Socialized medicine would not result in astronomical costs. That's what we have today because insurance companies essentially protect consumers from having to pay attention to the actual costs of their health care. The biggest change we would witness through a nationalized health care plan is the reduction in available care, and the application of rules to that care. You would see a massive reduction in covered prescriptions and procedures.
The back-and-forth between politicians about expansion and reduction of programs will always continue. It's more important to me that decisions are fiscally responsible. Reducing programs while reducing taxes is fiscally irresponsible. Increasing taxes while increasing programs is also fiscally irresponsible. I would like to see a reduction in overhead while maintaining our current taxes. Better yet, I would like to see the tax system (particularly the corporate tax structure) overhauled. I think it's unjust that, because my wife and I are now older and have more money, we can create convenient tax shelters through businesses that we own. We couldn't do this when we were younger. We make three times as much now, and pay less in taxes than we did five years ago -- and tax rates have increased.
I would like to see taxes applied at an individual level, and remove the benefits that can be reaped simply by hiding money under the umbrella of a corporation.
Socialized medicine would not result in astronomical costs. ... The biggest change we would witness through a nationalized health care plan is the reduction in available care, and the application of rules to that care. You would see a massive reduction in covered prescriptions and procedures.
.
those two statements are opposite of eachother. reduction in available care = more demand = higher prices.
apply that to any other product and it will always hold true. Less corn = higher demand for it = higher prices. less oil = higher demand = higher prices less steal = more demand = high prices
health care is expensive because all the technology is expensive and all of the insurance physicians need for malpractice is expensive. these guys go to school for 8-12 years pst grad just to have a practice. and we sue them because they cant make us live forever.
socialized health care would get expensive very fast. people will come out of the woodwork and go to the doctors offive every time they stub their toe if its free. how can any system support that financially? they cant. unlimeted demand will bring the cost way up and fewer people that actually need medical attention will get it.
oh, and how is the government gunna tell ME when I need to go to the hospital? in the UK smokers are at the bottom of the list because they smoke and are a drain on the social system. this includes us guys!! we wont get health care we want because we enjoy cigars.
ill say it again: any government run social system is doomed to fail. it always has failed and always will.
Health Insurance and Universal Healthcare are two different things. Health insurance is like every other insurance, it's almost legalized gambling. If you have insurance but nothing ever happens then you have wasted a lot of money, if you do get sick the insurance covers most if not all of it. But you get a choice in your coverage also, if you live a healthy life you may choose not to pay a hign monthly premium but pay more when you do get hurt or sick. Now universal healthcare you will be taxed for whether you use it or not, you will told which doctor to see, when you can see a doctor and it may be illegal to see a doctor on your own(Hillarycare). Some will be taxed more than others to cover those that don't pay taxes. Then we get to the simple idea that if you continue to tax those that make more money then they will eventually make less money. Most people don't realize that those people that make all that money also provide jobs either by owning a business or by spending a lot of there money. If they can't grow their business because they are being taxed or can't spend all the money they want because they are being taxed then the economy slows because less people are working and less money is in circulation. Believe it or not we do have some of the best healthcare in the world. People complain about it but if you look at the deathrate of newborns and the elderly compared to other counties we are at the top of the list. Again, I'll agree that we have some things that need to be fine tuned with our healthcare systems and prescription drugs but I think the market can even most of it out after that depending on the case the gov't can assist some of those that have issues outside of the norm.
Just think if univeral healthcare had started when SS did. We would be broke as a country. But wait we do have an example of this...its called Medicare/Medicaid.
Thanks.
They want to keep playing the same game by just giving it another name.
If I go too long on politics just tell me to shut up, I can get on a soapbox and not stop when it comes to this and surrounding subjects.
Thanks.
They want to keep playing the same game by just giving it another name.
If I go too long on politics just tell me to shut up, I can get on a soapbox and not stop when it comes to this and surrounding subjects.
im kinda the same way. my problem when im typing about it is that i have a tendency to get excited and worked up about it. then im thinking way faster than i can type. I end up with what seem like a bunch of sentences that are almost disjointed. If i take my time and think it out and what not it takes to long. I do better discussing political topics verbaly.
Socialized medicine would not result in astronomical costs. ... The biggest change we would witness through a nationalized health care plan is the reduction in available care, and the application of rules to that care. You would see a massive reduction in covered prescriptions and procedures.
.
those two statements are opposite of eachother. reduction in available care = more demand = higher prices.
apply that to any other product and it will always hold true. Less corn = higher demand for it = higher prices. less oil = higher demand = higher prices less steal = more demand = high prices
health care is expensive because all the technology is expensive and all of the insurance physicians need for malpractice is expensive. these guys go to school for 8-12 years pst grad just to have a practice. and we sue them because they cant make us live forever.
socialized health care would get expensive very fast. people will come out of the woodwork and go to the doctors offive every time they stub their toe if its free. how can any system support that financially? they cant. unlimeted demand will bring the cost way up and fewer people that actually need medical attention will get it.
The "reduction in available care" would be a reduction in care approved for reimbursement -- not a true reduction in supply. The problem with healthcare is that it doesn't follow a supply/demand model of commerce because the demand will always be there unless people pay for it out of their own pockets. Today, the insurance company acts as a buffer and most people treat that as "free" healthcare.
The scenario you are predicting under universal healthcare is the exact scenario that exists today under private insurance.
"The problem with healthcare is that it doesn't follow a supply/demand model of commerce because the demand will always be there unless people pay for it out of their own pockets. Today, the insurance company acts as a buffer and most people treat that as "free" healthcare." This statement doesn't make sense. There are millions of people without insurance out there that are at Dr.s offices every day that do pay for it out of pocket. True that someone with insurance is more likely to go to the Dr. but not matter what there is ALWAYS a demand for it. If you go with universal health care all that does is pave the way for more and more social programs that we (working tax payers) are stuck paying for. Whats next? There are already WAY too many flawed programs out there and all this would do is create another one. Look at how well our welfare system works... You really want the people that run that system deciding what is best for us medically??? If so Then you are a braver man than I...
Some more facts about public-sponsored health care:
The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.
The World Health Organization ranked all its member nations on various aspects of their health care systems, including overall performance, level of health of its citizens, costs, and distribution. Let's compare the United States with two nations that have public-sponsored healthcare systems:
France (#1 overall health system performance, #4 on level of health, #26 on costs per capita)
Italy (#2 overall health system performance, #3 on level of heatlh, #11 on health costs per capita)
United States (#37 overal health system performance, #72 on level of health, #1 on costs per capita)
There you have it. Come to the U.S. and spend more for less on your health care. Incidentally, the UK and Canada (cited earlier as examples of public healthcare systems gone wrong) were also ranked better than the U.S. in 8 of the 9 measured categories.
I get worked up too but I am opposite. I can get really into it verbally sometimes. When i write it out it gives me a chance to proofread to better get my point across.
dutyje:
Some more facts about public-sponsored health care:
The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.
The World Health Organization ranked all its member nations on various aspects of their health care systems, including overall performance, level of health of its citizens, costs, and distribution. Let's compare the United States with two nations that have public-sponsored healthcare systems:
France (#1 overall health system performance, #4 on level of health, #26 on costs per capita)
Italy (#2 overall health system performance, #3 on level of heatlh, #11 on health costs per capita)
United States (#37 overal health system performance, #72 on level of health, #1 on costs per capita)
Ok, I did a double-take on this...
As you stated, this was a study of public-sponsored healthcare...therefore they rated medicare and/or medicaid since they are the current forms of public-sponsored healthcare in this country. If that is the case then I can easily see why we are rated so poorly. It is not in the nature of our constitution to allow such a thing to happen in the first place.
Some one just tell me to shut up, I don't intend to offend anyone by my comments. I know usually everyone on here is easy-going so no hard feelings. But I do love the banter, i don't get a lot of this in Iraq usually.
WHO...is not a reliable source in my opinion. They are no different than the UN. Ran by people that dislike if not hate the US. And wasn't it WHO that grossly miss calculated the number of AIDS in Africa. Sorry, you can go online and see all sorts of horror stories from the the UK and the Canucks with thier health care systems. And the fact that we are the only wealthy, industialized nation means nothing, we are also have a republic form of gov't and capatalist economy which most of the others countryies don't exactly have. As for the #72 on the level of health, unfortunately a lot of Americans are fat, lazy and ignorant. Some of this ignorance comes from the 'nanny state' mentality that the gov't has been breeding into us. Ihave to say that if you make something public instead of private then it will go downhill like every other program he have had since social reform has started in this country. Make people responsible for themselves, it's the only way they will truely learn. Like I said, we have a form of public healthcare at the federal and state level, they suck, bad; medicare and medicaid. Look at NY, thier medicare system is going bankrupt. They have many more people using the system than they have paying into it. If you go back to the constitution, healthcare is not listed as a right and its not. It is not the job of the gov't to provide everything to the public 'for its own good'. People must be able to decide what is for thier own good, it's what this country was founded on and the Bill of Rights is there to insure that.
Some more facts about public-sponsored health care:
The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.
The World Health Organization ranked all its member nations on various aspects of their health care systems, including overall performance, level of health of its citizens, costs, and distribution. Let's compare the United States with two nations that have public-sponsored healthcare systems:
France (#1 overall health system performance, #4 on level of health, #26 on costs per capita)
Italy (#2 overall health system performance, #3 on level of heatlh, #11 on health costs per capita)
United States (#37 overal health system performance, #72 on level of health, #1 on costs per capita)
Ok, I did a double-take on this...
As you stated, this was a study of public-sponsored healthcare...
I did not state that this was a study of public-sponsored healthcare. This was a study of the state of healthcare in the 190+ member nations of the World Health Organization.
The reason that Medicare and Medicaid run into budget problems is that they can't keep up with the rising costs of healthcare. These costs are rising because of a lack of controls. There is a lack of control because the private healthcare industry is not contrained by basic economic principles.
You can find residents of any country to complain about anything in that country. For every one Canuck you find that complains about their healthcare, I can find you ten that think it's much better than the U.S.
I have no knowledge about the biases and prejudices of people doing research on behalf of the World Health Organization. I highly doubt the U.S. would elect to continue as a member of an organization that exists solely to make us look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world.
The argument about the US being a republic and capitalist state is invalid. Nearly all the participant nations in the WHO are republics with a capitalist-based economic system.
I have to say that if you make something public instead of private then it will go downhill like every other program he have had since social reform has started in this country. Make people responsible for themselves, it's the only way they will truely learn. Like I said, we have a form of public healthcare at the federal and state level, they suck, bad; medicare and medicaid. Look at NY, thier medicare system is going bankrupt. They have many more people using the system than they have paying into it. If you go back to the constitution, healthcare is not listed as a right and its not. It is not the job of the gov't to provide everything to the public 'for its own good'. People must be able to decide what is for thier own good, it's what this country was founded on and the Bill of Rights is there to insure that.
The reason that Medicare and Medicaid run into budget problems is that they can't keep up with the rising costs of healthcare. These costs are rising because of a lack of controls. There is a lack of control because the private healthcare industry is not contrained by basic economic principles.
everything is constrained by basic economic principals. the reason why healthcare is not is because there are already too many government regulations on it as it is.
We will have to agree to disagree duty. Although the discussion has been fun, I thik we are beating a dead horse. We will have to wait to see who wins the election to see how this possibly plays out.
We will have to agree to disagree duty. Although the discussion has been fun, I thik we are beating a dead horse. We will have to wait to see who wins the election to see how this possibly plays out.
economics work no matter who is in office. this si why i fear an obama win. In my head an obama win means leaning more socialist. the more socialist we are the higher taxes we have. the higher taxes we have the less money i have. im not gunna be fun to be around when i have less money and less cigars.
i dont want to bring this election to a one or two issue vote but i feel that i have no choice. I want lower taxes and more oil to be drilled. between the two running the choice is clear. I cant bring myself to vote Obama when he is against off shore drilling and wants to let the bush tax cuts expire.
I agree that we are beating a dead horse.. that's why I chose to let this lie. The funniest part about the whole thread is that you both think I'm supporting Obama here, when I never said who would get my vote.
We're on the same side in this election, although through a vastly different set of logic and perspective.
for those who dont know, hes the libritarian guy. again, he isnt exactly what i want but my two big issues he is and he seems to understand that the job of the president is to defend and uphold the US Constitution. remember that document? i think its nice.
Duty, the fact that you argue a candidates side without nessicarily being for that guy is one of the reasons why i enjoy arguing with ya. The free expression of thoughts and ideas is great.
I argue with everybody on everything. It's much more fun. If y'all had been supporters of Obama, I would have argued just as hard. To be clear, though, I don't disagree with a lot of Obama's platform, and I hold the ideals that I had stated. But we're looking for someone who will perform the job well and do the right thing for the nation. Obama has demonstrated time and again that he will do the right thing for the nation if it will advance his career. The best examples of this are his stances on campaign finance and the inclusion of FL/MI votes. His stance has always reflected what's best for his career, not necessarily what he feels is right. I don't even think he has his own opinion of what's right.
McCain seems much more trust-worthy (for a politician). He's also not nearly the Republican that the far right would like to see. I tend to stay away from candidates that wholly align their views with a political party. It is nearly always an indication of compromising one's own views for the sake of political gain.
I enjoy argueing everything but I usually try to keep it constructive. I beleive Obama is a threat to constitional rights and we are slowly losing those. So we need someone that won't try as hard to take them away. So, I agree that McCain is a more trustworthy politician and he is not as conservative as most would like but he will do what is right.
Now the Libertarian Party is another story. I like some of there stances on personal freedoms but there objection to the war and call for isolation worry me. Bob Barr is a decent guy, he used to be my congressman several years ago. He is big on gun rights but he is oddly against drugs including medical weed, unless he changed his mind on that.
for those who dont know, hes the libritarian guy. again, he isnt exactly what i want but my two big issues he is and he seems to understand that the job of the president is to defend and uphold the US Constitution. remember that document? i think its nice.
Duty, the fact that you argue a candidates side without nessicarily being for that guy is one of the reasons why i enjoy arguing with ya. The free expression of thoughts and ideas is great.
I always vote liberitarian. Simple reason, Dems want to control your money, GOP wants to control your morality. I like my government to protect me from outsiders not from myself, thank you very much.
Andy, Isolationism is what this country was founded on we were complete isolationists until World War II when the country as a whole developed a hero complex. Isolationism has served Canada and Switzerland, among others, quite well.
I think we can keep our nose out of some others business but right now but we are into so much across the world it would be very difficult to completely stop everything we are involved in. It wasn't a hero complex that brought us out of isolation during WWII; It was an attack on our soil. The foriegn policy of the Bush admin hasn't been the best has done well protecting us and responding to a terrorist attack. If we decide to shut ourselves out, other countries will have no probelm shutting us in which I think is bad for us overall. Imports/Exports and the economy will suffer greatly.
Hope you don't mind me jumping into this debate late in the game...but we isolate ourselves and fail to intervene at our own peril. We can ignore Iran right up until the point when they've enriched uranium and gone nuclear and then it's too late. I'm not saying we need to get involved in wars on three or four fronts, but we can't isolate ourselves either.
Andy - I finally agree with everything you say in your most recent post
With respect to other near-nuclear powers like Iran and North Korea, they just don't pose a threat at this point. They are in the business of refining their weapons for the purpose of dealing with enemies much closer to their soil. We spend too much time and money on our allies, and they need to be able to fend for themselves. I find it ironic that the Republican party take such a hard-nosed stance to its own citizens having to survive on their own, and then feels we need to send troops to defend other nations. Let these nations figure out for themselves that war is a horrible thing. They'll make peace. By the time Iran has the long-range firepower to get halfway to the U.S., we'll have ***-slapped them to Jupiter and back.
Comments
The back-and-forth between politicians about expansion and reduction of programs will always continue. It's more important to me that decisions are fiscally responsible. Reducing programs while reducing taxes is fiscally irresponsible. Increasing taxes while increasing programs is also fiscally irresponsible. I would like to see a reduction in overhead while maintaining our current taxes. Better yet, I would like to see the tax system (particularly the corporate tax structure) overhauled. I think it's unjust that, because my wife and I are now older and have more money, we can create convenient tax shelters through businesses that we own. We couldn't do this when we were younger. We make three times as much now, and pay less in taxes than we did five years ago -- and tax rates have increased.
I would like to see taxes applied at an individual level, and remove the benefits that can be reaped simply by hiding money under the umbrella of a corporation.
apply that to any other product and it will always hold true. Less corn = higher demand for it = higher prices.
less oil = higher demand = higher prices
less steal = more demand = high prices
health care is expensive because all the technology is expensive and all of the insurance physicians need for malpractice is expensive. these guys go to school for 8-12 years pst grad just to have a practice. and we sue them because they cant make us live forever.
socialized health care would get expensive very fast. people will come out of the woodwork and go to the doctors offive every time they stub their toe if its free. how can any system support that financially? they cant. unlimeted demand will bring the cost way up and fewer people that actually need medical attention will get it.
ill say it again:
any government run social system is doomed to fail. it always has failed and always will.
Just think if univeral healthcare had started when SS did. We would be broke as a country. But wait we do have an example of this...its called Medicare/Medicaid.
well said.
They want to keep playing the same game by just giving it another name.
If I go too long on politics just tell me to shut up, I can get on a soapbox and not stop when it comes to this and surrounding subjects.
The scenario you are predicting under universal healthcare is the exact scenario that exists today under private insurance.
The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.
The World Health Organization ranked all its member nations on various aspects of their health care systems, including overall performance, level of health of its citizens, costs, and distribution. Let's compare the United States with two nations that have public-sponsored healthcare systems:
France (#1 overall health system performance, #4 on level of health, #26 on costs per capita)
Italy (#2 overall health system performance, #3 on level of heatlh, #11 on health costs per capita)
United States (#37 overal health system performance, #72 on level of health, #1 on costs per capita)
There you have it. Come to the U.S. and spend more for less on your health care. Incidentally, the UK and Canada (cited earlier as examples of public healthcare systems gone wrong) were also ranked better than the U.S. in 8 of the 9 measured categories.
Ok, I did a double-take on this...
As you stated, this was a study of public-sponsored healthcare...therefore they rated medicare and/or medicaid since they are the current forms of public-sponsored healthcare in this country. If that is the case then I can easily see why we are rated so poorly. It is not in the nature of our constitution to allow such a thing to happen in the first place.
Some one just tell me to shut up, I don't intend to offend anyone by my comments. I know usually everyone on here is easy-going so no hard feelings. But I do love the banter, i don't get a lot of this in Iraq usually.
You can find residents of any country to complain about anything in that country. For every one Canuck you find that complains about their healthcare, I can find you ten that think it's much better than the U.S.
I have no knowledge about the biases and prejudices of people doing research on behalf of the World Health Organization. I highly doubt the U.S. would elect to continue as a member of an organization that exists solely to make us look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world.
The argument about the US being a republic and capitalist state is invalid. Nearly all the participant nations in the WHO are republics with a capitalist-based economic system.
In my head an obama win means leaning more socialist. the more socialist we are the higher taxes we have. the higher taxes we have the less money i have.
im not gunna be fun to be around when i have less money and less cigars.
i dont want to bring this election to a one or two issue vote but i feel that i have no choice. I want lower taxes and more oil to be drilled. between the two running the choice is clear. I cant bring myself to vote Obama when he is against off shore drilling and wants to let the bush tax cuts expire.
I agree that we are beating a dead horse.. that's why I chose to let this lie. The funniest part about the whole thread is that you both think I'm supporting Obama here, when I never said who would get my vote.
We're on the same side in this election, although through a vastly different set of logic and perspective.
Duty
for those who dont know, hes the libritarian guy. again, he isnt exactly what i want but my two big issues he is and he seems to understand that the job of the president is to defend and uphold the US Constitution.
remember that document? i think its nice.
Duty, the fact that you argue a candidates side without nessicarily being for that guy is one of the reasons why i enjoy arguing with ya. The free expression of thoughts and ideas is great.
McCain seems much more trust-worthy (for a politician). He's also not nearly the Republican that the far right would like to see. I tend to stay away from candidates that wholly align their views with a political party. It is nearly always an indication of compromising one's own views for the sake of political gain.
Now the Libertarian Party is another story. I like some of there stances on personal freedoms but there objection to the war and call for isolation worry me. Bob Barr is a decent guy, he used to be my congressman several years ago. He is big on gun rights but he is oddly against drugs including medical weed, unless he changed his mind on that.
With respect to other near-nuclear powers like Iran and North Korea, they just don't pose a threat at this point. They are in the business of refining their weapons for the purpose of dealing with enemies much closer to their soil. We spend too much time and money on our allies, and they need to be able to fend for themselves. I find it ironic that the Republican party take such a hard-nosed stance to its own citizens having to survive on their own, and then feels we need to send troops to defend other nations. Let these nations figure out for themselves that war is a horrible thing. They'll make peace. By the time Iran has the long-range firepower to get halfway to the U.S., we'll have ***-slapped them to Jupiter and back.