"Smaller government" advocates

[frigidweirdo]

WOuld you say that universal healthcare, paid for by the govt, is "legalized extortion"?

Someone has to pay for all the freebies, l just pay for my own way.
I have no right to healthcare, but I do have an right to earn my own healthcare...

And again, I believe in universal healthcare paid for by the government.

You pay your way, and you also pay massively for the corruption. They estimate about 30% of healthcare spending goes on corruption. The govt pays half, you pay half.

Assume you take the slack for the corruption, that means 60% of what you pay in health insurance goes on corruption and 40% of healthcare.

You're happy with that?

I don't have any insurance, I pay out of pocket always have. I have never claimed anything off of insurance in my life.

Made to pay into a pool is legalized extortion...

And if you get cancer? Then either you're rich enough to have this luxury, or you're fucked.

My father had cancer, and without insurance he'd have either died or bankrupted the family.

I'm fortunate enough to be able to pay for whatever comes up for myself and for my family. I should not be made to pay into any sort of pool.
Frivolous lawsuits have made the cost of medical treatment out of reach in a lot of cases...

I disagree.

You are rich enough to pay for your family. However with healthcare maybe something will happen in the future where you'll need someone else to pay for you.

It's like insurance. You never really know what's going to happen. Now you can afford everything. In the future, things might change.

For some things, like education or health, people should pool. Even people who can't have children should pool into the education pot.

Yes, lawsuits and all of that are part of the corruption around healthcare that is ridiculous.

 

[Rustic]

Someone has to pay for all the freebies, l just pay for my own way.
I have no right to healthcare, but I do have an right to earn my own healthcare...

And again, I believe in universal healthcare paid for by the government.

You pay your way, and you also pay massively for the corruption. They estimate about 30% of healthcare spending goes on corruption. The govt pays half, you pay half.

Assume you take the slack for the corruption, that means 60% of what you pay in health insurance goes on corruption and 40% of healthcare.

You're happy with that?

I don't have any insurance, I pay out of pocket always have. I have never claimed anything off of insurance in my life.

Made to pay into a pool is legalized extortion...

And if you get cancer? Then either you're rich enough to have this luxury, or you're fucked.

My father had cancer, and without insurance he'd have either died or bankrupted the family.

I'm fortunate enough to be able to pay for whatever comes up for myself and for my family. I should not be made to pay into any sort of pool.
Frivolous lawsuits have made the cost of medical treatment out of reach in a lot of cases...

I disagree.

You are rich enough to pay for your family. However with healthcare maybe something will happen in the future where you'll need someone else to pay for you.

It's like insurance. You never really know what's going to happen. Now you can afford everything. In the future, things might change.

For some things, like education or health, people should pool. Even people who can't have children should pool into the education pot.

Yes, lawsuits and all of that are part of the corruption around healthcare that is ridiculous.

It should be an opt in or opt out choice, for any sort of pool or socialist entitlement program. Frivolous lawsuits should be made illegal.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Someone has to pay for all the freebies, l just pay for my own way.
I have no right to healthcare, but I do have an right to earn my own healthcare...

And again, I believe in universal healthcare paid for by the government.

You pay your way, and you also pay massively for the corruption. They estimate about 30% of healthcare spending goes on corruption. The govt pays half, you pay half.

Assume you take the slack for the corruption, that means 60% of what you pay in health insurance goes on corruption and 40% of healthcare.

You're happy with that?

I don't have any insurance, I pay out of pocket always have. I have never claimed anything off of insurance in my life.

Made to pay into a pool is legalized extortion...

And if you get cancer? Then either you're rich enough to have this luxury, or you're fucked.

My father had cancer, and without insurance he'd have either died or bankrupted the family.

I'm fortunate enough to be able to pay for whatever comes up for myself and for my family. I should not be made to pay into any sort of pool.
Frivolous lawsuits have made the cost of medical treatment out of reach in a lot of cases...

I disagree.

You are rich enough to pay for your family. However with healthcare maybe something will happen in the future where you'll need someone else to pay for you.

It's like insurance. You never really know what's going to happen. Now you can afford everything. In the future, things might change.

For some things, like education or health, people should pool. Even people who can't have children should pool into the education pot.

Yes, lawsuits and all of that are part of the corruption around healthcare that is ridiculous.

Question: why should everybody "pool" to pay for the education of children that are not theirs? Half of my property taxes go to fund schools I nor my tenants have children in.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then again the times are changing AWAY from repressive policies, not towards

Four words: O ba ma care

Are you insane?

Insane? No, I support a health system which is basically funded out of money from the government, that's available for all, that has a lot less corruption than the US system.

People talk about smaller govt, yet the US spent the same amount on healthcare as the UK, even though Americans had to have private health insurance and the British don't.

I'm not saying Obamacare is great, the actual thing is rubbish, but it's a step in the right direction.

It is, huh?

Well according to the Obama Care people, they signed up over 12 million Americans although that's been disputed and it's actually more around 10 million. That's 10 million more government dependents. How much of a larger government can you get than that?

You mean, you're pissed because 10 million people have HEALTHCARE? Are you fucking serious?

When I'm paying for it, sure I'm pissed. When I lost my healthcare insurance so some french fry maker could have insurance instead, you bet I'm pissed.

More than that is Commie Care had nothing to do with everybody being insured, it had to do with making more government dependents which it successfully did. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And again, I believe in universal healthcare paid for by the government.

You pay your way, and you also pay massively for the corruption. They estimate about 30% of healthcare spending goes on corruption. The govt pays half, you pay half.

Assume you take the slack for the corruption, that means 60% of what you pay in health insurance goes on corruption and 40% of healthcare.

You're happy with that?

I don't have any insurance, I pay out of pocket always have. I have never claimed anything off of insurance in my life.

Made to pay into a pool is legalized extortion...

And if you get cancer? Then either you're rich enough to have this luxury, or you're fucked.

My father had cancer, and without insurance he'd have either died or bankrupted the family.

I'm fortunate enough to be able to pay for whatever comes up for myself and for my family. I should not be made to pay into any sort of pool.
Frivolous lawsuits have made the cost of medical treatment out of reach in a lot of cases...

I disagree.

You are rich enough to pay for your family. However with healthcare maybe something will happen in the future where you'll need someone else to pay for you.

It's like insurance. You never really know what's going to happen. Now you can afford everything. In the future, things might change.

For some things, like education or health, people should pool. Even people who can't have children should pool into the education pot.

Yes, lawsuits and all of that are part of the corruption around healthcare that is ridiculous.

It should be an opt in or opt out choice, for any sort of pool or socialist entitlement program. Frivolous lawsuits should be made illegal.

Again, I disagree with opt in opt out. At times in people's lives they may require medical assistance that the government has paid for.

$95 billion a year spent on medical research

$95 billion is spent every year on medical research. 28% of this is from the National Institute of Health which has an annual budget of $30 billion. Who pays for this? The tax payer does. Why should you be able to opt out of this? This is where most of the USEFUL research goes on. Companies often spend their money "proving" their products are better than others and stuff like this, the NIH undertakes the most risky research.

The health of the nation is important for business and society in general, mental health being one of them, how many people with mental health are in prison because they don't get the help they need because they can't work, or can't work well, and can't afford the treatment because it's private? Then they go shoot people, or rob people, or cause no end of problems because they don't get what they need.

There are many issues like this.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And again, I believe in universal healthcare paid for by the government.

Sounds wonderful... except it's immoral and there is no such thing possible.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Question: why should everybody "pool" to pay for the education of children that are not theirs? Half of my property taxes go to fund schools I nor my tenants have children in.

It's a good question. I first came across it when I was working in a roadside restaurant when I was 16, and someone working there, one of the full timers, asked me this.

The answer hasn't changed much in all those years either.

An educated work force is beneficial for the country. The more educated the workforce, the more money the country is going to produce. If you have someone who can fix a car, they might earn, what, $20,000 a year, someone who can fix a plane might earn $100,000 a year. (Made up salaries, I don't know, I just know they earn more).

Businessmen and women make a lot of money employing people who have the skills they need. Where did they get such skills? More than likely 99% of their workforce came from the mass education system. They make money out of the mass education system, why shouldn't they put back into the mass education system?

Because of a mass education system EVERYONE'S salaries go up. You go to a poor country and things are cheap because the people working in shops earn $2 a day. That means they don't need to slap huge profits on every item. Go to a western country and the price will be double, with half of that going to pay wages and rental fees or other such costs which are high because everyone ends up getting a slice of the pie.

That's why.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then again the times are changing AWAY from repressive policies, not towards

Four words: O ba ma care

Are you insane?

Insane? No, I support a health system which is basically funded out of money from the government, that's available for all, that has a lot less corruption than the US system.

People talk about smaller govt, yet the US spent the same amount on healthcare as the UK, even though Americans had to have private health insurance and the British don't.

I'm not saying Obamacare is great, the actual thing is rubbish, but it's a step in the right direction.

It is, huh?

Well according to the Obama Care people, they signed up over 12 million Americans although that's been disputed and it's actually more around 10 million. That's 10 million more government dependents. How much of a larger government can you get than that?

You mean, you're pissed because 10 million people have HEALTHCARE? Are you fucking serious?

When I'm paying for it, sure I'm pissed. When I lost my healthcare insurance so some french fry maker could have insurance instead, you bet I'm pissed.

More than that is Commie Care had nothing to do with everybody being insured, it had to do with making more government dependents which it successfully did. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Let's put it this with with your "Commie Care".

If you lived in the UK you'd be spending HALF what you spend in the US. You might not get a better service, but you'd get a very good service. A service that is good enough, and you'd get it if you were unemployed, you'd get it if you were employed, your kids would get it, you parents would get it no matter how old they are. You'd get it when you walked in the door, no questions asked, no worrying how much it would cost or if you're going to have problems.

Now, if the UK were to increase their spending by 50% they'd have an excellent service, less corruption, however they have a conservative govt which is intent on making friends by making a private system. To pay people through corruption and to make the poorer people have worse healthcare and pay more for the privilege. Things are already going downhill and they've been in for 5 years.

That's the difference between "Commie Care" and the private care or "Corrupt Care" as it should be known.

I know which I prefer, and I've lived under countries with private health, public health and not very much health care.

 

[Political Junky]

Small government lets industry dump anything they want into our air or water

Hat's off to you rightwinger, anyone that can formulate an entire belief system based on nothing more than bumper sticker slogans and the latest fad at the tattoo parlor is truly a wonder to behold, well done.
.

Republicans have advocated abolishment of the EPA

Something they have been fighting for over thirty years......small government

Abolition of the EPA would be a huge gift to industry, who've bought off Congress for so long.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Marriage is nothing but a property contract

My goodness... The Federal Government only licensed degeneracy and look at consequence of such, in just 6 MONTHS!

That;s the legal definition

There is no need to imbue it with superstitious shit

LOL!

So human physiology is superstition?

Reader... do you see how pathetic it gets when Relativism infects the mind? Even science can't be trusted.

Tell me where in my comments about marriage as a legal property contract did I mention human physiology?

Religion is superstition

IMO the government should not recognize any marriage performed by the clergy and only those performed by a duly charged civil employee or judge

I never understood why we live by the idea of separation of church and state yet we allow clergy to have legal power to perform marriages

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Small government lets industry dump anything they want into our air or water

Hat's off to you rightwinger, anyone that can formulate an entire belief system based on nothing more than bumper sticker slogans and the latest fad at the tattoo parlor is truly a wonder to behold, well done.
.

Republicans have advocated abolishment of the EPA

Something they have been fighting for over thirty years......small government

Abolition of the EPA would be a huge gift to industry, who've bought off Congress for so long.

Yep, just like unions, insurance companies and trial lawyers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Four words: O ba ma care

Are you insane?

Insane? No, I support a health system which is basically funded out of money from the government, that's available for all, that has a lot less corruption than the US system.

People talk about smaller govt, yet the US spent the same amount on healthcare as the UK, even though Americans had to have private health insurance and the British don't.

I'm not saying Obamacare is great, the actual thing is rubbish, but it's a step in the right direction.

It is, huh?

Well according to the Obama Care people, they signed up over 12 million Americans although that's been disputed and it's actually more around 10 million. That's 10 million more government dependents. How much of a larger government can you get than that?

You mean, you're pissed because 10 million people have HEALTHCARE? Are you fucking serious?

When I'm paying for it, sure I'm pissed. When I lost my healthcare insurance so some french fry maker could have insurance instead, you bet I'm pissed.

More than that is Commie Care had nothing to do with everybody being insured, it had to do with making more government dependents which it successfully did. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Let's put it this with with your "Commie Care".

If you lived in the UK you'd be spending HALF what you spend in the US. You might not get a better service, but you'd get a very good service. A service that is good enough, and you'd get it if you were unemployed, you'd get it if you were employed, your kids would get it, you parents would get it no matter how old they are. You'd get it when you walked in the door, no questions asked, no worrying how much it would cost or if you're going to have problems.

Now, if the UK were to increase their spending by 50% they'd have an excellent service, less corruption, however they have a conservative govt which is intent on making friends by making a private system. To pay people through corruption and to make the poorer people have worse healthcare and pay more for the privilege. Things are already going downhill and they've been in for 5 years.

That's the difference between "Commie Care" and the private care or "Corrupt Care" as it should be known.

I know which I prefer, and I've lived under countries with private health, public health and not very much health care.

Well let me tell ya, our northern borders here are loaded with Canadian patients. Why? Because their healthcare system is too poorly run and doesn't provide the quality. As a lifelong patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, I can testify that when you walk into that place, you're the one that feels like the foreigner. Looking around at the medical staff, you'd think you were in the UN or something.

Medical professionals from around the world come here to work in our system because it pays the best money. If you're not good enough to come here, you stay in your country where they have socialized healthcare.

Cost: the cost of our healthcare starts with our failed government systems. Medicare and Medicaid typically pay 30% less than the charges for their patients. Providers are not going to take the loss. They increase fees on everybody which of course gets transferred to our private pay and private insurance companies. Then our medical insurance skyrockets and we end up with a problem. So what was our genius solution? Start yet another government program.

There is no perfect healthcare system. Every one around the globe has some kind of problems. If it's not cost, it's that everybody can't get it. If everybody can get it, it's quality of care.

If people want a socialized system, fine with me, but everybody should pay, not just political enemies of the creators of the system. We should have a national consumption tax. The poor pay, the middle-class pay, the wealthy pay. The more you buy, the more you contribute to the system.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Question: why should everybody "pool" to pay for the education of children that are not theirs? Half of my property taxes go to fund schools I nor my tenants have children in.

It's a good question. I first came across it when I was working in a roadside restaurant when I was 16, and someone working there, one of the full timers, asked me this.

The answer hasn't changed much in all those years either.

An educated work force is beneficial for the country. The more educated the workforce, the more money the country is going to produce. If you have someone who can fix a car, they might earn, what, $20,000 a year, someone who can fix a plane might earn $100,000 a year. (Made up salaries, I don't know, I just know they earn more).

Businessmen and women make a lot of money employing people who have the skills they need. Where did they get such skills? More than likely 99% of their workforce came from the mass education system. They make money out of the mass education system, why shouldn't they put back into the mass education system?

Because of a mass education system EVERYONE'S salaries go up. You go to a poor country and things are cheap because the people working in shops earn $2 a day. That means they don't need to slap huge profits on every item. Go to a western country and the price will be double, with half of that going to pay wages and rental fees or other such costs which are high because everyone ends up getting a slice of the pie.

That's why.

I agree we need an educated population, but that still doesn't tell me why your neighbor should pay for it.

If you have children, you should pay for their food, you should pay for their clothing, you should pay for their medical care, and yes, you should pay for their education too.

In our state, local schools are funded by property taxes. It's based on the value of your property instead of how many children you have. For instance, I may have to pay $4,000 a year because of the size of my property, but I have no children in school. The person down the street may have to only pay $1,500 per year because he or she has a smaller property, but they have four kids in the school system. And if you decide to send your children to private school, you get the double F'n. You have to pay for your kids education, and the education of your neighbors kids.

BUT WE NEED TO FUND OUR SCHOOLS! Okay, but why are people with no children in the schools paying more than those with children in the schools? And if we have to fund the schools, fine, but why do we have to fund swimming pools, football stadiums, school busses, gymnasiums?

So you ship your kids to school on a taxpayer funded school bus, from there they go to class in a taxpayer funded building, with taxpayer funded teachers. Then they go to lunch and eat on the taxpayers dime. Some schools even have breakfast and dinner as well. They get to play in the taxpayer funded gymnasium, and then back home on the taxpayer funded busses.

If I'm being forced to pay for your kids education, is it asking too much that you at least feed them and provide their transportation to the school?????

 

[frigidweirdo]

Insane? No, I support a health system which is basically funded out of money from the government, that's available for all, that has a lot less corruption than the US system.

People talk about smaller govt, yet the US spent the same amount on healthcare as the UK, even though Americans had to have private health insurance and the British don't.

I'm not saying Obamacare is great, the actual thing is rubbish, but it's a step in the right direction.

It is, huh?

Well according to the Obama Care people, they signed up over 12 million Americans although that's been disputed and it's actually more around 10 million. That's 10 million more government dependents. How much of a larger government can you get than that?

You mean, you're pissed because 10 million people have HEALTHCARE? Are you fucking serious?

When I'm paying for it, sure I'm pissed. When I lost my healthcare insurance so some french fry maker could have insurance instead, you bet I'm pissed.

More than that is Commie Care had nothing to do with everybody being insured, it had to do with making more government dependents which it successfully did. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Let's put it this with with your "Commie Care".

If you lived in the UK you'd be spending HALF what you spend in the US. You might not get a better service, but you'd get a very good service. A service that is good enough, and you'd get it if you were unemployed, you'd get it if you were employed, your kids would get it, you parents would get it no matter how old they are. You'd get it when you walked in the door, no questions asked, no worrying how much it would cost or if you're going to have problems.

Now, if the UK were to increase their spending by 50% they'd have an excellent service, less corruption, however they have a conservative govt which is intent on making friends by making a private system. To pay people through corruption and to make the poorer people have worse healthcare and pay more for the privilege. Things are already going downhill and they've been in for 5 years.

That's the difference between "Commie Care" and the private care or "Corrupt Care" as it should be known.

I know which I prefer, and I've lived under countries with private health, public health and not very much health care.

Well let me tell ya, our northern borders here are loaded with Canadian patients. Why? Because their healthcare system is too poorly run and doesn't provide the quality. As a lifelong patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, I can testify that when you walk into that place, you're the one that feels like the foreigner. Looking around at the medical staff, you'd think you were in the UN or something.

Medical professionals from around the world come here to work in our system because it pays the best money. If you're not good enough to come here, you stay in your country where they have socialized healthcare.

Cost: the cost of our healthcare starts with our failed government systems. Medicare and Medicaid typically pay 30% less than the charges for their patients. Providers are not going to take the loss. They increase fees on everybody which of course gets transferred to our private pay and private insurance companies. Then our medical insurance skyrockets and we end up with a problem. So what was our genius solution? Start yet another government program.

There is no perfect healthcare system. Every one around the globe has some kind of problems. If it's not cost, it's that everybody can't get it. If everybody can get it, it's quality of care.

If people want a socialized system, fine with me, but everybody should pay, not just political enemies of the creators of the system. We should have a national consumption tax. The poor pay, the middle-class pay, the wealthy pay. The more you buy, the more you contribute to the system.

Yeah, it's so bad that a MASSIVE percentage of Canadians go use the US healthcare system.

Antisense Propaganda: Percentage of Canadians using the US health care system

"the study concluded that Canada spends slightly more than half of what America does per capita for health care, yet reaches similar if not better overall results in terms of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and overall citizen health."

That's not to say that the US doesn't have some very good hospitals, and some Canadians might choose to go to the US, especially if they have a lot of money and can afford some of the best care.

However, we're not talking about the 1%ers, we're talking about the average Joe having to go to hospital.


Canada vs. US Health Care Systems - Debunking Health Care Myths - AARP

"
5 Myths About Canada’s Health Care System"

"To separate fact from fiction, Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., the director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research in Indianapolis, identified the top myths about the two health care systems."

"Myth #1: Canadians are flocking to the United States to get medical care."

"I don’t deny that some well-off people might come to the United States for medical care. If I needed a heart or lung transplant, there’s no place I’d rather have it done. But for the vast, vast majority of people, that’s not happening."

"They found that more than 80 percent of these hospital visits were for emergency or urgent care (that is, tourists who had to go to the emergency room). Only about 20 percent of the visits were for elective procedures or care."

"Next, the authors of the study surveyed America’s 20 “best” hospitals — as identified by U.S. News & World Report — on the assumption that if Canadians were going to travel for health care, they would be more likely to go to the best-known and highest-quality facilities. Only one of the 11 hospitals that responded saw more than 60 Canadians in a year. And, again, that included both emergencies and elective care."

"Finally, the study’s authors examined data from the 18,000 Canadians who participated in the National Population Health Survey. In the previous year, 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them, however, reported going to the United States expressively for the purpose of obtaining care."

Wow, 20 out of 18,000. That's like, MASSIVE.

So, I've called you bluff on that one. I think you just listen to the wrong people, people with an agenda.

Corruption in Healthcare

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/mspar...lobal Report on Corruption--2006--pp16-22.pdf

"Despite the essentially invisible nature of the problem, health care fraud in the United States was deemed sufficiently serious by the Clinton administration (based on cases revealed) that in 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno declared it America’s ‘number two crime problem’, second only to violent crime."

"‘abuse of entrusted authority’, does cover dishonest actions of physicians, hospitals and other health care professionals, who are generally afforded high social and professional status and are expected to exercise professional medical judgement unbiased by private financial interests. The majority of fraud within the system, perpetrated by medical providers, can therefore be understood as corruption under this definition."

This article gives a number of ways that corruption is prevalent in the US system.

Corruption, fraud and bureaucracy cost US healthcare system up to $272 billion annually

"
Corruption, fraud and bureaucracy cost US healthcare system up to $272 billion annually"

"According to data compiled as part of a larger research project into medical corruption, the U.S. loses as much as $272 billion annually due to things like medical embezzlement and insurance billing fraud, both of which are rampant."

Medicare accounts for a lot of this fraud

"a bulk of the nation's medical fraud occurs within public sector health services like Medicare and Medicaid, which account for more than one-third of all known fraud."

"As explained in a recent piece for The Economist, nearly $100 billion in fraud takes place within the confines of Medicare and Medicaid spending, while the remaining $172 billion occurs elsewhere. "

The problem in the US is that people are on the take, because they can.

All government money ends up, at some point, in the hands of private companies, who are able to get more of this money by providing services that are not required.

In a healthcare system that is public, where money isn't being thrown around, this isn't so much of an issue. If a nurse doesn't have to make money, but just does their job, then they can't hope to defraud anyway. Doctors still could, but then their chances of providing the most costly drugs are limited because they simply give them out, they don't take part in the financial part of the job.

The US has rampant corruption for many reasons, however the biggest reason is that it's all about money, unlike most healthcare systems in the world.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Question: why should everybody "pool" to pay for the education of children that are not theirs? Half of my property taxes go to fund schools I nor my tenants have children in.

It's a good question. I first came across it when I was working in a roadside restaurant when I was 16, and someone working there, one of the full timers, asked me this.

The answer hasn't changed much in all those years either.

An educated work force is beneficial for the country. The more educated the workforce, the more money the country is going to produce. If you have someone who can fix a car, they might earn, what, $20,000 a year, someone who can fix a plane might earn $100,000 a year. (Made up salaries, I don't know, I just know they earn more).

Businessmen and women make a lot of money employing people who have the skills they need. Where did they get such skills? More than likely 99% of their workforce came from the mass education system. They make money out of the mass education system, why shouldn't they put back into the mass education system?

Because of a mass education system EVERYONE'S salaries go up. You go to a poor country and things are cheap because the people working in shops earn $2 a day. That means they don't need to slap huge profits on every item. Go to a western country and the price will be double, with half of that going to pay wages and rental fees or other such costs which are high because everyone ends up getting a slice of the pie.

That's why.

I agree we need an educated population, but that still doesn't tell me why your neighbor should pay for it.

If you have children, you should pay for their food, you should pay for their clothing, you should pay for their medical care, and yes, you should pay for their education too.

In our state, local schools are funded by property taxes. It's based on the value of your property instead of how many children you have. For instance, I may have to pay $4,000 a year because of the size of my property, but I have no children in school. The person down the street may have to only pay $1,500 per year because he or she has a smaller property, but they have four kids in the school system. And if you decide to send your children to private school, you get the double F'n. You have to pay for your kids education, and the education of your neighbors kids.

BUT WE NEED TO FUND OUR SCHOOLS! Okay, but why are people with no children in the schools paying more than those with children in the schools? And if we have to fund the schools, fine, but why do we have to fund swimming pools, football stadiums, school busses, gymnasiums?

So you ship your kids to school on a taxpayer funded school bus, from there they go to class in a taxpayer funded building, with taxpayer funded teachers. Then they go to lunch and eat on the taxpayers dime. Some schools even have breakfast and dinner as well. They get to play in the taxpayer funded gymnasium, and then back home on the taxpayer funded busses.

If I'm being forced to pay for your kids education, is it asking too much that you at least feed them and provide their transportation to the school?????

Your neighbor should pay for it because they benefit from it.

You should pay for clothes, food and so on. Education to a lesser degree. The govt FORCES parents to educate their children. While you could say it also forces them to feed their children, and to clothe their children, you'd have to say that a parent who doesn't feed their kids is getting close to murder, a parent who doesn't clothe their kids will probably get arrest on child abuse, but a parent who doesn't educate their kids is what? Education isn't essential. A person can live life without being educated. Some people do, like some mentally disabled people who simply can't learn what is needed (but which is really neither here nor there), in the past kids didn't go to school, but they needed food and clothing.

We want our kids to reach certain levels of education. Therefore it's mandatory to send them to school. If you vote for politicians, and these politicians make it mandatory to vote, why shouldn't you pay for this?

If the government made it mandatory to drive a Ferrari, would you not be a little miffed if they didn't buy you a Ferrari?

In many places education is funded by property taxes. And what this does is it means kids who are from wealthy families are advantaged, kids from middle class families are okay, and kids in poorer areas are screwed. Look at the US, look at the problems with inner city areas and compare this to other first world countries. There's such a big difference. The US is producing criminals to stick in prisons when they hit 18 years old or, as if often the case, earlier.

Do you really want this in your society? I don't.

And the solution to this is to have education funding that is equal for all kids. All kids receive the same money for going to school (in the sense that the school receives the money for that pupil).

If you choose private school, it's your choice. If you have no kids, it's your choice. At the end of the day people should be paying for an educated work force because it benefits MOST PEOPLE in society.

Without kids, a person still probably went through the education system, they still benefit from higher wages because of the educated society, they still benefit from the infrastructure, the armed forces and all of those things that are at the level they're at because of the educated society.

Compare societies where education isn't great. Most of them are poor countries. Okay, it's a cycle, they're parents are poor and the govt is poor, neither can afford to send them to school.

Schools and Education in Zambia

Take Zambia, it has a GDP of $4,000, it provides free education up till 7th grade, and many rural students don't actually have teachers. There is a link between the two things. It works from both sides. Because GDP is low and taxes are low, education is difficult to fund, and students are poorly educated and can't do good jobs which pay more taxes and allow for better education.
However in the west it was the same way back when, the more money came, the more educated people got, the better the economy did. The US with an 18th century educated workforce would simply not be very rich in the world.

Ah, funding other stuff. I don't think these things should be funded. This is a problem in the US that politicians aren't working to improve things for the people, they're representing themselves and big money. The US needs a massive change in what the govt is about.

You have people like Trump (and now Kayne West and Will Smith want to get in on it) who are just using politics for themselves, which politicians are really interested in just making things better for the people?

In Europe, politicians are more likely, especially in Germanic countries and Scandinavian countries. These countries make sure things are in place that people want and need, they make a society. (They're not perfect by any means, but better than the US)

The US is like Africa. Politicians get in and then try and make themselves rich and possibly their friends.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Question: why should everybody "pool" to pay for the education of children that are not theirs? Half of my property taxes go to fund schools I nor my tenants have children in.

It's a good question. I first came across it when I was working in a roadside restaurant when I was 16, and someone working there, one of the full timers, asked me this.

The answer hasn't changed much in all those years either.

An educated work force is beneficial for the country. The more educated the workforce, the more money the country is going to produce. If you have someone who can fix a car, they might earn, what, $20,000 a year, someone who can fix a plane might earn $100,000 a year. (Made up salaries, I don't know, I just know they earn more).

Businessmen and women make a lot of money employing people who have the skills they need. Where did they get such skills? More than likely 99% of their workforce came from the mass education system. They make money out of the mass education system, why shouldn't they put back into the mass education system?

Because of a mass education system EVERYONE'S salaries go up. You go to a poor country and things are cheap because the people working in shops earn $2 a day. That means they don't need to slap huge profits on every item. Go to a western country and the price will be double, with half of that going to pay wages and rental fees or other such costs which are high because everyone ends up getting a slice of the pie.

That's why.

I agree we need an educated population, but that still doesn't tell me why your neighbor should pay for it.

If you have children, you should pay for their food, you should pay for their clothing, you should pay for their medical care, and yes, you should pay for their education too.

In our state, local schools are funded by property taxes. It's based on the value of your property instead of how many children you have. For instance, I may have to pay $4,000 a year because of the size of my property, but I have no children in school. The person down the street may have to only pay $1,500 per year because he or she has a smaller property, but they have four kids in the school system. And if you decide to send your children to private school, you get the double F'n. You have to pay for your kids education, and the education of your neighbors kids.

BUT WE NEED TO FUND OUR SCHOOLS! Okay, but why are people with no children in the schools paying more than those with children in the schools? And if we have to fund the schools, fine, but why do we have to fund swimming pools, football stadiums, school busses, gymnasiums?

So you ship your kids to school on a taxpayer funded school bus, from there they go to class in a taxpayer funded building, with taxpayer funded teachers. Then they go to lunch and eat on the taxpayers dime. Some schools even have breakfast and dinner as well. They get to play in the taxpayer funded gymnasium, and then back home on the taxpayer funded busses.

If I'm being forced to pay for your kids education, is it asking too much that you at least feed them and provide their transportation to the school?????

Your neighbor should pay for it because they benefit from it.

You should pay for clothes, food and so on. Education to a lesser degree. The govt FORCES parents to educate their children. While you could say it also forces them to feed their children, and to clothe their children, you'd have to say that a parent who doesn't feed their kids is getting close to murder, a parent who doesn't clothe their kids will probably get arrest on child abuse, but a parent who doesn't educate their kids is what? Education isn't essential. A person can live life without being educated. Some people do, like some mentally disabled people who simply can't learn what is needed (but which is really neither here nor there), in the past kids didn't go to school, but they needed food and clothing.

We want our kids to reach certain levels of education. Therefore it's mandatory to send them to school. If you vote for politicians, and these politicians make it mandatory to vote, why shouldn't you pay for this?

If the government made it mandatory to drive a Ferrari, would you not be a little miffed if they didn't buy you a Ferrari?

In many places education is funded by property taxes. And what this does is it means kids who are from wealthy families are advantaged, kids from middle class families are okay, and kids in poorer areas are screwed. Look at the US, look at the problems with inner city areas and compare this to other first world countries. There's such a big difference. The US is producing criminals to stick in prisons when they hit 18 years old or, as if often the case, earlier.

Do you really want this in your society? I don't.

And the solution to this is to have education funding that is equal for all kids. All kids receive the same money for going to school (in the sense that the school receives the money for that pupil).

If you choose private school, it's your choice. If you have no kids, it's your choice. At the end of the day people should be paying for an educated work force because it benefits MOST PEOPLE in society.

Without kids, a person still probably went through the education system, they still benefit from higher wages because of the educated society, they still benefit from the infrastructure, the armed forces and all of those things that are at the level they're at because of the educated society.

Compare societies where education isn't great. Most of them are poor countries. Okay, it's a cycle, they're parents are poor and the govt is poor, neither can afford to send them to school.

Schools and Education in Zambia

Take Zambia, it has a GDP of $4,000, it provides free education up till 7th grade, and many rural students don't actually have teachers. There is a link between the two things. It works from both sides. Because GDP is low and taxes are low, education is difficult to fund, and students are poorly educated and can't do good jobs which pay more taxes and allow for better education.
However in the west it was the same way back when, the more money came, the more educated people got, the better the economy did. The US with an 18th century educated workforce would simply not be very rich in the world.

Ah, funding other stuff. I don't think these things should be funded. This is a problem in the US that politicians aren't working to improve things for the people, they're representing themselves and big money. The US needs a massive change in what the govt is about.

You have people like Trump (and now Kayne West and Will Smith want to get in on it) who are just using politics for themselves, which politicians are really interested in just making things better for the people?

In Europe, politicians are more likely, especially in Germanic countries and Scandinavian countries. These countries make sure things are in place that people want and need, they make a society. (They're not perfect by any means, but better than the US)

The US is like Africa. Politicians get in and then try and make themselves rich and possibly their friends.

Okay, so you've determined that the public should pay for education because it benefits society.

So wouldn't people going to work benefit society too? Should the government not buy us each a new car so we could get to work?

Well since we work so much, wouldn't it benefit society if we had enough rest as well? Say government pay for our vacations in Europe or Hawaii?

And wouldn't it benefit society to have nice looking homes? Don't you think government should provide us free landscaping for our lawns and flowers?

If we are going to use the cheap excuse of how society benefits, I can provide a laundry list of everything that benefits society, but that doesn't mean society should pay for everything either. What government pays for, government controls. And having more government control is the exact opposite of what this country is supposed to be about. Government control is why we pay the most per capita for our students, and yet have mediocre results to show for it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Question: why should everybody "pool" to pay for the education of children that are not theirs? Half of my property taxes go to fund schools I nor my tenants have children in.

It's a good question. I first came across it when I was working in a roadside restaurant when I was 16, and someone working there, one of the full timers, asked me this.

The answer hasn't changed much in all those years either.

An educated work force is beneficial for the country. The more educated the workforce, the more money the country is going to produce. If you have someone who can fix a car, they might earn, what, $20,000 a year, someone who can fix a plane might earn $100,000 a year. (Made up salaries, I don't know, I just know they earn more).

Businessmen and women make a lot of money employing people who have the skills they need. Where did they get such skills? More than likely 99% of their workforce came from the mass education system. They make money out of the mass education system, why shouldn't they put back into the mass education system?

Because of a mass education system EVERYONE'S salaries go up. You go to a poor country and things are cheap because the people working in shops earn $2 a day. That means they don't need to slap huge profits on every item. Go to a western country and the price will be double, with half of that going to pay wages and rental fees or other such costs which are high because everyone ends up getting a slice of the pie.

That's why.

I agree we need an educated population, but that still doesn't tell me why your neighbor should pay for it.

If you have children, you should pay for their food, you should pay for their clothing, you should pay for their medical care, and yes, you should pay for their education too.

In our state, local schools are funded by property taxes. It's based on the value of your property instead of how many children you have. For instance, I may have to pay $4,000 a year because of the size of my property, but I have no children in school. The person down the street may have to only pay $1,500 per year because he or she has a smaller property, but they have four kids in the school system. And if you decide to send your children to private school, you get the double F'n. You have to pay for your kids education, and the education of your neighbors kids.

BUT WE NEED TO FUND OUR SCHOOLS! Okay, but why are people with no children in the schools paying more than those with children in the schools? And if we have to fund the schools, fine, but why do we have to fund swimming pools, football stadiums, school busses, gymnasiums?

So you ship your kids to school on a taxpayer funded school bus, from there they go to class in a taxpayer funded building, with taxpayer funded teachers. Then they go to lunch and eat on the taxpayers dime. Some schools even have breakfast and dinner as well. They get to play in the taxpayer funded gymnasium, and then back home on the taxpayer funded busses.

If I'm being forced to pay for your kids education, is it asking too much that you at least feed them and provide their transportation to the school?????

Your neighbor should pay for it because they benefit from it.

You should pay for clothes, food and so on. Education to a lesser degree. The govt FORCES parents to educate their children. While you could say it also forces them to feed their children, and to clothe their children, you'd have to say that a parent who doesn't feed their kids is getting close to murder, a parent who doesn't clothe their kids will probably get arrest on child abuse, but a parent who doesn't educate their kids is what? Education isn't essential. A person can live life without being educated. Some people do, like some mentally disabled people who simply can't learn what is needed (but which is really neither here nor there), in the past kids didn't go to school, but they needed food and clothing.

We want our kids to reach certain levels of education. Therefore it's mandatory to send them to school. If you vote for politicians, and these politicians make it mandatory to vote, why shouldn't you pay for this?

If the government made it mandatory to drive a Ferrari, would you not be a little miffed if they didn't buy you a Ferrari?

In many places education is funded by property taxes. And what this does is it means kids who are from wealthy families are advantaged, kids from middle class families are okay, and kids in poorer areas are screwed. Look at the US, look at the problems with inner city areas and compare this to other first world countries. There's such a big difference. The US is producing criminals to stick in prisons when they hit 18 years old or, as if often the case, earlier.

Do you really want this in your society? I don't.

And the solution to this is to have education funding that is equal for all kids. All kids receive the same money for going to school (in the sense that the school receives the money for that pupil).

If you choose private school, it's your choice. If you have no kids, it's your choice. At the end of the day people should be paying for an educated work force because it benefits MOST PEOPLE in society.

Without kids, a person still probably went through the education system, they still benefit from higher wages because of the educated society, they still benefit from the infrastructure, the armed forces and all of those things that are at the level they're at because of the educated society.

Compare societies where education isn't great. Most of them are poor countries. Okay, it's a cycle, they're parents are poor and the govt is poor, neither can afford to send them to school.

Schools and Education in Zambia

Take Zambia, it has a GDP of $4,000, it provides free education up till 7th grade, and many rural students don't actually have teachers. There is a link between the two things. It works from both sides. Because GDP is low and taxes are low, education is difficult to fund, and students are poorly educated and can't do good jobs which pay more taxes and allow for better education.
However in the west it was the same way back when, the more money came, the more educated people got, the better the economy did. The US with an 18th century educated workforce would simply not be very rich in the world.

Ah, funding other stuff. I don't think these things should be funded. This is a problem in the US that politicians aren't working to improve things for the people, they're representing themselves and big money. The US needs a massive change in what the govt is about.

You have people like Trump (and now Kayne West and Will Smith want to get in on it) who are just using politics for themselves, which politicians are really interested in just making things better for the people?

In Europe, politicians are more likely, especially in Germanic countries and Scandinavian countries. These countries make sure things are in place that people want and need, they make a society. (They're not perfect by any means, but better than the US)

The US is like Africa. Politicians get in and then try and make themselves rich and possibly their friends.

Okay, so you've determined that the public should pay for education because it benefits society.

So wouldn't people going to work benefit society too? Should the government not buy us each a new car so we could get to work?

Well since we work so much, wouldn't it benefit society if we had enough rest as well? Say government pay for our vacations in Europe or Hawaii?

And wouldn't it benefit society to have nice looking homes? Don't you think government should provide us free landscaping for our lawns and flowers?

If we are going to use the cheap excuse of how society benefits, I can provide a laundry list of everything that benefits society, but that doesn't mean society should pay for everything either. What government pays for, government controls. And having more government control is the exact opposite of what this country is supposed to be about. Government control is why we pay the most per capita for our students, and yet have mediocre results to show for it.

Some countries do subsidies public transport. Not necessarily so that people can get to work, but more to reduce the reliance on cars and help the environment and so on.

However I walk to work. So, providing cars isn't really an issue, people don't necessarily need cars, cars are a luxury. Education isn't.

Again, resting is fine, the govt actually makes laws that prevent you working 24 hours a day 7 days a week (more or less), and anyway, no employee would be any good. However going to Hawaii isn't necessary in order to rest, that, again, is a luxury.

How would you benefit from having a nice looking garden? Again, a luxury.

We're talking essentials here. The govt has deemed that up to a certain age, children have to be in education. Why?

However I think you see why mass education is beneficial for society. I also thing you're just trying to be pedantic, so.... what's the point you're trying to make? I mean, really, behind all the bravado and all of that stuff, what do you really want to say?

Education is essential. It benefits society a lot more than other things. Without it society would simply fall away and apart. In inner city areas where education is being neglected, this has already happened.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is, huh?

Well according to the Obama Care people, they signed up over 12 million Americans although that's been disputed and it's actually more around 10 million. That's 10 million more government dependents. How much of a larger government can you get than that?

You mean, you're pissed because 10 million people have HEALTHCARE? Are you fucking serious?

When I'm paying for it, sure I'm pissed. When I lost my healthcare insurance so some french fry maker could have insurance instead, you bet I'm pissed.

More than that is Commie Care had nothing to do with everybody being insured, it had to do with making more government dependents which it successfully did. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Let's put it this with with your "Commie Care".

If you lived in the UK you'd be spending HALF what you spend in the US. You might not get a better service, but you'd get a very good service. A service that is good enough, and you'd get it if you were unemployed, you'd get it if you were employed, your kids would get it, you parents would get it no matter how old they are. You'd get it when you walked in the door, no questions asked, no worrying how much it would cost or if you're going to have problems.

Now, if the UK were to increase their spending by 50% they'd have an excellent service, less corruption, however they have a conservative govt which is intent on making friends by making a private system. To pay people through corruption and to make the poorer people have worse healthcare and pay more for the privilege. Things are already going downhill and they've been in for 5 years.

That's the difference between "Commie Care" and the private care or "Corrupt Care" as it should be known.

I know which I prefer, and I've lived under countries with private health, public health and not very much health care.

Well let me tell ya, our northern borders here are loaded with Canadian patients. Why? Because their healthcare system is too poorly run and doesn't provide the quality. As a lifelong patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, I can testify that when you walk into that place, you're the one that feels like the foreigner. Looking around at the medical staff, you'd think you were in the UN or something.

Medical professionals from around the world come here to work in our system because it pays the best money. If you're not good enough to come here, you stay in your country where they have socialized healthcare.

Cost: the cost of our healthcare starts with our failed government systems. Medicare and Medicaid typically pay 30% less than the charges for their patients. Providers are not going to take the loss. They increase fees on everybody which of course gets transferred to our private pay and private insurance companies. Then our medical insurance skyrockets and we end up with a problem. So what was our genius solution? Start yet another government program.

There is no perfect healthcare system. Every one around the globe has some kind of problems. If it's not cost, it's that everybody can't get it. If everybody can get it, it's quality of care.

If people want a socialized system, fine with me, but everybody should pay, not just political enemies of the creators of the system. We should have a national consumption tax. The poor pay, the middle-class pay, the wealthy pay. The more you buy, the more you contribute to the system.

Yeah, it's so bad that a MASSIVE percentage of Canadians go use the US healthcare system.

Antisense Propaganda: Percentage of Canadians using the US health care system

"the study concluded that Canada spends slightly more than half of what America does per capita for health care, yet reaches similar if not better overall results in terms of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and overall citizen health."

That's not to say that the US doesn't have some very good hospitals, and some Canadians might choose to go to the US, especially if they have a lot of money and can afford some of the best care.

However, we're not talking about the 1%ers, we're talking about the average Joe having to go to hospital.


Canada vs. US Health Care Systems - Debunking Health Care Myths - AARP

"
5 Myths About Canada’s Health Care System"

"To separate fact from fiction, Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., the director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research in Indianapolis, identified the top myths about the two health care systems."

"Myth #1: Canadians are flocking to the United States to get medical care."

"I don’t deny that some well-off people might come to the United States for medical care. If I needed a heart or lung transplant, there’s no place I’d rather have it done. But for the vast, vast majority of people, that’s not happening."

"They found that more than 80 percent of these hospital visits were for emergency or urgent care (that is, tourists who had to go to the emergency room). Only about 20 percent of the visits were for elective procedures or care."

"Next, the authors of the study surveyed America’s 20 “best” hospitals — as identified by U.S. News & World Report — on the assumption that if Canadians were going to travel for health care, they would be more likely to go to the best-known and highest-quality facilities. Only one of the 11 hospitals that responded saw more than 60 Canadians in a year. And, again, that included both emergencies and elective care."

"Finally, the study’s authors examined data from the 18,000 Canadians who participated in the National Population Health Survey. In the previous year, 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them, however, reported going to the United States expressively for the purpose of obtaining care."

Wow, 20 out of 18,000. That's like, MASSIVE.

So, I've called you bluff on that one. I think you just listen to the wrong people, people with an agenda.

Corruption in Healthcare

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/msparrow/documents--in use/Corruption in Health Care--The US Experience--TI Global Report on Corruption--2006--pp16-22.pdf

"Despite the essentially invisible nature of the problem, health care fraud in the United States was deemed sufficiently serious by the Clinton administration (based on cases revealed) that in 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno declared it America’s ‘number two crime problem’, second only to violent crime."

"‘abuse of entrusted authority’, does cover dishonest actions of physicians, hospitals and other health care professionals, who are generally afforded high social and professional status and are expected to exercise professional medical judgement unbiased by private financial interests. The majority of fraud within the system, perpetrated by medical providers, can therefore be understood as corruption under this definition."

This article gives a number of ways that corruption is prevalent in the US system.

Corruption, fraud and bureaucracy cost US healthcare system up to $272 billion annually

"
Corruption, fraud and bureaucracy cost US healthcare system up to $272 billion annually"

"According to data compiled as part of a larger research project into medical corruption, the U.S. loses as much as $272 billion annually due to things like medical embezzlement and insurance billing fraud, both of which are rampant."

Medicare accounts for a lot of this fraud

"a bulk of the nation's medical fraud occurs within public sector health services like Medicare and Medicaid, which account for more than one-third of all known fraud."

"As explained in a recent piece for The Economist, nearly $100 billion in fraud takes place within the confines of Medicare and Medicaid spending, while the remaining $172 billion occurs elsewhere. "

The problem in the US is that people are on the take, because they can.

All government money ends up, at some point, in the hands of private companies, who are able to get more of this money by providing services that are not required.

In a healthcare system that is public, where money isn't being thrown around, this isn't so much of an issue. If a nurse doesn't have to make money, but just does their job, then they can't hope to defraud anyway. Doctors still could, but then their chances of providing the most costly drugs are limited because they simply give them out, they don't take part in the financial part of the job.

The US has rampant corruption for many reasons, however the biggest reason is that it's all about money, unlike most healthcare systems in the world.

Wait times

As reported by the Health Council of Canada, a 2010 Commonwealth survey found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 43% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 10% in the U.S. The same survey states that 37% of Canadians say it is difficult to access care after hours (evenings, weekends or holidays) without going to the emergency department over 34% of Americans. Furthermore, 47% of Canadians, and 50% of Americans who visited emergency departments over the past two years feel that they could have been treated at their normal place of care if they were able to get an appointment.[49]

A report published by Health Canada in 2008 included statistics on self-reported wait times for diagnostic services.[50] The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 3 months.[50][51] The median wait time to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 3 months.[50][52] The median wait time for surgery is a little over four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.[50][53] In the U.S., patients on Medicaid, the low-income government programs, can wait three months or more to see specialists. Because Medicaid payments are low, some have claimed that some doctors do not want to see Medicaid patients. For example, in Benton Harbor, Michigan, specialists agreed to spend one afternoon every week or two at a Medicaid clinic, which meant that Medicaid patients had to make appointments not at the doctor's office, but at the clinic, where appointments had to be booked months in advance.[54] A 2009 study found that on average the wait in the United States to see a medical specialist is 20.5 days.[55]

Medical professionals

Some of the extra money spent in the United States goes to physicians, nurses, and other medical professionals. According to health data collected by the OECD, average income for physicians in the United States in 1996 was nearly twice that for physicians in Canada.[86] In 2012, the gross average salary for doctors in Canada was CDN$328,000. Out of the gross amount, doctors pay for taxes, rent, staff salaries and equipment.[87] When comparing average incomes of doctors in Canada and U.S., it should be kept in mind that malpractice insurance premiums may differ significantly between Canada and the U.S., and the proportion of doctors who are specialists differs. In Canada, less than half of doctors are specialists whereas more than 70% of doctors are specialists in the U.S.[88]

Canada has fewer doctors per capita than the United States. In the U.S, there were 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people in 2005; in Canada, there were 2.2.[89] Some doctors leave Canada to pursue career goals or higher pay in the U.S., though significant numbers of physicians from countries such as India, Pakistan and South Africa immigrate to practice in Canada. Many Canadian physicians and new medical graduates also go to the U.S. for post-graduate training in medical residencies. As it is a much larger market, new and cutting-edge sub-specialties are more widely available in the U.S. as opposed to Canada. However, statistics published in 2005 by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), show that, for the first time since 1969 (the period for which data are available), more physicians returned to Canada than moved abroad.[90]

Health care outcomes

In the World Health Organization's rankings of health care system performance among 191 member nations published in 2000, Canada ranked 30th and the U.S. 37th, while the overall health of Canadians was ranked 35th and Americans 72nd.[8][116] However, the WHO's methodologies, which attempted to measure how efficiently health systems translate expenditure into health, generated broad debate and criticism.[117]

Researchers caution against inferring health care quality from some health statistics. June O'Neill and Dave O'Neill point out that "...life expectancy and infant mortality are both poor measures of the efficacy of a health care system because they are influenced by many factors that are unrelated to the quality and accessibility of medical care".[118]

Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[frigidweirdo]

You mean, you're pissed because 10 million people have HEALTHCARE? Are you fucking serious?

When I'm paying for it, sure I'm pissed. When I lost my healthcare insurance so some french fry maker could have insurance instead, you bet I'm pissed.

More than that is Commie Care had nothing to do with everybody being insured, it had to do with making more government dependents which it successfully did. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Let's put it this with with your "Commie Care".

If you lived in the UK you'd be spending HALF what you spend in the US. You might not get a better service, but you'd get a very good service. A service that is good enough, and you'd get it if you were unemployed, you'd get it if you were employed, your kids would get it, you parents would get it no matter how old they are. You'd get it when you walked in the door, no questions asked, no worrying how much it would cost or if you're going to have problems.

Now, if the UK were to increase their spending by 50% they'd have an excellent service, less corruption, however they have a conservative govt which is intent on making friends by making a private system. To pay people through corruption and to make the poorer people have worse healthcare and pay more for the privilege. Things are already going downhill and they've been in for 5 years.

That's the difference between "Commie Care" and the private care or "Corrupt Care" as it should be known.

I know which I prefer, and I've lived under countries with private health, public health and not very much health care.

Well let me tell ya, our northern borders here are loaded with Canadian patients. Why? Because their healthcare system is too poorly run and doesn't provide the quality. As a lifelong patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, I can testify that when you walk into that place, you're the one that feels like the foreigner. Looking around at the medical staff, you'd think you were in the UN or something.

Medical professionals from around the world come here to work in our system because it pays the best money. If you're not good enough to come here, you stay in your country where they have socialized healthcare.

Cost: the cost of our healthcare starts with our failed government systems. Medicare and Medicaid typically pay 30% less than the charges for their patients. Providers are not going to take the loss. They increase fees on everybody which of course gets transferred to our private pay and private insurance companies. Then our medical insurance skyrockets and we end up with a problem. So what was our genius solution? Start yet another government program.

There is no perfect healthcare system. Every one around the globe has some kind of problems. If it's not cost, it's that everybody can't get it. If everybody can get it, it's quality of care.

If people want a socialized system, fine with me, but everybody should pay, not just political enemies of the creators of the system. We should have a national consumption tax. The poor pay, the middle-class pay, the wealthy pay. The more you buy, the more you contribute to the system.

Yeah, it's so bad that a MASSIVE percentage of Canadians go use the US healthcare system.

Antisense Propaganda: Percentage of Canadians using the US health care system

"the study concluded that Canada spends slightly more than half of what America does per capita for health care, yet reaches similar if not better overall results in terms of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and overall citizen health."

That's not to say that the US doesn't have some very good hospitals, and some Canadians might choose to go to the US, especially if they have a lot of money and can afford some of the best care.

However, we're not talking about the 1%ers, we're talking about the average Joe having to go to hospital.


Canada vs. US Health Care Systems - Debunking Health Care Myths - AARP

"
5 Myths About Canada’s Health Care System"

"To separate fact from fiction, Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., the director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research in Indianapolis, identified the top myths about the two health care systems."

"Myth #1: Canadians are flocking to the United States to get medical care."

"I don’t deny that some well-off people might come to the United States for medical care. If I needed a heart or lung transplant, there’s no place I’d rather have it done. But for the vast, vast majority of people, that’s not happening."

"They found that more than 80 percent of these hospital visits were for emergency or urgent care (that is, tourists who had to go to the emergency room). Only about 20 percent of the visits were for elective procedures or care."

"Next, the authors of the study surveyed America’s 20 “best” hospitals — as identified by U.S. News & World Report — on the assumption that if Canadians were going to travel for health care, they would be more likely to go to the best-known and highest-quality facilities. Only one of the 11 hospitals that responded saw more than 60 Canadians in a year. And, again, that included both emergencies and elective care."

"Finally, the study’s authors examined data from the 18,000 Canadians who participated in the National Population Health Survey. In the previous year, 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them, however, reported going to the United States expressively for the purpose of obtaining care."

Wow, 20 out of 18,000. That's like, MASSIVE.

So, I've called you bluff on that one. I think you just listen to the wrong people, people with an agenda.

Corruption in Healthcare

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/msparrow/documents--in use/Corruption in Health Care--The US Experience--TI Global Report on Corruption--2006--pp16-22.pdf

"Despite the essentially invisible nature of the problem, health care fraud in the United States was deemed sufficiently serious by the Clinton administration (based on cases revealed) that in 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno declared it America’s ‘number two crime problem’, second only to violent crime."

"‘abuse of entrusted authority’, does cover dishonest actions of physicians, hospitals and other health care professionals, who are generally afforded high social and professional status and are expected to exercise professional medical judgement unbiased by private financial interests. The majority of fraud within the system, perpetrated by medical providers, can therefore be understood as corruption under this definition."

This article gives a number of ways that corruption is prevalent in the US system.

Corruption, fraud and bureaucracy cost US healthcare system up to $272 billion annually

"
Corruption, fraud and bureaucracy cost US healthcare system up to $272 billion annually"

"According to data compiled as part of a larger research project into medical corruption, the U.S. loses as much as $272 billion annually due to things like medical embezzlement and insurance billing fraud, both of which are rampant."

Medicare accounts for a lot of this fraud

"a bulk of the nation's medical fraud occurs within public sector health services like Medicare and Medicaid, which account for more than one-third of all known fraud."

"As explained in a recent piece for The Economist, nearly $100 billion in fraud takes place within the confines of Medicare and Medicaid spending, while the remaining $172 billion occurs elsewhere. "

The problem in the US is that people are on the take, because they can.

All government money ends up, at some point, in the hands of private companies, who are able to get more of this money by providing services that are not required.

In a healthcare system that is public, where money isn't being thrown around, this isn't so much of an issue. If a nurse doesn't have to make money, but just does their job, then they can't hope to defraud anyway. Doctors still could, but then their chances of providing the most costly drugs are limited because they simply give them out, they don't take part in the financial part of the job.

The US has rampant corruption for many reasons, however the biggest reason is that it's all about money, unlike most healthcare systems in the world.

Wait times

As reported by the Health Council of Canada, a 2010 Commonwealth survey found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 43% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 10% in the U.S. The same survey states that 37% of Canadians say it is difficult to access care after hours (evenings, weekends or holidays) without going to the emergency department over 34% of Americans. Furthermore, 47% of Canadians, and 50% of Americans who visited emergency departments over the past two years feel that they could have been treated at their normal place of care if they were able to get an appointment.[49]

A report published by Health Canada in 2008 included statistics on self-reported wait times for diagnostic services.[50] The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 3 months.[50][51] The median wait time to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 3 months.[50][52] The median wait time for surgery is a little over four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.[50][53] In the U.S., patients on Medicaid, the low-income government programs, can wait three months or more to see specialists. Because Medicaid payments are low, some have claimed that some doctors do not want to see Medicaid patients. For example, in Benton Harbor, Michigan, specialists agreed to spend one afternoon every week or two at a Medicaid clinic, which meant that Medicaid patients had to make appointments not at the doctor's office, but at the clinic, where appointments had to be booked months in advance.[54] A 2009 study found that on average the wait in the United States to see a medical specialist is 20.5 days.[55]

Medical professionals

Some of the extra money spent in the United States goes to physicians, nurses, and other medical professionals. According to health data collected by the OECD, average income for physicians in the United States in 1996 was nearly twice that for physicians in Canada.[86] In 2012, the gross average salary for doctors in Canada was CDN$328,000. Out of the gross amount, doctors pay for taxes, rent, staff salaries and equipment.[87] When comparing average incomes of doctors in Canada and U.S., it should be kept in mind that malpractice insurance premiums may differ significantly between Canada and the U.S., and the proportion of doctors who are specialists differs. In Canada, less than half of doctors are specialists whereas more than 70% of doctors are specialists in the U.S.[88]

Canada has fewer doctors per capita than the United States. In the U.S, there were 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people in 2005; in Canada, there were 2.2.[89] Some doctors leave Canada to pursue career goals or higher pay in the U.S., though significant numbers of physicians from countries such as India, Pakistan and South Africa immigrate to practice in Canada. Many Canadian physicians and new medical graduates also go to the U.S. for post-graduate training in medical residencies. As it is a much larger market, new and cutting-edge sub-specialties are more widely available in the U.S. as opposed to Canada. However, statistics published in 2005 by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), show that, for the first time since 1969 (the period for which data are available), more physicians returned to Canada than moved abroad.[90]

Health care outcomes

In the World Health Organization's rankings of health care system performance among 191 member nations published in 2000, Canada ranked 30th and the U.S. 37th, while the overall health of Canadians was ranked 35th and Americans 72nd.[8][116] However, the WHO's methodologies, which attempted to measure how efficiently health systems translate expenditure into health, generated broad debate and criticism.[117]

Researchers caution against inferring health care quality from some health statistics. June O'Neill and Dave O'Neill point out that "...life expectancy and infant mortality are both poor measures of the efficacy of a health care system because they are influenced by many factors that are unrelated to the quality and accessibility of medical care".[118]

Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The difference is some Canadians have to wait. In the US some people don't have to wait, they know they're not getting anything. I'm not saying Canada's healthcare is amazing. I'm saying the US has some very good, and very expensive, hospitals paid for out of a massive healthcare budget (which includes what people spend on insurance, maybe i'm not using the right term) and also it leaves many people behind.

The problem in the US is the money that is spent, doesn't equal the success it has on the overall population. A sparkling hospital might be great for those with great health insurance, but it isn't great for those who don't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Question: why should everybody "pool" to pay for the education of children that are not theirs? Half of my property taxes go to fund schools I nor my tenants have children in.

It's a good question. I first came across it when I was working in a roadside restaurant when I was 16, and someone working there, one of the full timers, asked me this.

The answer hasn't changed much in all those years either.

An educated work force is beneficial for the country. The more educated the workforce, the more money the country is going to produce. If you have someone who can fix a car, they might earn, what, $20,000 a year, someone who can fix a plane might earn $100,000 a year. (Made up salaries, I don't know, I just know they earn more).

Businessmen and women make a lot of money employing people who have the skills they need. Where did they get such skills? More than likely 99% of their workforce came from the mass education system. They make money out of the mass education system, why shouldn't they put back into the mass education system?

Because of a mass education system EVERYONE'S salaries go up. You go to a poor country and things are cheap because the people working in shops earn $2 a day. That means they don't need to slap huge profits on every item. Go to a western country and the price will be double, with half of that going to pay wages and rental fees or other such costs which are high because everyone ends up getting a slice of the pie.

That's why.

I agree we need an educated population, but that still doesn't tell me why your neighbor should pay for it.

If you have children, you should pay for their food, you should pay for their clothing, you should pay for their medical care, and yes, you should pay for their education too.

In our state, local schools are funded by property taxes. It's based on the value of your property instead of how many children you have. For instance, I may have to pay $4,000 a year because of the size of my property, but I have no children in school. The person down the street may have to only pay $1,500 per year because he or she has a smaller property, but they have four kids in the school system. And if you decide to send your children to private school, you get the double F'n. You have to pay for your kids education, and the education of your neighbors kids.

BUT WE NEED TO FUND OUR SCHOOLS! Okay, but why are people with no children in the schools paying more than those with children in the schools? And if we have to fund the schools, fine, but why do we have to fund swimming pools, football stadiums, school busses, gymnasiums?

So you ship your kids to school on a taxpayer funded school bus, from there they go to class in a taxpayer funded building, with taxpayer funded teachers. Then they go to lunch and eat on the taxpayers dime. Some schools even have breakfast and dinner as well. They get to play in the taxpayer funded gymnasium, and then back home on the taxpayer funded busses.

If I'm being forced to pay for your kids education, is it asking too much that you at least feed them and provide their transportation to the school?????

Your neighbor should pay for it because they benefit from it.

You should pay for clothes, food and so on. Education to a lesser degree. The govt FORCES parents to educate their children. While you could say it also forces them to feed their children, and to clothe their children, you'd have to say that a parent who doesn't feed their kids is getting close to murder, a parent who doesn't clothe their kids will probably get arrest on child abuse, but a parent who doesn't educate their kids is what? Education isn't essential. A person can live life without being educated. Some people do, like some mentally disabled people who simply can't learn what is needed (but which is really neither here nor there), in the past kids didn't go to school, but they needed food and clothing.

We want our kids to reach certain levels of education. Therefore it's mandatory to send them to school. If you vote for politicians, and these politicians make it mandatory to vote, why shouldn't you pay for this?

If the government made it mandatory to drive a Ferrari, would you not be a little miffed if they didn't buy you a Ferrari?

In many places education is funded by property taxes. And what this does is it means kids who are from wealthy families are advantaged, kids from middle class families are okay, and kids in poorer areas are screwed. Look at the US, look at the problems with inner city areas and compare this to other first world countries. There's such a big difference. The US is producing criminals to stick in prisons when they hit 18 years old or, as if often the case, earlier.

Do you really want this in your society? I don't.

And the solution to this is to have education funding that is equal for all kids. All kids receive the same money for going to school (in the sense that the school receives the money for that pupil).

If you choose private school, it's your choice. If you have no kids, it's your choice. At the end of the day people should be paying for an educated work force because it benefits MOST PEOPLE in society.

Without kids, a person still probably went through the education system, they still benefit from higher wages because of the educated society, they still benefit from the infrastructure, the armed forces and all of those things that are at the level they're at because of the educated society.

Compare societies where education isn't great. Most of them are poor countries. Okay, it's a cycle, they're parents are poor and the govt is poor, neither can afford to send them to school.

Schools and Education in Zambia

Take Zambia, it has a GDP of $4,000, it provides free education up till 7th grade, and many rural students don't actually have teachers. There is a link between the two things. It works from both sides. Because GDP is low and taxes are low, education is difficult to fund, and students are poorly educated and can't do good jobs which pay more taxes and allow for better education.
However in the west it was the same way back when, the more money came, the more educated people got, the better the economy did. The US with an 18th century educated workforce would simply not be very rich in the world.

Ah, funding other stuff. I don't think these things should be funded. This is a problem in the US that politicians aren't working to improve things for the people, they're representing themselves and big money. The US needs a massive change in what the govt is about.

You have people like Trump (and now Kayne West and Will Smith want to get in on it) who are just using politics for themselves, which politicians are really interested in just making things better for the people?

In Europe, politicians are more likely, especially in Germanic countries and Scandinavian countries. These countries make sure things are in place that people want and need, they make a society. (They're not perfect by any means, but better than the US)

The US is like Africa. Politicians get in and then try and make themselves rich and possibly their friends.

Okay, so you've determined that the public should pay for education because it benefits society.

So wouldn't people going to work benefit society too? Should the government not buy us each a new car so we could get to work?

Well since we work so much, wouldn't it benefit society if we had enough rest as well? Say government pay for our vacations in Europe or Hawaii?

And wouldn't it benefit society to have nice looking homes? Don't you think government should provide us free landscaping for our lawns and flowers?

If we are going to use the cheap excuse of how society benefits, I can provide a laundry list of everything that benefits society, but that doesn't mean society should pay for everything either. What government pays for, government controls. And having more government control is the exact opposite of what this country is supposed to be about. Government control is why we pay the most per capita for our students, and yet have mediocre results to show for it.

Some countries do subsidies public transport. Not necessarily so that people can get to work, but more to reduce the reliance on cars and help the environment and so on.

However I walk to work. So, providing cars isn't really an issue, people don't necessarily need cars, cars are a luxury. Education isn't.

Again, resting is fine, the govt actually makes laws that prevent you working 24 hours a day 7 days a week (more or less), and anyway, no employee would be any good. However going to Hawaii isn't necessary in order to rest, that, again, is a luxury.

How would you benefit from having a nice looking garden? Again, a luxury.

We're talking essentials here. The govt has deemed that up to a certain age, children have to be in education. Why?

However I think you see why mass education is beneficial for society. I also thing you're just trying to be pedantic, so.... what's the point you're trying to make? I mean, really, behind all the bravado and all of that stuff, what do you really want to say?

Education is essential. It benefits society a lot more than other things. Without it society would simply fall away and apart. In inner city areas where education is being neglected, this has already happened.

Sure education is important, but you have failed to show me how education should be a liability to the public. It should be a liability to the parent if anything. At the very least, the parents should pay significantly more for our education system than those who don't use our education system.

A growing number of Americans are using home schooling to educate their children. With the help of the internet, almost any parent can educate their own children. You don't need a Masters degree to teach five year olds ABC's and get paid 60 grand a year with four months of vacation that we taxpayers have to pay for.

Sure people need cars. Do you think busses run along dirt roads and in the country areas where many people do live? They need to get to work too! They need to shop for food and clothing just to name a few. I say government should buy us all cars because it benefits society.