics.  The President can onlys sign off on what congress has ALREADY signed off on.  Which in the Reagan administration was controlled by democrats.  Are you trying to argue that congress, again controlled by the democrats in the House for all of Regean's administration and roughly half in the Senate, bears no responsibility for the budget?



Apparently you don't understand basic history. It was Reagan's budget plan approved by all the Republicans in Congress and a few Southern Democrats.

Plus, Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, admitted that the tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to lower taxes for the rich.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 3, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Apparently you don't understand basic history. It was Reagan's budget plan approved by all the Republicans in Congress and a few Southern Democrats.
> 
> Plus, Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, admitted that the tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to lower taxes for the rich.



What did the rich do to deserve to pay higher taxes?


----------



## Chris (Aug 3, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> What did the rich do to deserve to pay higher taxes?



They helped to elect George Bush.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 3, 2008)

Kirk said:


> They helped to elect George Bush.



oh shit-- partisan hacks 
 Problem # 2


----------



## jreeves (Aug 3, 2008)

Care4all said:


> reagan, or the president issues each years budget, and vetos the budget passed by congress if it does not meet the president's standards.  If he signed the budget in to law, then reagan approved it....can't go in to law without his signature or a veto override.
> 
> reagan vetoed everything he did not agree with, for the most part.....that, he was strong at....imo.
> 
> care



He issues a budget which receives a hatchet job in Congress.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 3, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Apparently you don't understand basic history. It was Reagan's budget plan approved by all the Republicans in Congress and a few Southern Democrats.
> 
> Plus, Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, admitted that the tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to lower taxes for the rich.



Apparently you are a partisan hack, Democrats and Republicans in Congress approved a revised version of the budget each and every year. That doesn't even count earmarks, spending supplementals, emergency funding measures...etc....


----------



## jreeves (Aug 3, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Don't bother jreeves with the facts. He would rather live in a fantasy world.



Kirk paraphrase....he has destroyed each and everyone of my lies with facts. So I feel the need to try and discredit him with even more lies.


----------

