SICKO

[Tasuki_Civic]

have you guys seent his movie yet? lol




i would love to know some of you guys opinions on this matter of insurance and the things that were discussed in the movie.

[Tasuki_Civic]

haha no one has seen huh?

[ATL86]

I'm moving to France :)

[Spectic Tank]

I'm moving to France :)

LOL...for real. It seemed like a Promo for France more than anything.

I like how they never discuss exactly how much more these countries pay in taxes than us...It's A LOT!

Also, I work with a guy from Canada and he said that anytime you need to see a specialist doctor you can plan on spending the whole day there.

I think the movie made some good points and it was very intersting, I just hate that his movies are SOOO one-sided.

[Nissangeek]

I like how they never discuss exactly how much more these countries pay in taxes than us...It's A LOT!



It'a not as much as you think. Most of those countries don't have an income tax, it's all sales tax and its about 12% to 15%. We on the other hand have sales tax and still pay income tax, and extra taxes on certain items like cigarettes, alcohol, and gas. It all averages out to be maybe a 10% difference max.

[Benefit]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2526970685450320610&q=duration%3Along+-site%3Aaol.com&total=433355&start=0&num=100&so=1&type=search&plindex=84

[tony]

poor quality healthcare ftl, cute voice by the way ms. tasuki

[Tasuki_Civic]

Wow...i forgot to check this thread it took a minute to get a respons.


LOL...for real. It seemed like a Promo for France more than anything.

I like how they never discuss exactly how much more these countries pay in taxes than us...It's A LOT!

Also, I work with a guy from Canada and he said that anytime you need to see a specialist doctor you can plan on spending the whole day there.

I think the movie made some good points and it was very intersting, I just hate that his movies are SOOO one-sided.

yea i agree.....i was thinking about that myself. I know their taxes are high but what he pointed out was that ...wouldnt you want to pay a little more in taxes and not have your insurance company reject you of health care?





It'a not as much as you think. Most of those countries don't have an income tax, it's all sales tax and its about 12% to 15%. We on the other hand have sales tax and still pay income tax, and extra taxes on certain items like cigarettes, alcohol, and gas. It all averages out to be maybe a 10% difference max.

honeslty, the movie made it sound really good about living in another country but there is always a catch. The movie shined a light on how much i have to pay for my hospital bills and the things i need and needed in the past from my accident.

i mean by the grace of god a customer service woman told me that she was having a great day (6 months after my accidnet) so she gave me some information about me applying to some program that would help me pay of some of my hospital bill. i owed $100,000.00 for one bill alone and i have at least 8 bills under my belt from my accident. because i signed on to that program i only owed $1600.00. you do the math. and that lady told me only because she was having a good day.
theres more stories that goes along with my accident but that one topped it for me.

so when i saw this movie i was lil surprised but still in disbelief.



poor quality healthcare ftl, cute voice by the way ms. tasuki

aaaaaww.....Thank you Tony ;)

[GSRteg®]

lol



I'm moving to France :)

[Hulud]

im sorry but i refuse to watch propaganda films

[Tasuki_Civic]

understandable.

["B"]

im sorry but i refuse to watch propaganda films


x2

[Maverick]

ok screw america health care......watch the movie its good info to have

[tony]

I watched, I've changed my mind and I was wrong. I dont see why we cannot do Universal Healthcare here

[autumnk5]

i saw the movie and i was pretty surprise that was going on in other countries. i guess i need to be more informed. and i watched it with my parents one boring afternoon. it was nothing like i was used to.

anyways, i think we should go to universal healthcare. my parents are self owned business people. so we have about the worst insurance possible for over $500 a month ... and i know if one of us gets hurt real bad it'll go up more. when they found out i had scoliosis, our bill went up almost $100 a month.

but on the other side, you have to think about all the cons of the side of universal healthcare. i mean more taxes? ughh we already pay too much.

the point for us paying for healthcare, is so doctors, nurses, etc can rob you of your money basically. face it, almost everyone in america is money hungry. they just want more and more. so this will probably never happen.

hillary talks of it, but come on, do you think she could actually do it without making us pay more taxes? i mean i know we will have to pay more taxes, but i'm talking about ALOT more taxes. everyone wants lower taxes as it is.

[Turbo04]

**** that. Why should I have to pay more in taxes so some lazy ass that doesn't want to work has free health care? Also I don't buy the notion that it's everyone elses responsibility to ensure I live a long and healthy life....which is exactly what universal healthcare is saying/doing. I won't disagree that healthcare insurance is very very expensive...but there is an easy way around that....HSA's. Not only can you pay deductable's outta that but anyother healthcare expenses as well. Make it so that ppl who open and fund such accounts are given even more tax breaks for doing so. At least that encourages ppl to be responsible for their own lives. Granted it won't solve everyone's dliema about healthcare....but it is a so much better idea then passing the buck to the rest of a country's ppl to pick up the slack. I will NEVER vote for a candidate who supports universal healthcare. After all din't country/nations like soviet russia have some type of universal healthcare? :bannana:

[man]

Guess where a lot of foreign doctors go?

AMERICA, **** YEAH.

Unless of course you really think a surgeon should make less money than a construction worker.

[tony]

I know some construction works that get paid well.. but then again those who oppose universal healthcare tend not to come with facts but rather scare tactics to get people to agree with them.

[Turbo04]

I know some construction works that get paid well.. but then again those who oppose universal healthcare tend not to come with facts but rather scare tactics to get people to agree with them.

And exactly what are the facts? Tax WILL go up....the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere. If taxes are not raised the money for it is pulled from elsewhere...be it military spending/education etc.
It is just another way for ppl to be less responsible for their own lives and well being. Health insurance is one of the things you dno't give much thought too until you need it...thus it is not placed high on many ppl's "need" list. Supplying ppl with free health care isn't going to change their priority outlook at all....the government will make everything ok. Have I said anything untrue?

[tony]

Turbo04, as you can see earlier in this thread I felt just like you do.. it wasn't even the movie that changed my mind but rather the fact that this system can and does work. I talked to a friend in Canada and she just couldn't understand the notion of healthcare that is not affordable.. or why the people of a society cannot enjoy the equal benefit of healthcare. Her attitude on the issue changed my outlook.

Yes taxes will go up but at the end of the day if nobody has to worry about having to take a trip to the hospital, pay $20k for surgery and not be at the mercy of insurance corporations (whose interest is profit, not your wellbeing) then I'm more than willing.. those who have the means can pay low premiums, those who do not give what they can if anything.

[1SICKLEX]

Once u filter out the bias, it is a very good movie!

[Turbo04]

Turbo04, as you can see earlier in this thread I felt just like you do.. it wasn't even the movie that changed my mind but rather the fact that this system can and does work. I talked to a friend in Canada and she just couldn't understand the notion of healthcare that is not affordable.. or why the people of a society cannot enjoy the equal benefit of healthcare. Her attitude on the issue changed my outlook.

Yes taxes will go up but at the end of the day if nobody has to worry about having to take a trip to the hospital, pay $20k for surgery and not be at the mercy of insurance corporations (whose interest is profit, not your wellbeing) then I'm more than willing.. those who have the means can pay low premiums, those who do not give what they can if anything.

Why would anyone pay low premiums if it can be free? I have a co worker that lived in Canada and she said the tax rate was like 20-somthing percent.....23 if I am correct. 23 percent...on everything you buy. No way in hell I'd pay that so joe schmoo can have free insurance. Yes insurnace companies are out to make money...thats the nature of business. No one ever started a company in whatever field and said " gee i don't want to make any money...matter of fact I'd like to loose it". My point exactly that it's not the government/companies/other ppls responsiblity to have your well being in mind. Lets not even talk about the waiting times as it was mentioned earlier to see any given doctor due to the sheer volume of ppl that would rush and see them. Can this system work, yes I'm sure it can. Do I think it's a good idea? No not in the least. At the very best its a band-aid for the real problem...getting people to step up and take responsiblity for themselves and their own health. When you make healthcare free there is no incentive for ppl to live healthy lifestyles or take care of themselves as the "unviersal healthcare plan" says that if there is a problem, we'll fix it for free at no cost to each individual out of pocket.

Take a look at america today...we have all this fuss over stuff like transfats and **** like that. Yes certain companies served/serve stuff that is bad for us, yet they don't force us to eat it. Who do we blame? Not the ones who made a decision to eat it, we blame the companies for selling it in the first place. Guess what? If there was no market for it, we wouldn't have a some of the problems we have now. This aspect of our society carries over into everything....it's ALWAYS someone elses fault.

[tony]

Why would anyone pay low premiums if it can be free? I have a co worker that lived in Canada and she said the tax rate was like 20-somthing percent.....23 if I am correct. 23 percent...on everything you buy. No way in hell I'd pay that so joe schmoo can have free insurance. Yes insurnace companies are out to make money...thats the nature of business. No one ever started a company in whatever field and said " gee i don't want to make any money...matter of fact I'd like to loose it". My point exactly that it's not the government/companies/other ppls responsiblity to have your well being in mind. Lets not even talk about the waiting times as it was mentioned earlier to see any given doctor due to the sheer volume of ppl that would rush and see them. Can this system work, yes I'm sure it can. Do I think it's a good idea? No not in the least. At the very best its a band-aid for the real problem...getting people to step up and take responsiblity for themselves and their own health. When you make healthcare free there is no incentive for ppl to live healthy lifestyles or take care of themselves as the "unviersal healthcare plan" says that if there is a problem, we'll fix it for free at no cost to each individual out of pocket.



And you're okay with that? So if you or a relative should come down with an illness that requires surgery.. and the insurance company (whose interest is their profit) has to make the decision on whether or not this $80k operation fits their budget.. thats just the nature of the business?

I am all for personal responsibility but health care has no business in the hands of capitalism. In the same capitalistic society companies are taking jobs away from the U.S, sending them overseas and laying off employees all in the name of profit and you want to put your life in their hands?

Education is funded by the taxpayers, Firefighters, Police, health care is one of those that does not need to be mixed with capitalism. Instill systems that reward doctors for keeping their patients well and off the system, create incentives to promote a healthy lifestyle and I guarantee the morale and productivity of the economy will far outweigh the cost of this type of system. Right now the only incentive with the current health care system is to roll the dice and go without.

Again, there is nothing wrong with affordable healthcare, I really don't understand why people do not see that. If it is for the better of society I am more than willing to have a few more dollars taken out of my paycheck. I don't think of those taking advantage of the system.. you will always have that. I think about those people who work hard but live in situations that do not afford them the luxury of health coverage, its all too common and that needs to change.

If we can fund a half trillion dollar war I'm sure there are funds somewhere that would allow us affordable health coverage.

[Batlground]

Universal health care will not work. period.

If you think it will, go to England or ask a Brit how the UK system works ;)

universal health care means:
1) Poorer Quality of Doctors because the schooling required/Money paid ratio drastically drops if we socialize medicine. Why be a doctor if your going to only make 50K a year?

2) You think it takes a long time now to see a doctor? In other SOCIALIZED places there are waits of 3-4 months. The system will become like welfare, the people that REALLY need it will be trumped by the people that abuse the system.

3) Specialized Surgeons will be harder to come by because again, the job will be very unattractive.

4) It will cost more than you can possibly fathom at this point to provide free healthcare to everyone.

5) Drug companies go under, because why invent new medicine if you cant justify the costs.

The list goes on and on.

Bottom line is the system right now is not really that bad. If you want healthcare, and you work for a decent company you can get it for as little as $10 a week.

If your like me, and work for a small business (who its VERY hard to get coverage under) you can get your own insurance for $100 a month (i recently inquired about getting insurance and that was the quote i was given for FULL COVERAGE. $5000 and under costs me $50 co pay, $5000+ i would have a $1000 deductible.)

Furthermore, if you NEED to see a doctor without insurance, you can stil lsee one, we dont REFUSE care here in the US. You just have to pay for it, eventually.

We have free child care IIRC in this state called PEACH CARE.

Whats really screwed us is the HMO and fraud. That has driven prices up along with the inconsistencies of what hospitals charge.

Socializing medicine is NOT the answer, it will create more problems.

I keep hearing about all this "change, and hope" from Obama and Clinton, but they have ZERO policy. Apart from pulling out of IRaq completely, i have heard no real plans from ANY of them.

my .02

[Batlground]

Oh and one last thing

95% of the insurance companies will cover you for whatever you need. There have been some problems in the past, but it has been heavily regulated in the last few years where it doesnt happen nearly as often as it used to.

Bottom line is if you check your policy, its all right there. if you arent covered you arent covered. if you are, you are.

All the best doctors come to america, there has to be a reason why....

[tony]

Exactly what I expected, responses with fears rather than facts. Read this:

http://consumerist.com/336654/as-cigna-insurance-waffles-on-liver-transplant-girl-dies

I got a little free time and I'd like to learn more so I'll be back with experienced opinions.

[ironchef]

I agree that the current system isn't the best, but at the same time universal healthcare shouldn't be the answer. To put it simply, lets say you're making big money in the 7 figure range for example. And then universal healthcare comes into play and your taxes go up by a lot, ex: take Finland where the top margin pays 60%. Anyways, would you really want so much of your money taken away just so XXXX can have free healthcare for her 6 kids by 6 different dads? Or that guy who just got shot while in the middle of a crack deal, and now needs emergency surgery?

Essentially, why should you be responsible for other people's healthcare? Someone might smoke, and then get lung cancer, and then they need treatment for that. And you're getting taxed more to make that happen? Why?

[Batlground]

Exactly what I expected, responses with fears rather than facts. Read this:

http://consumerist.com/336654/as-cigna-insurance-waffles-on-liver-transplant-girl-dies

I got a little free time and I'd like to learn more so I'll be back with experienced opinions.
Im sorry but that doesnt prove anything, thats a simple case of there is no right answer.

If you read " She was in a vegetative state, battling leukemia. "

So she had cancer, she was a vegetable (probably brain dead). She had already had a number of operations including bone marrow transplants.

Not to sound cruel, but yes it comes down to MONEY. Why should an insurance company give coverage for a $50,000 operation if the patient shows no signs of getting better? I mean it sucks, its a hard fact of life though.

Ironically the people bringing this story up are the same people arguing about how expensive health care is LOL.

[Batlground]

Tony we are cool, im glad we can have a civilized debate :)

[tony]

Some quotes that speak for theirselves, mostly from other forums:


I think you're missing the point. They have been shuttled down because of a lack of space in the Vancouver ward. (or Calgary has done the same thing) Not due to better care, not due to cost, or any other reason. The fact is that what did it cost them extra? $0. The system had an urgent need, and reacted in the best, fastest way to ensure proper care.

People with zero actual knowledge of the system keep throwing out this "waiting list" bs. Are there lists, of course. Is it for critical, life saving care? Absolutely not. You want a hip replacement because you are experiencing discomfort, there's the line. You broke your hip in a crash and need replacement, in you go. Organ transplants, look at the waiting list in the US for transplants. It's not due to a lack of ability, it's due to a lack of organs to transplant. Same goes.

You can always find enough data to support whatever stance you choose to take. People died waiting for some procedure in Canada, UK, France or wherever. People die in the US from no coverage, waiting in waiting rooms, or because of denial of insurance. Six of one half dozen of the other.

Universal health care is nowhere near free, and it is not the solution to all problems, but it is a different mindset than the US, that's all.


In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Robert S. Bell, M.D., President and CEO of University Health Network, Toronto, said that Michael Moore's film Sicko "exaggerated the performance of the Canadian health system — there is no doubt that too many patients still stay in our emergency departments waiting for admission to scarce hospital beds." However, "Canadians spend about 55% of what Americans spend on health care and have longer life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rates. Many Americans have access to quality health care. All Canadians have access to similar care at a considerably lower cost." Canadians pay 9% of GDP to insure 100% of citizens, compared with 14% of GDP to insure 85% of Americans.


I work in the health care system in Canada, and I work next to a nurse who is a US expat. She has long experience in both systems, and she has no doubt whatsoever about which system she'd prefer to be under herself: the Canadian system, by a mile.

One of my jobs is to book MRI's, CT scans, and other tests for patients. There are protocols in place for scheduling these tests. A team of physicians reviews all requisitions and decides priorities. Someone who needs an MRI today gets it today, at no charge. Someone less urgent may wait a few weeks or months if they want it for free. Someone who needs it on a much less urgent basis can wait 3 to 6 months, roughly. In all instances there is no charge. And, as in the US, if you've got the money, you can buy the scan privately, or fly to some US institution if that is what you'd like.

I'm talking about how things work normally. In 6 years on the job, I've never experienced any case that hasn't worked that way.

One poster here remarked that he's never heard of someone coming to Canada for superior medical treatment, I would attribute that to the fact that relatively few Americans have an interest in knowing much about what's going on outside America in any area, medicine included. Fewer still care to hear about pursuits in which someone else performs better than America. They do not hear about this kind of thing in the US media. But FYI, Canada is a world leader in applied neuroscience (e.g. brain and nervous system injury and disease), and on the treatment of diabetes.

I have American friends who occasionally report symptoms that would have me at the doctor's office or emergency room immediately, but they put off the visit, waiting to see if it gets worse before they risk blowing the money for a visit! Frankly, that's unthinkable in Canada. Money is never, ever a factor.

In summary, I think the medical systems in both countries reflect the values of both countries. Health care, even the most complex surgeries and long-term in-patient care, is covered by taxes paid by all Canadians; some pull more than their equal share of the weight, and some pull less. The social safety net, the civil society, is more highly valued. In the US, it is the "American Dream" that is more highly valued - the opportunity for the advancement of the individual. Many are left out. The social safety net, the civil society, is less highly valued than the individual's pursuit of success.

[ironchef]

In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Robert S. Bell, M.D., President and CEO of University Health Network, Toronto, said that Michael Moore's film Sicko "exaggerated the performance of the Canadian health system — there is no doubt that too many patients still stay in our emergency departments waiting for admission to scarce hospital beds." However, "Canadians spend about 55% of what Americans spend on health care and have longer life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rates. That right there is questionable. Life and how people live it, whether it will be healthy or not is what is attributable to life expectancy and lower mortality rates, not the type of healthcare available in the country.


In summary, I think the medical systems in both countries reflect the values of both countries. Health care, even the most complex surgeries and long-term in-patient care, is covered by taxes paid by all Canadians; some pull more than their equal share of the weight, and some pull less. The social safety net, the civil society, is more highly valued. In the US, it is the "American Dream" that is more highly valued - the opportunity for the advancement of the individual. Many are left out. The social safety net, the civil society, is less highly valued than the individual's pursuit of success. If the social safety net or civil society in Canada is so highly valued, why doesn't everyone contribute equally? Why must some people pick up the slack for others. That guy is taking a stab at the "American Dream" because people here feel that they shouldn't have to take care of others, why is that wrong?

[tony]

Tony we are cool, im glad we can have a civilized debate :)

Most definitely, I'll always keep it civil. As I said though, I had the same sentiment you had on this issue. People need to take responsibility for their own health coverage, that its not my responsibility to pay for your unhealthy lifestyle but 1 conversation changed my views.

Imagine the innovation and the people who would be willing to take the risk of entrepreneurship like you have when they know they do not have to worry about health costs or coverage?

We're willing to donate to the poor and charities, political campaigns and medical research but not willing to give to a program that benefits everyone? And at a minimal cost..

The military is funded by our taxes and they seem to have the best technology around the world. Lockheed and Boeing competed for the contract with the government, Pharmaceuticals can do the same to get their product out there at the cheapest price and the best technology and it benefits everyone.

[tony]

If the social safety net or civil society in Canada is so highly valued, why doesn't everyone contribute equally? Why must some people pick up the slack for others. That guy is taking a stab at the "American Dream" because people here feel that they shouldn't have to take care of others, why is that wrong?

The last quote addressed that, its the difference in mentality between the two countries. The American Dream addresses individual achievement while Canadians value the sense of community as a whole.

If I make $60k a year I have no problem paying say.. $50 a month vs someone who makes $30k a year and pays $10 a month. If we are both giving the same proportionately then where is the problem? In real wages we are both giving as much we can and in reality I still have more to spend than they do.

[Batlground]

Most definitely, I'll always keep it civil. As I said though, I had the same sentiment you had on this issue. People need to take responsibility for their own health coverage, that its not my responsibility to pay for your unhealthy lifestyle but 1 conversation changed my views.

Imagine the innovation and the people who would be willing to take the risk of entrepreneurship like you have when they know they do not have to worry about health costs or coverage?

We're willing to donate to the poor and charities, political campaigns and medical research but not willing to give to a program that benefits everyone? And at a minimal cost..

The military is funded by our taxes and they seem to have the best technology around the world. Lockheed and Boeing competed for the contract with the government, Pharmaceuticals can do the same to get their product out there at the cheapest price and the best technology and it benefits everyone.
While i dont disagree with some of your methods , i still have seen NO PROOF, NO BUDGET, NO REAL COST Associated with a long term socialized plan.

All the talk in the world is great, but without hard NUMBERS, its just that, talk.

[ironchef]

The last quote addressed that, its the difference in mentality between the two countries. The American Dream addresses individual achievement while Canadians value the sense of community as a whole.

If I make $60k a year I have no problem paying say.. $50 a month vs someone who makes $30k a year and pays $10 a month. If we are both giving the same proportionately then where is the problem? In real wages we are both giving as much we can and in reality I still have more to spend than they do.Well if you pay proportionally, shouldn't the care be proportional as well?

You even mentioned yourself in another post...


Nothing more? I wont lie I make a tad more than that and things aren't tight but they sure are not quite comfortable either. Taxes totally kill my pay.
Well if they're killing the pay right now, just imagine how much worse it would be with them being increased thanks to universal healthcare. And you know if universal healthcare gets adopted, they'll push for universal education. So then you'll have to pay even more taxes just so Joe Blow can do keg stands 5 nights a week and barely pass class.

[Batlground]

Well if you pay proportionally, shouldn't the care be proportional as well?

You even mentioned yourself in another post...


Well if they're killing the pay right now, just imagine how much worse it would be with them being increased thanks to universal healthcare. And you know if universal healthcare gets adopted, they'll push for universal education. So then you'll have to pay even more taxes just so Joe Blow can do keg stands 5 nights a week and barely pass class.
:goodjob:

[tony]

While i dont disagree with some of your methods , i still have seen NO PROOF, NO BUDGET, NO REAL COST Associated with a long term socialized plan.

All the talk in the world is great, but without hard NUMBERS, its just that, talk.

United States:

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) - 6096.2 (2004)

United Kingdom (Universal Coverage)

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) - 2899.7 (2004)

Switzerland (Mandated Coverage like Hillary Clinton Proposes)

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) - 5571.9 (2004)

France (Universal Coverage)

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) - 3464.0 (2004)

Canada (Universal Coverage)

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) - 3037.6 (2004)

Real numbers, and I'm seeing a pattern here...

[tony]

Well if you pay proportionally, shouldn't the care be proportional as well?

You even mentioned yourself in another post...


Well if they're killing the pay right now, just imagine how much worse it would be with them being increased thanks to universal healthcare. And you know if universal healthcare gets adopted, they'll push for universal education. So then you'll have to pay even more taxes just so Joe Blow can do keg stands 5 nights a week and barely pass class.

I'll take the pain of that additional tax if I have the peace of mind knowing I can pursue entrepreneurship like I want without the worry of health coverage, sign me up now!

So you're saying that healthcare should be proportionate? That the person who makes less (For instance a teacher who will never make 6 digits but remains a great asset to society) should get less quality healthcare because she does not make enough for better care?

And in my statement I said that proportionately we are paying the same thing. Again, if I make $50,000 a year and pay $50 a month then the person making $30k a month pays $30 a month.. we are both paying the same percentage of our wages so we should be entitled to the same care.. I see nothing wrong with that.. its proportionate and fair.

[tony]

I will also say I believe if you want to pay a higher percentage of your pay for private or supplemental coverage then by all means do so.. but don't strip those who do not have the means of their coverage as well.

[ironchef]

I'll take the pain of that additional tax if I have the peace of mind knowing I can pursue entrepreneurship like I want without the worry of health coverage, sign me up now!

So you're saying that healthcare should be proportionate? That the person who makes less (For instance a teacher who will never make 6 digits but remains a great asset to society) should get less quality healthcare because she does not make enough for better care?

And in my statement I said that proportionately we are paying the same thing. Again, if I make $50,000 a year and pay $50 a month then the person making $30k a month pays $30 a month.. we are both paying the same percentage of our wages so we should be entitled to the same care.. I see nothing wrong with that.. its proportionate and fair.Let's take a look at it from an entrepreneurship point of view. Lets say you're some sort of provider of medical services or equipment as your business. Person A contributes his share to "society" @ $50/month, and person B contributes the $30/month, but your service or equipment costs $100. So while people are paying proportionally to what they make, its not covering your costs, not even break even costs. How do you feel about losing money on your entrepreneurship?

I agree with you in that teachers are a great asset to society, as well as cops/firefighters/military personnel and the like. They should all be paid way more than they currently are.

Proportionality is fair, thats true. But to use another example, some guy gets taxed on his $1 million in income. But guy B falls below the line and doesn't get taxed on his earnings. Yet guy a's taxes went to building the roads and infrastructure that support guy b even having a job or sending his kids to public school. Wheres the fairness in that?

[ironchef]

I will also say I believe if you want to pay a higher percentage of your pay for private or supplemental coverage then by all means do so.. but don't strip those who do not have the means of their coverage as well.This I can't agree with. People always have the means to change their situation for the good. The problem is they choose not to work hard enough to get where they want.

Case in point, my parents. We moved here in 93 with no money, no ability to speak english, and no assistance besides the first apartment we had was subsidized thanks to the Jewish Community Center. My parents were making something to the effect of $4-5/hr at the time. But they busted ass nonstop, and now today they combine to make well over 6 figures, own their own cars, house, this, that, and the third. So, you cant expect me to believe that people who have lived here their whole life and have a distinct comparative advantage in the language department can't make something more of themselves.

[autumnk5]

as i stated before, my parents own their own business. it's bicycle & lawnmower shop. they sell and repair. around this time of the year, they make no money. the money they get is to pay the bills. and when insurance is over $500 a month, for my mom, my dad, and me, they can barely afford it. i need an EKG which will cost $2700. insurance said they will pay $500 for it. i can only go to the doctor 2x a year at a copay of $25. my parents work hard. they aren't crack dealers. they don't have a million kids. they actually get out of a desk chair and actually WORK. and they can't get good health insurance. i don't think this is right for people like them to not get it.

[tony]

This I can't agree with. People always have the means to change their situation for the good. The problem is they choose not to work hard enough to get where they want.

Case in point, my parents. We moved here in 93 with no money, no ability to speak english, and no assistance besides the first apartment we had was subsidized thanks to the Jewish Community Center. My parents were making something to the effect of $4-5/hr at the time. But they busted ass nonstop, and now today they combine to make well over 6 figures, own their own cars, house, this, that, and the third. So, you cant expect me to believe that people who have lived here their whole life and have a distinct comparative advantage in the language department can't make something more of themselves.

Just because they make more doesn't necessarily mean they're advantaged.. not everyone can achieve 6 figures, otherwise your parents would just be considered middle class. You will always have blue collar workers, those who come and get your garbage every week, teach your children, pave your roads and those people give just as much to society if not more than some "wealthy." It is wrong to not consider them on a level to have healthcare provided to them.

I commend you and your parents for how far you've come.. that truly is the american dream but not everyone aspires to be wealthy.. some value their service over their compensation and they should not be left out to dry because of that choice.

[tony]

Let's take a look at it from an entrepreneurship point of view. Lets say you're some sort of provider of medical services or equipment as your business. Person A contributes his share to "society" @ $50/month, and person B contributes the $30/month, but your service or equipment costs $100. So while people are paying proportionally to what they make, its not covering your costs, not even break even costs.

The figures I've provided show that with universal healthcare costs go DOWN, furthermore taxes received will cover the cost of care without shortage. If the taxes do not cover then that is a problem with the government for now distributing funds as they should and not the system.

[ironchef]

Im not saying people have to aspire to be wealthy. But I would imagine everyone would at least want to live comfortably and not paycheck to paycheck. Also don't government personnel have good healthcare benefits as it is?

My question is who is being left out though? I haven't come across anyone who hasn't had the option to be insured, aside from entrepreneurs (however don't they have the option to buy private insurance as well?). Even at my job delivering pizzas @ Papa Johns we were offered insurance.

[Batlground]

And in my statement I said that proportionately we are paying the same thing. Again, if I make $50,000 a year and pay $50 a month then the person making $30k a month pays $30 a month.. we are both paying the same percentage of our wages so we should be entitled to the same care.. I see nothing wrong with that.. its proportionate and fair.
Tony what is your position on taxes then, would you want to pay taxes the same way.......

[ironchef]

The figures I've provided show that with universal healthcare costs go DOWN, furthermore taxes received will cover the cost of care without shortage. If the taxes do not cover then that is a problem with the government for now distributing funds as they should and not the system.There is another problem right there. It would take a highly intelligent, efficient, and potentially non corrupt government for that to happen. The U.S. Government possesses maybe only one of those qualities.

[tony]

Its not who doesn't have the option its rather who can afford it. Personally I think it should be available for every citizen of the U.S regardless of income or medical history.

[tony]

Tony what is your position on taxes then, would you want to pay taxes the same way.......

Now that is where it gets tricky for me since I don't like how medicaid and social security is drawn from checks but that is the one way I see it implemented. Its the same way we're funding the war we are in currently (through taxes) and nobody seems to care about that. The president just submitted a $3.4 Trillion budget but we complain about the possible cost of healthcare, I do not understand that.

[tony]

There is another problem right there. It would take a highly intelligent, efficient, and potentially non corrupt government for that to happen. The U.S. Government possesses maybe only one of those qualities.

When the government is afraid of the people and not the people being afraid of the government then progressive measures can be achieved. There needs to be consequences for corruption and I think things are beginning to change. Watch how this whole thing goes down with the democrats and I think you will see an awakening from the american people never seen in our lifetime.

You have the political machine going up against the people and the two are going to clash.. at the same time whats worse, the government or an industry whose #1 incentive is to make a profit?

[Turbo04]

United States:

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) - 6096.2 (2004)

United Kingdom (Universal Coverage)

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) - 2899.7 (2004)

Switzerland (Mandated Coverage like Hillary Clinton Proposes)

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) - 5571.9 (2004)

France (Universal Coverage)

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) - 3464.0 (2004)

Canada (Universal Coverage)

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) - 3037.6 (2004)

Real numbers, and I'm seeing a pattern here...

Actaully....if it stands to reason that the other countries are not paying for their healthcare coverage or medical care that wouldn't be factored into their expenditure. So the number you posted are like compairing apples to oranges. Obviously their cost spent on healthcare is significantly less. But...what about other factors? Things like sales tax? But wait I get ahead of myself. Lets take a look at numbers:

Populatation :

USA: 303,436,041 (Feb 2008 est)
Canada: 33,390,141 (July 2007 est.)
Uk: 60,776,238 (July 2007 est.)
France: 59,329,691 in 2000
Switzerland: (2002): 7.3 million

As you can see above we are not talking a few hundred thousand more ppl here in the us. We are talking hundreds of millions. Also those numbers do no take into account the thousands of illegal immigrants also in the country. If the wait for a "non-emergency" service is a few months in canada....we might as well be talking years here. The sheer number of ppl makes that clear as day to see. You would wait 2 years to get an xray of a sprained ankle so that everyone can have healthcoverage? I wouldn't.

A lot of hosiptals in America now are so slammed that they already making calls on who is more importanta to treat now. So adding millions more to that mix is a great idea. I'm sure that the government would try to throw money at the problem...but all the money in the world won't make time move faster and get new doctors trained and ready to work. So to cope with the need of healthcare workers the only way to get more ppl out there fast is to lower the training needed. Doesn't bode well for the paitents does it? Not to mention that every hospital then would be under government control (even private ones would have to accpet non paying paitents and thus need the governement's money) so the wait would be the same no matter where you tired to go. Most doctors will be put on a salary cap, cause let's face it there volumes of money already sunk in this boat won't leave much to pay ppl what they are worth. So there is no incentive to get the best and brightest over here. But hey everyone's got healthcare!

Now last to address the comment about:

The military is funded by our taxes and they seem to have the best technology around the world. Lockheed and Boeing competed for the contract with the government, Pharmaceuticals can do the same to get their product out there at the cheapest price and the best technology and it benefits everyone.

Take a loot at DMV's...your their to get a license to drive a car...and sometimes it takes HOURS to get a stupid piece of plastic. Now look at the scrutiny that the military is under, and their main goal is to provide the best offense and defensive possible. Their business a lot of times is killing and yet we get all upset and cry when ppl die. Yet we need them and can't stop the funding for it. Now lets focus on pharm companies....

By their very nature they take HUGE monetary risks and alot of times nothing comes out of it. Not 5/10/15 millions, hundreds of millions invested with no return. How long do you think it would take the american public to whine and ***** that their money was producing nothing and the were tired of it? So from the get go you put a cap on the people controlling the money so they will only invest on research that would only produce near immediant and postive results so that the american people do not feel it's a waste. So the truly helpful (and many times expensive and lucrative) fields are not a priority cause there is not incentive to go after them due to time and cost involved. Also it takes years sometimes decades for a drug to be thoughly tested and approved and even then there are side effects no one knew about. I can't even begin to imagine how many commites will be formed and how much oversight the pharm companies would endure if a pharm companies were government funded and controlled. No one would want to work their due to the oversight and hoops needed to jump through, all without any type of goal of financial reward at the end. There would be none. Everyone gets it free, huge shortages depending on the use of it...but everyone needed free healthcare.

[ironchef]

When the government is afraid of the people and not the people being afraid of the government then progressive measures can be achieved. There needs to be consequences for corruption and I think things are beginning to change. Watch how this whole thing goes down with the democrats and I think you will see an awakening from the american people never seen in our lifetime.

I really hope some sort of awakening does happen, and reform happens across the board. Do I realistically think it will happen? No, and the reason goes back to your statement of people being afraid of the government.

[Turbo04]

When the government is afraid of the people and not the people being afraid of the government then progressive measures can be achieved. There needs to be consequences for corruption and I think things are beginning to change. Watch how this whole thing goes down with the democrats and I think you will see an awakening from the american people never seen in our lifetime.

You have the political machine going up against the people and the two are going to clash.. at the same time whats worse, the government or an industry whose #1 incentive is to make a profit?


I agree that the government should be afraid of the people. But the very nature of unviersal healthcare is setting us up to be dependant upon a government for a necessity...not the other way around. I'm a bit confused about who the political machine is in your statment. I wouldn't trust the government to provide for my family if something happened to me, yet this issue ties right in together with that aspect. I pay super high amounts of taxes to keep roads and other "public" works in good reapir and stuff yet the money is never there to fix them when needed. And you expect me to believe governement funded health care is a good idea? No sir.....

[tony]

Actaully....if it stands to reason that the other countries are not paying for their healthcare coverage or medical care that wouldn't be factored into their expenditure. So the number you posted are like compairing apples to oranges. Obviously their cost spent on healthcare is significantly less. But...what about other factors? Things like sales tax? But wait I get ahead of myself. Lets take a look at numbers:

Populatation :

USA: 303,436,041 (Feb 2008 est)
Canada: 33,390,141 (July 2007 est.)
Uk: 60,776,238 (July 2007 est.)
France: 59,329,691 in 2000
Switzerland: (2002): 7.3 million

As you can see above we are not talking a few hundred thousand more ppl here in the us. We are talking hundreds of millions. Also those numbers do no take into account the thousands of illegal immigrants also in the country. If the wait for a "non-emergency" service is a few months in canada....we might as well be talking years here. The sheer number of ppl makes that clear as day to see. You would wait 2 years to get an xray of a sprained ankle so that everyone can have healthcoverage? I wouldn't.

A lot of hosiptals in America now are so slammed that they already making calls on who is more importanta to treat now. So adding millions more to that mix is a great idea. I'm sure that the government would try to throw money at the problem...but all the money in the world won't make time move faster and get new doctors trained and ready to work. So to cope with the need of healthcare workers the only way to get more ppl out there fast is to lower the training needed. Doesn't bode well for the paitents does it? Not to mention that every hospital then would be under government control (even private ones would have to accpet non paying paitents and thus need the governement's money) so the wait would be the same no matter where you tired to go. Most doctors will be put on a salary cap, cause let's face it there volumes of money already sunk in this boat won't leave much to pay ppl what they are worth. So there is no incentive to get the best and brightest over here. But hey everyone's got healthcare!

Now last to address the comment about:


Take a loot at DMV's...your their to get a license to drive a car...and sometimes it takes HOURS to get a stupid piece of plastic. Now look at the scrutiny that the military is under, and their main goal is to provide the best offense and defensive possible. Their business a lot of times is killing and yet we get all upset and cry when ppl die. Yet we need them and can't stop the funding for it. Now lets focus on pharm companies....

By their very nature they take HUGE monetary risks and alot of times nothing comes out of it. Not 5/10/15 millions, hundreds of millions invested with no return. How long do you think it would take the american public to whine and ***** that their money was producing nothing and the were tired of it? So from the get go you put a cap on the people controlling the money so they will only invest on research that would only produce near immediant and postive results so that the american people do not feel it's a waste. So the truly helpful (and many times expensive and lucrative) fields are not a priority cause there is not incentive to go after them due to time and cost involved. Also it takes years sometimes decades for a drug to be thoughly tested and approved and even then there are side effects no one knew about. I can't even begin to imagine how many commites will be formed and how much oversight the pharm companies would endure if a pharm companies were government funded and controlled. No one would want to work their due to the oversight and hoops needed to jump through, all without any type of goal of financial reward at the end. There would be none. Everyone gets it free, huge shortages depending on the use of it...but everyone needed free healthcare.

Do you understand what per capita means? Its per person and in this instance eliminates the size of the country. Again your argument is filled with fears and opinions, I brought you facts on healthcare systems that are universal and I didnt even explore other countries that have this type of system.

Simply stated, which is better.. a system built for profit or a system built for the people?

DMV is a state run system, not federal.. apples to oranges.

[tony]

I agree that the government should be afraid of the people. But the very nature of unviersal healthcare is setting us up to be dependant upon a government for a necessity...not the other way around. I'm a bit confused about who the political machine is in your statment. I wouldn't trust the government to provide for my family if something happened to me, yet this issue ties right in together with that aspect. I pay super high amounts of taxes to keep roads and other "public" works in good reapir and stuff yet the money is never there to fix them when needed. And you expect me to believe governement funded health care is a good idea? No sir.....

Again, government provides free education.. police protection.. fire, military, or should we be paying for that on an individual basis too?

And about the Military.. I'm all for funding it but I am not for funding wars that can be avoided, that is not efficient.

[Tracy]

Tony! I am surprised to say the least! In the last thread a said I was for socialized medical care. You are laying down exactly what I would have. I just didn't feel like getting into the argument at the time.
In the end, people are complaining about taxes and income and taking care of others and illegals. I think a good solution to look at for all of those things is dropping income taxes and raising sales tax. Everyone spends money some time or another. Drug dealers don't pay taxes on their income, but they do buy the s.hit out of some cars and shoes and food, etc. Illegals don't pay income tax, but they sure do eat and wear clothes, etc., that are purchased in our country. Crack heads may not have a job to generate income tax, but they damn sure stand on the corner begging for money, that they obviously use for crack for the most part, but they have to eat sometime which entails buying food. Prostitutes rent hotel rooms and so on.

I am debating this on the simplest terms and I know there would be a whole lot more to getting this to happen then what I have briefly mentioned here. I know you get the point. I also know there will be some argument on why this won't work.

Either way, Dan and I don't have health insurance. The truth is, we can't afford it. As glamorous as it may seem, we make just enough to make our world keep going around as it is. I was sick on the couch when I saw th movie, ironically enough. I felt like I needed to go to the hospital. I thought I had pancreatitis after reading on the internet for 3 days. I was up for 3 entire days crying because my stomach hurt so bad. I could NOT sleep. I was afraid it was gas (LOL) and I would have to pay $2000 just to find out I had gas. Then again, I was like it may be pancreatitis and that has the possibility of killing me. It ended up being ok and I didn't go to the hospital. I don't think it was gas, but I don't know what it was. It could have very well been something bad and I didn't go to the doctor because I couldn't afford it. I still have hospital bills from when my ulcer was bleeding. I didn't really know what the movie was about when I rented it. I got it on-line and just stuck it in my queue without reading about it. Boy was I surprised once I started watching it.

I know some people in Canada. I asked them about the medical care system there. They said they wouldn't have it any other way. Just so you know, if you need a specialist doctor in the States...you may have to wait several days to see the doctor and we PAY for our medical care. Just ask Matt, who had an accident at one of our events. He needed to see a spine specialist and it took like 3-4 days to get to him. There was only 1 spine specialist for all of the hospitals in the area. Matt was strapped to a board that entire time waiting to see the doctor. So, if waiting days to see a specialist is your big argument...it's kind of moot.

Ok I think I am done. I'm sure someone else will fight it out on here :)

P.S.
I watched the movie "Michael Moore hates America" the other day. It was not so good.

[ironchef]

United States:

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) - 6096.2 (2004)

United Kingdom (Universal Coverage)

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) - 2899.7 (2004)

Switzerland (Mandated Coverage like Hillary Clinton Proposes)

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) - 5571.9 (2004)

France (Universal Coverage)

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) - 3464.0 (2004)

Canada (Universal Coverage)

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) - 3037.6 (2004)

Real numbers, and I'm seeing a pattern here...Lets compare the % of healthcare expenditure to GDP per capita. This is according to 2006 numbers found @ http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf

United States:
6,096.2 / 44,970 = ~13.6%

United Kingdom:
2,899.7 / 40,180 = ~7.2%

Switzerland:
5,571.9 / 57,230 = ~9.7%

France:
3,464 / 36,550 = ~9.5%

Canada:
3,037.6 / 36,170 = ~8.4%

The differences aren't that great. If it was the difference between 5% and 25% that would be one thing. But the average difference is just about 5%, not a huge amount honestly.

[Tank]

Damn i feel like im getting educated up in here, didnt know any of this im Army health care is one of those things that came with the job and overs my whole family so i neevr really looked into how the civilian side had to fair on it. but i know when i was stationed in germany there system was a good one according to my wife.

[tony]

Considering the numbers are so low the high percentage that the U.S has is still a red flag for me. I tend to think the numbers stray away from the humanitarian side of this issue.. people need quality affordable healthcare.