SICKO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ironchef

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ironchef

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tony

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.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tony

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Batlground

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ironchef

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tony

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tony

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbo04

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbo04

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tony

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/D...rces/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.

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.

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.