So Let's See What Happens

[BanginJimmy]

"letting people keep more of what they earn" how would that be any different from shifting the tax cut to the middle and working classes? Are they somehow less entitled to the money they earn just because they sweat more in earning it?

Why dont you point out where middle and low income earners would get less money by extending the Bush cuts. Higher income earners PAY A HIGHER RATE and the rate reduction was smaller for the highest bracket than it was for the lowest.

As it stands now, if the cuts expire, high income earners would go from 35% to 39.6% while the lowest income earners would go from 10% to 15%. Allowing the Bush cuts to expire also eliminates an entire tax bracket for the lowest earners.

[BanginJimmy]

The "Fair Tax" is not based on what you EARN, its based on what you CONSUME. As such it would be balanced against those who consume more of their income than they save.

You might want to read a bit more about the fairtax if you believe this. Because of the prebate, essential items such as food would not be taxed.

[blaknoize]

All this... but no one thinks of Norway. The Kingdom of Norway, which is doing EVERYTHING right for EVERYONE and EVERYONE is enjoying their life and their country is doing it right. The wealthy, the poor, whoever. Everyone is taken care of. How is it that u can get MAD for a little more of ur cash going to help other humans? If your able to help them why not?? Oh I know why, u think they wont help u, so to prevent that, u wont help. Also, they're higher education as with most "SOCIALISTIC COUNTRIES OMFG" is either totally or virtually free to students far and near.

Well fuk that! If i have the money and am making the money to support myself all well and good, you damn sure bet I'ma help my neighbor, my neighborhood and even those I dont know. Because I know when my times comes, someone would have my back. But since this is America and since our health care is based on not helping people to the point they actually die, no one wants to lend a hand. Unlike countries who are all paying into a pot with the backing of their respective Governments, regardless of the "higher" overall tax, the people are all safe and have piece of mind because they know, if they come down with something, they will be seen and cared for by their respective countries and not have to refinance their homes or sell their cars or DECIDE which is more important, life or debt.

U can talk as much as u want about those other countries doctors and the fact that when specialty parts are needed (heart, bone marrow, lung, kidney) they would be placed on a waiting list like u dont already know those are specialty items that you yourself in America would also have to wait on, but u wouldnt have to PAY for it, because u and your country are all PAYING for each other. The doctors are also paid well and do a great job because they are paid for HELPING you, they get bonuses for HELPING YOU. The country benefits because its workforce is strong, healthy and able to perform when asked to. While our dumbass bitch about what the "richest" should keep. We as a country should be more worried about all of us and not just one of us. Because.. when you come down with something and are let go because u just so happen to get sick and ur insurance company drops u because u didnt know u were going to get sick and ur job lets u go because u "cost" to much to care for. You will understand.

[nelson9995]

All this... but no one thinks of Norway. The Kingdom of Norway, which is doing EVERYTHING right for EVERYONE and EVERYONE is enjoying their life and their country is doing it right. The wealthy, the poor, whoever. Everyone is taken care of. How is it that u can get MAD for a little more of ur cash going to help other humans? If your able to help them why not?? Oh I know why, u think they wont help u, so to prevent that, u wont help. Also, they're higher education as with most "SOCIALISTIC COUNTRIES OMFG" is either totally or virtually free to students far and near.

Well fuk that! If i have the money and am making the money to support myself all well and good, you damn sure bet I'ma help my neighbor, my neighborhood and even those I dont know. Because I know when my times comes, someone would have my back. But since this is America and since our health care is based on not helping people to the point they actually die, no one wants to lend a hand. Unlike countries who are all paying into a pot with the backing of their respective Governments, regardless of the "higher" overall tax, the people are all safe and have piece of mind because they know, if they come down with something, they will be seen and cared for by their respective countries and not have to refinance their homes or sell their cars or DECIDE which is more important, life or debt.

U can talk as much as u want about those other countries doctors and the fact that when specialty parts are needed (heart, bone marrow, lung, kidney) they would be placed on a waiting list like u dont already know those are specialty items that you yourself in America would also have to wait on, but u wouldnt have to PAY for it, because u and your country are all PAYING for each other. The doctors are also paid well and do a great job because they are paid for HELPING you, they get bonuses for HELPING YOU. The country benefits because its workforce is strong, healthy and able to perform when asked to. While our dumbass bitch about what the "richest" should keep. We as a country should be more worried about all of us and not just one of us. Because.. when you come down with something and are let go because u just so happen to get sick and ur insurance company drops u because u didnt know u were going to get sick and ur job lets u go because u "cost" to much to care for. You will understand.

AMEN

FINALLY, SOMEONE WITH MY IDEALS! GOD BLESS YOU BRO!

[David88vert]

All this... but no one thinks of Norway. The Kingdom of Norway, which is doing EVERYTHING right for EVERYONE and EVERYONE is enjoying their life and their country is doing it right. The wealthy, the poor, whoever. Everyone is taken care of. How is it that u can get MAD for a little more of ur cash going to help other humans? If your able to help them why not?? Oh I know why, u think they wont help u, so to prevent that, u wont help. Also, they're higher education as with most "SOCIALISTIC COUNTRIES OMFG" is either totally or virtually free to students far and near.
....

Norway's tax burden is 45% of GDP. Only Sweden is higher, with the highest tax burden out of all industrialized countries. Are you ready to tax home less than half your pay?

Norwegians can opt out of the the government system and pay out-of-pocket. Many pay out-of-pocket and travel to a foreign country for medical care when waiting lists are long.

On any given day 280,000 Norwegians (out of a country of 4.6 million) are waiting for health care. Norway’s government has been trying to legislate these waits out of existence since 1990…unsuccessfully.

Patients choose general practitioners (GPs) from a government list. These GPs then act as gatekeepers for specialist services. Patients can only switch GPs twice per year and only if there is no waiting list for the requested GP.

It’s estimated that 23% of all patients needing hospitalization must wait at least 3 months for admission.

There are significant waiting times for many procedures. Many Norwegians go abroad for medical treatments. The average weight for a hip replacement is more than 4 months. “Approximately 23 percent of all patients referred for hospital admission have to wait longer than three months for admission.” Also, care can be denied if it is not deemed to be cost-effective.

Norway hires a government ethicist to determine who they should spend their money on, because they want to do it in an ethical way. He decides if you live or die. The US just treats you regardless of cost, if it is life or death.

Norway has 85 hospitals for a population of 4.8 million people in 148,746 square miles. The US has over 310 million people in 3,537,441 square miles. The US has 5,815 registered hospitals, of which 5,010 are community hospitals.
Norway does not have the extreme amount of illegals that the US has utilizing the healthcare system.

As for hospital rankings, perhaps you should review the list of the top 1000 hospitals in the world:
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp
As you can see, the top 15 are all US hospitals. By county, the US ranks #1, and Norway ranks down at #32. Their highest ranked hospitals come in at #239 and #240. Even in Europe, they are only #63 and #64.
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/Di...by_Country.asp

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I am not against universal coverage for emergency procedures. Life-threatening conditions could be covered under a government plan, but cost would need to be contained. Private insurance should be carried for all preventative and elective medical procedures.

[Total_Blender]

You might want to read a bit more about the fairtax if you believe this. Because of the prebate, essential items such as food would not be taxed.

The "prebate" is a monthly check from the gov't. If you think the "Fairtax" will shrink the size of the gov't or do away with the IRS you're shitting yourself. The IRS only sends out checks once a year as is. If you have them sending out checks monthly, thats a whole other level of bureaucracy you're adding.

Also, I get it that there are different rates for different brackets. That was never a point of contention. Money has a declining utility. A $3 gallon of milk costs a member of the lowest bracket much more in sacrifice than it costs a member of the highest bracket, I don't see why the taxation rates shouldn't reflect that.

Those in the higher brackets use more government services than people in lower brackets. Think of all the breaks and subsidies the gov't pours into commerce... like the costs of regulation and inspection (OSHA and whatnot), research grants, farm subsidies, no-bid contracts, airports (poor people can't afford to fly, after all), the internet, interstate highway system, hell even GPS uses government satellites. Those who have more wealth and more property also need more protection from the military and police as they have more to lose if civil order breaks down or we are invaded by a foreign country.

Where people in the working class have to fight to get to get unemployment, welfare, social security, and medicare/medicaid (all of which are programs they pay into), the "elites" get all sorts of stuff handed to them from the public treasury and you never hear a peep from the "fiscal conservatives" about that...

[Total_Blender]

As a case in point to what I said above:

The U.S.S. Ronald Reagan says "We're from the government, and we're here to help" :

http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/...-DGBjIXNA.cspx

SAN DIEGO - The USS Ronald Reagan is being diverted from its training exercises in the Pacific to help deliver supplies to a marooned cruise ship about 150 miles south of San Diego Tuesday.

The Carnival Splendor became marooned when a blaze erupted in its engine room about 6 a.m. Monday as the 952-foot luxury liner was roughly 55 miles west of Punta San Jacinto on the first leg of a seven-day Mexican Riviera cruise, according to a statement from Carnival Cruise Lines.

This morning, about 35 pallets of supplies will be transferred from Naval Air Station North Island to the USS Ronald Reagan by aircraft. Once aboard the Reagan, the supplies will be taken by helicopter to the cruise ship, according to Third Fleet public affairs office.

None of the thousands of passengers and crew members aboard was injured in Monday's blaze, though several people reportedly suffered panic attacks during the emergency.

The fire and all hot spots were fully extinguished within about three hours, officials said.

[David88vert]

As a case in point to what I said above:

Carnival Cruise Line is not for the rich. They are a mass marketer.

[Total_Blender]

But only people with disposable income go on cruises.

Do you think Carnival cruise line will be billed by the gov't for mobilizing an aircraft carrier to help put out the fire? Do you think the government would act on that sort of scale to put out a fire at a private residence? In other words, Carnival uses gov't resources on a greater scale than the average citizen, and should be taxed accordingly.

[David88vert]

How many private citizens are in a residence? How many are on a cruise ship?
What do you think that the political fallout would be for Obama if he ordered the aircraft carrier NOT to respond?

Why are you confusing business taxes with personal taxes? They are not the same.

[Total_Blender]

Carnival cannot operate safely for all of the patrons in their charge without the government is what I am saying. The gov't stepped in to cover them when they couldn't handle their responsibility on their own. If the gov't were to "let the free market handle it" those people would have died.

[David88vert]

Carnival cannot operate safely for all of the patrons in their charge without the government is what I am saying. The gov't stepped in to cover them when they couldn't handle their responsibility on their own. If the gov't were to "let the free market handle it" those people would have died.

What crack rock did you get hold of?
Carnival put out the fire. The people have food, and are not going to die without the US government. Everyone is safe - without the government's help. The ship is only 200 miles from San Diego, and tugboats are headed to it now.
The US Coast Guard responded - because that is their job.
The US Coast Guard asked for the USS Ronald Reagan to divert from training maneuvers to go to the ship - not Carnival.

You need to get your facts straight before you make baseless accusations.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/09...ex.html?hpt=T2

Sure sounds like capitalism handled it just fine.

I wonder how socialism (your favorite) would have handled it? Oh yeah, no one would have the ability to take a cruise, as their money would have been taken from them by the government in the form of higher taxes.

[BanginJimmy]

All this... but no one thinks of Norway. The Kingdom of Norway, which is doing EVERYTHING right for EVERYONE and EVERYONE is enjoying their life and their country is doing it right. The wealthy, the poor, whoever. Everyone is taken care of. How is it that u can get MAD for a little more of ur cash going to help other humans? If your able to help them why not?? Oh I know why, u think they wont help u, so to prevent that, u wont help. Also, they're higher education as with most "SOCIALISTIC COUNTRIES OMFG" is either totally or virtually free to students far and near.

Well fuk that! If i have the money and am making the money to support myself all well and good, you damn sure bet I'ma help my neighbor, my neighborhood and even those I dont know. Because I know when my times comes, someone would have my back. But since this is America and since our health care is based on not helping people to the point they actually die, no one wants to lend a hand. Unlike countries who are all paying into a pot with the backing of their respective Governments, regardless of the "higher" overall tax, the people are all safe and have piece of mind because they know, if they come down with something, they will be seen and cared for by their respective countries and not have to refinance their homes or sell their cars or DECIDE which is more important, life or debt.

U can talk as much as u want about those other countries doctors and the fact that when specialty parts are needed (heart, bone marrow, lung, kidney) they would be placed on a waiting list like u dont already know those are specialty items that you yourself in America would also have to wait on, but u wouldnt have to PAY for it, because u and your country are all PAYING for each other. The doctors are also paid well and do a great job because they are paid for HELPING you, they get bonuses for HELPING YOU. The country benefits because its workforce is strong, healthy and able to perform when asked to. While our dumbass bitch about what the "richest" should keep. We as a country should be more worried about all of us and not just one of us. Because.. when you come down with something and are let go because u just so happen to get sick and ur insurance company drops u because u didnt know u were going to get sick and ur job lets u go because u "cost" to much to care for. You will understand.

I had a whole nice reply typed out last night but didnt post it. I tried posting it right now and I got an error and lost it.

Here is the tax rates from Norway and as you can see, all that great Socialism there comes at a VERY hefty price.
http://www.nordisketax.net/main.asp?...l=eng&s=1&m=02

Exchange rate as of last night is $1 = 5.75 NOK.

http://www.exchangerate.com/

[BanginJimmy]

What crack rock did you get hold of?
Carnival put out the fire. The people have food, and are not going to die without the US government. Everyone is safe - without the government's help. The ship is only 200 miles from San Diego, and tugboats are headed to it now.
The US Coast Guard responded - because that is their job.
The US Coast Guard asked for the USS Ronald Reagan to divert from training maneuvers to go to the ship - not Carnival.

You need to get your facts straight before you make baseless accusations.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/09...ex.html?hpt=T2

Sure sounds like capitalism handled it just fine.

I wonder how socialism (your favorite) would have handled it? Oh yeah, no one would have the ability to take a cruise, as their money would have been taken from them by the government in the form of higher taxes.

This made me laugh. As I was reading his responses I was thinking the same things. His stories are not even close to the reality of it.

[blaknoize]

So you add the actual tax burden into my whole message? Obviously the country isn't a poor country nor are its citizens. Norway isn't concerned with everyone elses views on "taxes" and assuming the GDP and PPP are correct ($88,600 and $53,000 respectively) the citizens "burdened" by this high "taxation" nor are they poor, none of them are. Because they get the idea of helping each other and helping oneself. As I stated once before a strong workforce creates a strong economy and not worrying about getting sick helps that even further. I mean, in Norway, your wife can have a baby and devote a full year to that baby, with PAY and then return to her employer, relaxed, organized and prepared to put her all back into her role in the countries health because the country looked after her.

Also, Norway isn't a purely Socialist country, its more of a mixed market; with lots of free market activity and government presence to keep it all together and on the right track. Considering they're standard and cost of living is nearly 30% higher than the US and they have a balanced budget AND are leaning more toward energy independence there are no negatives you can put to make this argument stand. From the lowest or nearly lowest crime rates, lowest death rates, very high infant mortality rates, high income, high productivity and it is even a creditor to other countries, it doesn't NEED you to give it oil or lend it money. You know why? Because they are responsible and are healthy and are preparing themselves for the future not for the right now.

[Total_Blender]

The coast guard asked the Reagan to come, but again, the CG is also a government operation. Coast guard tugs are pulling the Carnival ship back to shore. Government personnel, wherther they are from the CG or the Reagan, are sending supplies to the ship. The CG is working with the engineers to keep the ships life support systems working. Again, if the gov't had not helped out Carnival, both the Carnival business and the Carnival passengers would have had a hard time.

[David88derp]
Sure sounds like capitalism handled it just fine.[/David88]

If you consider the mobilization of gov't resources to be "capitalism," then... yeah.

As far as the rest of your rant, the cruise ship industry didn't go under when the wealthiest brackets were taxed at an extra 5% under Bill Clinton. So your point is moot.

[bafbrian]

The Democratic party works for their party platform, which happens to be whatever will get the most of its members elected into power. They are not for the people or business.
The Republican party works for their party platform, which happens to be whatever will get the most of its members elected into power. They are not for the people or business.

I read all the posts in this thread and this is the only one that really made sense. For anyone to really think that either party is holding true to their founding ideals in modern politics is laughable. Politicians don't give a damn about you, me, or the next guy, the only think they seem to care about getting re-elected.

Let's be real, the government system which we operate in is not a democracy, it is a republic, therefore it will be flawed. Our economy system is not capitalism, it is combination of capitalism and socialism. If we were true capitalist economy, many of the businesses which exist today would not exist. As far as taxes go, I will admit the Bush Tax Cuts did reduce the burden on low income individuals/families, but does that mean we have to continue them without any revision to compensate for the current economic climate?

[David88vert]

The coast guard asked the Reagan to come, but again, the CG is also a government operation. Coast guard tugs are pulling the Carnival ship back to shore. Government personnel, wherther they are from the CG or the Reagan, are sending supplies to the ship. The CG is working with the engineers to keep the ships life support systems working. Again, if the gov't had not helped out Carnival, both the Carnival business and the Carnival passengers would have had a hard time.

[David88derp]
Sure sounds like capitalism handled it just fine.[/David88]

If you consider the mobilization of gov't resources to be "capitalism," then... yeah.

As far as the rest of your rant, the cruise ship industry didn't go under when the wealthiest brackets were taxed at an extra 5% under Bill Clinton. So your point is moot.

The US Coast Guards job is to respond to incidents like this. They chose to call in the USS Ronald Reagan for it's airlift abilities.
The provisions were made available by Carnival Cruise Lines, and the tugboats were contracted by Carnival - and are not US Coast Guard boats.
Carnival engineers are utilizing their backup generators. Coast Guard engineers are not working to keep life support systems working. There are two Coast Guard officers onboard the ship to help ensure the passengers' health and safety.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/10...ex.html?hpt=T1

You have no idea what you are talking about. You hav stated blatant lies.

[Total_Blender]

Thats not the story you linked to yesterday, so it seems there is new information. The story yesterday made it seem like CG tugs were hauling the boat because they attributed the info about it to a CG source:
[yesterday's article]
One tugboat "is in process of tow," Coast Guard Petty Officer Rachel Polish told CNN. Another tug is en route and will speed the slow process, she said.[/article]


But anyway, the ship did require some assistance from the CG. The CG provides necessary services to the maritime industry, you CANNOT dispute that.

[David88vert]

Thats not the story you linked to yesterday, so it seems there is new information. The story yesterday made it seem like CG tugs were hauling the boat because they attributed the info about it to a CG source:
[yesterday's article]
One tugboat "is in process of tow," Coast Guard Petty Officer Rachel Polish told CNN. Another tug is en route and will speed the slow process, she said.[/article]


But anyway, the ship did require some assistance from the CG. The CG provides necessary services to the maritime industry, you CANNOT dispute that.

At no point did any article say that it was a Coast Guard tugboat, nor did the Coast Guard itself.

Of course, the Coast Guard responded to the distress call. that is part of their job. Any boat or ship that is without power and coasting offshore should issue a distress call, and no matter if it is a small private boat or a cruise ship, the Coast Guard will respond. http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg534/

Here's food for thought: If it had been a small boat that was in trouble, the Coast Guard would still have responded, and would have tugged them to shore themselves. Do you have a problem with government resources mobilizing in that scenario?
Heres' a case where that just happened on 10/27: http://www.uscgnews.com/go/doc/586/930163/

[BanginJimmy]

So you add the actual tax burden into my whole message?

David took care of the rest in his post. I just pointed out the huge tax burden that pays for mediocre health care.

Obviously the country isn't a poor country nor are its citizens. Norway isn't concerned with everyone elses views on "taxes" and assuming the GDP and PPP are correct ($88,600 and $53,000 respectively) the citizens "burdened" by this high "taxation" nor are they poor, none of them are. Because they get the idea of helping each other and helping oneself. As I stated once before a strong workforce creates a strong economy and not worrying about getting sick helps that even further. I mean, in Norway, your wife can have a baby and devote a full year to that baby, with PAY and then return to her employer, relaxed, organized and prepared to put her all back into her role in the countries health because the country looked after her.

Whats with the quotes around the word taxes?

The rest of the quote is jibberish. Why should a company pay for someone to do nothing that benefits the company?

Also, Norway isn't a purely Socialist country, its more of a mixed market; with lots of free market activity and government presence to keep it all together and on the right track. Considering they're standard and cost of living is nearly 30% higher than the US and they have a balanced budget AND are leaning more toward energy independence there are no negatives you can put to make this argument stand. From the lowest or nearly lowest crime rates, lowest death rates, very high infant mortality rates, high income, high productivity and it is even a creditor to other countries, it doesn't NEED you to give it oil or lend it money. You know why? Because they are responsible and are healthy and are preparing themselves for the future not for the right now.

That is all fine and dandy but really offers nothing new to this thread. It isnt hard to look at statistics and draw a conclusion from it. That doesnt make the conclusion correct though.

Most of the highest crime rates and lowest incomes in the country are controlled by democrat politicians, therefore you can a assume that any area with a heavy democrat voting base will be a low income, crime infested area.

How much does that really tell us about the problems? Absolutely nothing and there is nothing you can say that will make the statement untrue. It is absolutely true, but using stats without context and real knowledge of the situation is misleading at best.

[blaknoize]

The rest of the quote is jibberish. Why should a company pay for someone to do nothing that benefits the company?

What do you mean why should a company pay? Why should a company pay for you if your injured on the job if your not benefiting the company? Why should a company pay u overtime for doing nothing more than what u were doing in the first place? That woman is an employee, hired by the employer, she is an asset. Norway understands that relaxation and family time is just as important as working. It's more than just money its the principal, you have a child.

That is all fine and dandy but really offers nothing new to this thread. It isnt hard to look at statistics and draw a conclusion from it. That doesnt make the conclusion correct though.

Um, clearly statistics have to give a conclusion. You all will use hospital statistics to prove my information wrong, this is solid statistics and prove my point especially with the fact that the country is a creditor. My jibberish isnt clogged with what other people tell me on TV, it's only jibberish to you because the idea of working with each other is beyond your scope because it isn't just for your benefit. Your idea is all about the amount of $$ involved and how u can make more of it. No one worries about just how much more $ they can con out of one another (as it seems) over there.

Most of the highest crime rates and lowest incomes in the country are controlled by democrat politicians, therefore you can a assume that any area with a heavy democrat voting base will be a low income, crime infested area.

Wrong, because Norway itself has a lower crime rate than even the highest concentration of crime in that said area.

How much does that really tell us about the problems? Absolutely nothing and there is nothing you can say that will make the statement untrue. It is absolutely true, but using stats without context and real knowledge of the situation is misleading at best.

Of what problems, our countries or theirs? That they have virtually no real problems or that we have many problems because our country is owned by companies? Because the US puts its faith in a healthcare institution? Do you not understand that a corporation must maximize profits so... in turn if the health institute is insuring you, you must be deemed "healthy" because u cost less than if u are actually someone that needs help. Which is backwards as the ones who need the healthcare are the ones that arent healthy.

Money makes us treat each other as items or customers not as humans. When you walk into an American hospital your asked first "are you insured" or "how are you paying" then... "how can we help you." vs anywhere that isn't using privatized healthcare you may generally hear "how can we help" or "what amatter."

Also, I quoted taxes because if we weren't raised with the idea that taxes are bad then taxes wouldnt matter. Our taxes go to nothing, their high "tax" is circulated in most ever aspect of their country and used for benefits not to pay off the banking system or finance a campaign.

[blaknoize]

And to further this Universal Healthcare argument and to justify it. Why is it that our police and fire departments are owned and operated by government? It works just fine, if ur house catches fire, the fire department is sent out and take care of it. Just like if your in a domestic dispute that's boiling over into more than just talking trash our police force is sent out to resolve it or stop it. Would you expect the fire fighter to ask u if u had fire insurance on your home and if you didn't he'd follow up with a question on how you would pay for his service? If you didn't have a means to pay he'd just leave on to the next home that had it and put it out or would actually put your fire out then send you bill for his service. You know why he doesnt ask you? Because he is paid by all of us for the benefit of all of us when he is needed, just as our police officers.

How is it that we can accept the governmental control of those types of services but cannot accept that as a way to provide heath services to all of us? Hell, I may as well just start my own fire department and make money off people because I would solely insure places that are less likely to catch fire and insure everyone else at staggering premiums because they're in an area more prone to fires, like all of CA and TX and the heart of the country like KS, then once you catch fire I drop you or increase your premium beyond reasonable limits.

Doesn't make sense at all does it?

[David88vert]

And to further this Universal Healthcare argument and to justify it. Why is it that our police and fire departments are owned and operated by government? It works just fine, if ur house catches fire, the fire department is sent out and take care of it. Just like if your in a domestic dispute that's boiling over into more than just talking trash our police force is sent out to resolve it or stop it. Would you expect the fire fighter to ask u if u had fire insurance on your home and if you didn't he'd follow up with a question on how you would pay for his service? If you didn't have a means to pay he'd just leave on to the next home that had it and put it out or would actually put your fire out then send you bill for his service. You know why he doesnt ask you? Because he is paid by all of us for the benefit of all of us when he is needed, just as our police officers.

How is it that we can accept the governmental control of those types of services but cannot accept that as a way to provide heath services to all of us? Hell, I may as well just start my own fire department and make money off people because I would solely insure places that are less likely to catch fire and insure everyone else at staggering premiums because they're in an area more prone to fires, like all of CA and TX and the heart of the country like KS, then once you catch fire I drop you or increase your premium beyond reasonable limits.

Doesn't make sense at all does it?

Actually, fire and police departments are local services, paid for through property taxes - after the citizens vote and chose to fun them. You obviously can move to ares in this state that do not offer either.

Recently, there was a story specifically about a fire department that chose not to put out a house fire because the owner did not pay a $75 fire service fee. They had it on the computer, so they did not need to ask him. He watched his house burn to the ground.
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local...104052668.html

You should watch the news more.

[BanginJimmy]

Why should a company pay for you if your injured on the job if your not benefiting the company? Why should a company pay u overtime for doing nothing more than what u were doing in the first place? That woman is an employee, hired by the employer, she is an asset. Norway understands that relaxation and family time is just as important as working. It's more than just money its the principal, you have a child.

Workers comp cases are covered under separate laws. OT pay is a benefit, not a requirement, just ask exempted salaried workers.

Do you also think a company should pay you for a 40 hour work week even if you miss a day and dont have any vacation time? Cause, you know, sometimes you just dont feel like going to work that day.

[VIP Style]

So you want to fix america mr. president? One word, FAIRTAX. Thank you

[blaknoize]

Yall go out of your way to find some type of evidence against a common sense argument. I may have been incorrect in stating that the "Government" owns the FD and PD, but a local government owns it. And here and there I suppose a county or city will deny them. But I'm not about to backpedal as those were used as examples. Its common sense to care for somebody in need. Why does it even matter? You cant place a cost on your life nor can you on someone elses. Talking all this negativity towards the idea of helping people live is beyond me.

Like the Military who train you to kill for instance, when u get injured, your cared for (most likely to get you back into the fight) and thats that. There are no questions about what company is providing your insurance, your injured, they fix you free of charge.

Jimmy stop being a smartass. Workers Comp may have separate laws but its just the same with child birth. She cant just give birth and bam be back at work. As I said Norway allows a whole year off with pay no questions just your having a baby so... your having a baby, take care of him/her. Your injured in Norway, see a doctor free of charge, get cared for free of charge, then take a week or two off to recover or longer if need be, so you can be productive for the country.

David, of course that may happen, its part of the counties ordinance system of whatever. I mentioned it for understanding because again, it doesnt make sense. I cant speak against it nor do I care to, this isnt about the fire protection in places that have the option to pay or not pay, this is about a constant tax to keep the service your government, local, state, city, county is providing you with. If your paying for it out of taxation, then its available to you when you need it. You dont need news to tell you that.

So again, you'd rather watch a child die because the family is uninsured when whatever the problem with their child is curable, fixable, stoppable simply by doing it? Or... yourself, knowing you have been diagnosed with cancer and you know you can either get it under control or even prevent it (as some forms of cancer are preventable) its ok with you to just die because u didnt have some damn insurance or you couldnt afford the co-pay when needed to cover the expense? Because it will cost the insurance company to MUCH too save your life. God forbid you get played when your time comes and u need assistance then, say you get it and you have to refinance your home or downgrade and are stuck paying 30-50k in medical bills because your insurance company only covered the initial 4 days of treatment, but not the hospital stay, the drugs, the reoccurring visits and check-ups.

My Grandmother is now 40k or so, in debt from her stroke just because she had a stroke and didn't prepare for it, he daughter (my aunt) sold her home to cover the upfront costs and the physical therapy required so her mother could keep her home she's been in for 74years. U know why this cost her so much? Because he health insurance dropped her due to age. Do you want me to verify the "average" cost of a stroke http://www.theuniversityhospital.com/stroke/stats.htm:
Economic Cost of Stroke
* The total cost of stroke to the United States is estimated at $43 billion per year.
* The direct costs of medical care and therapy are estimated at $28 billion per year.
* Indirect costs from lost productivity and other factors are estimated at $15 million per year.
* The average cost of care for a patient up to 90 days after stroke is $15,000.
* For 10 percent of patients, the cost of care for the first 90 days after a stroke is $35,000.
* The percentage breakdown of the direct costs of care for the first 90 days after a stroke is:

Initial hospitalization – 43 percent
Rehabilitation – 16 percent
Physician costs – 14 percent
Hospital Readmission – 14 percent
Medications and other expenses – 13 percent
My Grandmother happen to be one of those 10%. Her care cost a bit more because she was charged for her air lift from Portsmouth, OH to Columbus, OH and spent 17 days in the hospital, racking up debt, just to stay alive.

[BanginJimmy]

Yall go out of your way to find some type of evidence against a common sense argument. I may have been incorrect in stating that the "Government" owns the FD and PD, but a local government owns it. And here and there I suppose a county or city will deny them. But I'm not about to backpedal as those were used as examples. Its common sense to care for somebody in need. Why does it even matter? You cant place a cost on your life nor can you on someone elses. Talking all this negativity towards the idea of helping people live is beyond me.

How was it common sense when your argument was already proven wrong?

Every country that has socialized health DOES PUT A PRICE ON LIFE. David pointed that out back on like page 2 of this thread.

Like the Military who train you to kill for instance, when u get injured, your cared for (most likely to get you back into the fight) and thats that. There are no questions about what company is providing your insurance, your injured, they fix you free of charge.

You couldnt be more wrong. Unless you are in a combat environment, your unit is "charged" a fee based on the number of troops in the unit. That fee is pooled with all other units using that medical facility to provide the operating budget for that facility.

Jimmy stop being a smartass. Workers Comp may have separate laws but its just the same with child birth.

If being correct is being a smartass to you then no. I agree it is he same with child birth. Federal law requires businesses to give a certain amount of time to come back from child birth. This is called maternity leave. Just because they dont get paid for it doesnt mean they dont get it. Also, most companies to pay for maternity leave at the same rate they pay out short term disability. Now, if a woman doesnt want to go back to work when she is able to do so, that is a choice she makes and a company should not be liable for that choice.

She cant just give birth and bam be back at work.

Really? We just had a lady at my job have a baby and she was back in about 3 weeks. It did not take a year.

As I said Norway allows a whole year off with pay no questions just your having a baby so... your having a baby, take care of him/her.

it doesnt take anywhere near a year to get back on your feet and back to full strength after having a baby.

Your injured in Norway, see a doctor free of charge, get cared for free of charge, then take a week or two off to recover or longer if need be,

They have that in the US too. It is called long term and short term disability. Most major medical plans do cover it. Oh, and it isnt free. The govt just takes it ahead of time and doesnt charge a copay. Then again, it may take you 2 or 3 months to see the doc, so good luck.

so you can be productive for the country.

Yes comrade, the peasants must be at full strength to assure the strength of the nation and the party.

So again, you'd rather watch a child die because the family is uninsured when whatever the problem with their child is curable, fixable, stoppable simply by doing it?

Someone shows up in the hospital and the hospital is required to treat them, whether the patient has the ability to pay or not.

Because it will cost the insurance company to MUCH too save your life.

Once again, every country with socialized medicine is doing this already. They are rationing care based on future productivity and the costs to save you.

[BanginJimmy]

So you want to fix america mr. president? One word, FAIRTAX. Thank you

Fairtax would help, but spending is the real problem.

[bafbrian]

Yall go out of your way to find some type of evidence against a common sense argument. I may have been incorrect in stating that the "Government" owns the FD and PD, but a local government owns it. And here and there I suppose a county or city will deny them. But I'm not about to backpedal as those were used as examples. Its common sense to care for somebody in need. Why does it even matter? You cant place a cost on your life nor can you on someone elses. Talking all this negativity towards the idea of helping people live is beyond me.

Like the Military who train you to kill for instance, when u get injured, your cared for (most likely to get you back into the fight) and thats that. There are no questions about what company is providing your insurance, your injured, they fix you free of charge.

Jimmy stop being a smartass. Workers Comp may have separate laws but its just the same with child birth. She cant just give birth and bam be back at work. As I said Norway allows a whole year off with pay no questions just your having a baby so... your having a baby, take care of him/her. Your injured in Norway, see a doctor free of charge, get cared for free of charge, then take a week or two off to recover or longer if need be, so you can be productive for the country.

David, of course that may happen, its part of the counties ordinance system of whatever. I mentioned it for understanding because again, it doesnt make sense. I cant speak against it nor do I care to, this isnt about the fire protection in places that have the option to pay or not pay, this is about a constant tax to keep the service your government, local, state, city, county is providing you with. If your paying for it out of taxation, then its available to you when you need it. You dont need news to tell you that.

So again, you'd rather watch a child die because the family is uninsured when whatever the problem with their child is curable, fixable, stoppable simply by doing it? Or... yourself, knowing you have been diagnosed with cancer and you know you can either get it under control or even prevent it (as some forms of cancer are preventable) its ok with you to just die because u didnt have some damn insurance or you couldnt afford the co-pay when needed to cover the expense? Because it will cost the insurance company to MUCH too save your life. God forbid you get played when your time comes and u need assistance then, say you get it and you have to refinance your home or downgrade and are stuck paying 30-50k in medical bills because your insurance company only covered the initial 4 days of treatment, but not the hospital stay, the drugs, the reoccurring visits and check-ups.

My Grandmother is now 40k or so, in debt from her stroke just because she had a stroke and didn't prepare for it, he daughter (my aunt) sold her home to cover the upfront costs and the physical therapy required so her mother could keep her home she's been in for 74years. U know why this cost her so much? Because he health insurance dropped her due to age. Do you want me to verify the "average" cost of a stroke http://www.theuniversityhospital.com/stroke/stats.htm:
Economic Cost of Stroke
* The total cost of stroke to the United States is estimated at $43 billion per year.
* The direct costs of medical care and therapy are estimated at $28 billion per year.
* Indirect costs from lost productivity and other factors are estimated at $15 million per year.
* The average cost of care for a patient up to 90 days after stroke is $15,000.
* For 10 percent of patients, the cost of care for the first 90 days after a stroke is $35,000.
* The percentage breakdown of the direct costs of care for the first 90 days after a stroke is:

Initial hospitalization – 43 percent
Rehabilitation – 16 percent
Physician costs – 14 percent
Hospital Readmission – 14 percent
Medications and other expenses – 13 percent
My Grandmother happen to be one of those 10%. Her care cost a bit more because she was charged for her air lift from Portsmouth, OH to Columbus, OH and spent 17 days in the hospital, racking up debt, just to stay alive.

Tricare, the medical care provided via the military, has varying levels of care: Tricare Prime, Prime Remote, Prime Remote Overseas, Guard/Reserve, and Standard. Might have missed one or two. Depending on which you choose, will determine what costs you will bear. I am currently enrolled in Tricare Prime Remote, I pay no out of pocket costs, nor does my unit. My wife wanted to keep her doctors and enrolled her in Tricare Standard, depending on what service is rendered, there may be a cost involved and again, my unit doesn't pay a fee. Not sure what unit you are with BanginJimmy, but you might want to investigate that fee your unit is being charged.

As far as you Grandmother goes, that situation is fucked up. That is the kind of reasoning why Healthcare Reform should have been instituted. Does that mean everything in the Health Reform Bill was correct? By all means, no. But, a matter like this validates to me that health insurance is not a commodity, is it a basic human right. Kind of reminds me of document which speaks of ensuring domestic tranquility and promoting general welfare. It seems to me that the health insurance business is not about protecting people, but about protecting profit; once those who are insured aren't profitability anymore, they are dropped. Anyone else see what is wrong here?

[BanginJimmy]

Tricare, the medical care provided via the military, has varying levels of care: Tricare Prime, Prime Remote, Prime Remote Overseas, Guard/Reserve, and Standard. Might have missed one or two. Depending on which you choose, will determine what costs you will bear. I am currently enrolled in Tricare Prime Remote, I pay no out of pocket costs, nor does my unit. My wife wanted to keep her doctors and enrolled her in Tricare Standard, depending on what service is rendered, there may be a cost involved and again, my unit doesn't pay a fee. Not sure what unit you are with BanginJimmy, but you might want to investigate that fee your unit is being charged

I dont believe he is talking about dependent care but care for the actual member.

Every unit is appropriated a certain amount for medical care for its troops. As unit numbers change, so does that appropriation.

As far as you Grandmother goes, that situation is fucked up. That is the kind of reasoning why Healthcare Reform should have been instituted. Does that mean everything in the Health Reform Bill was correct? By all means, no. But, a matter like this validates to me that health insurance is not a commodity, is it a basic human right. Kind of reminds me of document which speaks of ensuring domestic tranquility and promoting general welfare. It seems to me that the health insurance business is not about protecting people, but about protecting profit; once those who are insured aren't profitability anymore, they are dropped. Anyone else see what is wrong here?

You wont find anyone that doesnt say the health industry as a whole needs a ton of reform, but that doesnt make the current bill worth it. The current bill has nothing in it to reign in costs, instead it has dozens of provisions that will raise costs. There is nothing in the bill to reduce fraud, but there are things that will make fraud easier.

Yes, there are several provisions of the bill I am a supporter of, but that doesnt mean the bill is worth keeping in its present form. Because of those provisions though, I am not a fan of repeal unless there is something there to replace it.

Any bill I would support would have ZERO govt involvement in my medical decisions. The bill would have very serious penalties, STARTING with the loss of his/her license, for fraud. There would be massive tort reform that caps both punitive and liability awards at 10x the estimated lifetime earnings of the victim. Also under tort reform would be a loser pays, both client and lawyer equally, for frivolous lawsuits.

[bafbrian]

I dont believe he is talking about dependent care but care for the actual member.

Every unit is appropriated a certain amount for medical care for its troops. As unit numbers change, so does that appropriation.

You wont find anyone that doesnt say the health industry as a whole needs a ton of reform, but that doesnt make the current bill worth it. The current bill has nothing in it to reign in costs, instead it has dozens of provisions that will raise costs. There is nothing in the bill to reduce fraud, but there are things that will make fraud easier.

Yes, there are several provisions of the bill I am a supporter of, but that doesnt mean the bill is worth keeping in its present form. Because of those provisions though, I am not a fan of repeal unless there is something there to replace it.

Any bill I would support would have ZERO govt involvement in my medical decisions. The bill would have very serious penalties, STARTING with the loss of his/her license, for fraud. There would be massive tort reform that caps both punitive and liability awards at 10x the estimated lifetime earnings of the victim. Also under tort reform would be a loser pays, both client and lawyer equally, for frivolous lawsuits.

I gotcha. IIRC, there is only a set amount for units that are CONUS.

I hope we can all agree on your post regarding the healthcare bill. No dount that the bill has many positive and negative aspects. Only time will tell what is the best course of action to replace that parts which are negative. One fear that I have is that even if we amend and change the negative aspects, the positive aspects might suffer as well. I think what people fear with the bill that it is set in stone and cannot be or will be hard to amend.

Not that I think government should make medical decisions, then who should? Family? Insurance Companies? Pick your poison and suffer the consequences. As far as Tort Reform, definitely a serious issue that needs to be addressed more.

I think the lawsuit concept should applied system wide. Imagine what that would do if there was a consequence for losing.

[BanginJimmy]

I think what people fear with the bill that it is set in stone and cannot be or will be hard to amend.

Obama has already said he would veto any significant changes to the bill though. I think the only way to assure personal freedoms are not taken away is a repeal and replacement, not changes to the current bill. That would require heavy bipartisan support in the Senate though and I think that a large enough support base would bring that as Senators up for re-election in 2012 try to save their jobs. The protections need to be in the bill, but not the mandates to buy insurance. Not the requirement that companies write a policy on all comers, regardless of existing conditions, for the same prices.

Not that I think government should make medical decisions, then who should? Family? Insurance Companies? Pick your poison and suffer the consequences. As far as Tort Reform, definitely a serious issue that needs to be addressed more.

There are only 2 people that should be making medical decisions for someone. Either that individual, or the eldest member of the immediate family. Obviously a living will that appoints someone to that role should be enforced whenever possible. Remember that without other instructions from someone with the proper decision making authority a hospital is required to do anything possible to save or extend a life.

I think the lawsuit concept should applied system wide. Imagine what that would do if there was a consequence for losing.

Because this is so prevalent in the medical field, the medical field would be most impacted. I think you could honestly see an overall drop of at least 10% in medical overhead immediately. The vast reductions in malpractice insurance alone would make a sizable impact. Add to that the offensive amount of money spent on defensive procedures and drugs and the drops in prices could really be dramatic.

[David88vert]

David, of course that may happen, its part of the counties ordinance system of whatever. I mentioned it for understanding because again, it doesnt make sense. I cant speak against it nor do I care to, this isnt about the fire protection in places that have the option to pay or not pay, this is about a constant tax to keep the service your government, local, state, city, county is providing you with. If your paying for it out of taxation, then its available to you when you need it. You dont need news to tell you that.

So again, you'd rather watch a child die because the family is uninsured when whatever the problem with their child is curable, fixable, stoppable simply by doing it? Or... yourself, knowing you have been diagnosed with cancer and you know you can either get it under control or even prevent it (as some forms of cancer are preventable) its ok with you to just die because u didnt have some damn insurance or you couldnt afford the co-pay when needed to cover the expense? Because it will cost the insurance company to MUCH too save your life. God forbid you get played when your time comes and u need assistance then, say you get it and you have to refinance your home or downgrade and are stuck paying 30-50k in medical bills because your insurance company only covered the initial 4 days of treatment, but not the hospital stay, the drugs, the reoccurring visits and check-ups.

My Grandmother is now 40k or so, in debt from her stroke just because she had a stroke and didn't prepare for it, he daughter (my aunt) sold her home to cover the upfront costs and the physical therapy required so her mother could keep her home she's been in for 74years. U know why this cost her so much? Because he health insurance dropped her due to age. Do you want me to verify the "average" cost of a stroke http://www.theuniversityhospital.com/stroke/stats.htm:
Economic Cost of Stroke
* The total cost of stroke to the United States is estimated at $43 billion per year.
* The direct costs of medical care and therapy are estimated at $28 billion per year.
* Indirect costs from lost productivity and other factors are estimated at $15 million per year.
* The average cost of care for a patient up to 90 days after stroke is $15,000.
* For 10 percent of patients, the cost of care for the first 90 days after a stroke is $35,000.
* The percentage breakdown of the direct costs of care for the first 90 days after a stroke is:

Initial hospitalization – 43 percent
Rehabilitation – 16 percent
Physician costs – 14 percent
Hospital Readmission – 14 percent
Medications and other expenses – 13 percent
My Grandmother happen to be one of those 10%. Her care cost a bit more because she was charged for her air lift from Portsmouth, OH to Columbus, OH and spent 17 days in the hospital, racking up debt, just to stay alive.

Let me make this perfectly clear to you. I have no problem with my tax dollars being used for emergency care or for those providing a legitimate service for our country, such as our military having veteren's care covered.
I do not support giving general healthcare to the masses who should be purchasing their own insurance for non-emergency, maintenance, or elective procedures. Proper financial planning is needed.
My grandmother had a heart attack and spent time in the hospital 2 years ago. Due to proper financial planning many years before, my grandfather left her with enough money to cover medical issues. Is this a rarity? No, not in my family. None of my family has been rich, but all have been able to handle their needs to get insurance and to cover their own medical costs. Are you claiming that you are not capable of planning your own financial future, and need the government to do it for you?

[Browning151]

I do not support giving general healthcare to the masses who should be purchasing their own insurance for non-emergency, maintenance, or elective procedures. Proper financial planning is needed.

This is exactly what the whole argument boils down to, be it healthcare, welfare etc. this is the basic principle that needs to be addressed. Many people don't want to be accountable for themselves anymore, at all. There are far too many people who are perfectly content to sit back and let someone else worry about their problems instead of taking responsibility for themselves and their family and planning for future circumstances. If you combine the fact that far too many people have that mentality with the fact that many people are grossly under-educated on how to even begin to save and prepare for such events and you end up with our current situation. Just my

[bafbrian]

Let me make this perfectly clear to you. I have no problem with my tax dollars being used for emergency care or for those providing a legitimate service for our country, such as our military having veteren's care covered.
I do not support giving general healthcare to the masses who should be purchasing their own insurance for non-emergency, maintenance, or elective procedures. Proper financial planning is needed.
My grandmother had a heart attack and spent time in the hospital 2 years ago. Due to proper financial planning many years before, my grandfather left her with enough money to cover medical issues. Is this a rarity? No, not in my family. None of my family has been rich, but all have been able to handle their needs to get insurance and to cover their own medical costs. Are you claiming that you are not capable of planning your own financial future, and need the government to do it for you?

I can only speak intelligently about my situation. I have always budgeted my money pretty well. When I was no longer carried on PeachCare, I wasn't able to afford health insurance. Between rent, water, electric, gas, food, and phone bills, wasn't enough left to purchase health insurance. Between the time I was 18 and when I went Active Duty, I had a choice between health insurance and bills, I chose bills so I could continue to work, eat, and have a place to live. It is easy to say proper financial planning is needed and not give a plan. You can plan all you want and still not have the resources left to purchase health insurance.

[blaknoize]

My grandmother had a heart attack and spent time in the hospital 2 years ago. Due to proper financial planning many years before, my grandfather left her with enough money to cover medical issues. Is this a rarity? No, not in my family. None of my family has been rich, but all have been able to handle their needs to get insurance and to cover their own medical costs. Are you claiming that you are not capable of planning your own financial future, and need the government to do it for you?

I am not claiming any such thing. My grandmother knew she was old but my family happened to have many members die off during that time. Our money went to their care/bills/funerals as well. The bills eventually exceeded what we were bringing in. It also has a bit to do with the amount of income a particular family is bringing in as a whole. I'm not sure where a majority of your family is located but we aren't in a nearly affluent part of the country or city for that matter. The only person in the family that was capable to assist was my aunt as she was the wealthiest of all in the area. Now yes, I have family in a few other cities (1 couple in ATL, 1 old couple in NYC, 1 Uncle in NC, 1 cousin in Cincinnati (who ended up in the hospital himself this year ekk) and a cousin in MI.)

- Note after re-reading my initial post, I have to state that I listed the information wrong. My aunt did not sell her home DUE TO the bills, she had already sold her home and used the money from the sell to assist her mother with up-front costs. My grandmother just so happen to suffer the stroke at that time. Then just used savings to purchase her home she is in today.

My ATL family is taking care of the wife's mother who is in a special needs housing situation and from what she has told me, that eats up almost another mortgage payment, she works 2 jobs for that reason. The NYC residents are well into their respective lives and are on a fixed income barely getting by, unlike in their heyday when money was coming back in forth likea seesaw. My Uncle in NC is also retired, not to sure about his actual status as we don't normally communicate with him. My cousin in Cinci has never been that well off, but he did make an effort to assist in all this. Also the cousin in MI helped a bit, but he is young in his career and raising his own family. For an example, I probably have others, but what happened was coincidence and it was managed as best as possible.

[blaknoize]

So to some I may be wrong in my view of this whole healthcare thing. I believe it should be provided to all, at a fair price because its life. It is a common sense argument because you cant always PLAN for your accidents or your aliments. A business model that is designed to make a profit will always try its hardest to turn a profit, in this case by not providing necessary care to those most in need or those who cost "more" than deemed medically practical.

I always get ran thru the mud on this view of mine because I am from the "unhealthiest metropolitan area" in America, although they seem to state just obesity, my teeth speak of what bad water can do to you and the industry in the area has crippled so many. WIKILINKY

[BanginJimmy]

So to some I may be wrong in my view of this whole healthcare thing. I believe it should be provided to all, at a fair price because its life. It is a common sense argument because you cant always PLAN for your accidents or your aliments. A business model that is designed to make a profit will always try its hardest to turn a profit, in this case by not providing necessary care to those most in need or those who cost "more" than deemed medically practical.

Here is the problem with your "solution" to the problem. Every country that is using a socialized health model is also limiting those they care for and what they treat because costs far exceed what they bring in through taxes and premiums. On top of that are the lower quality of care, less medical innovation, and longer wait times for care, especially specialist care that are common is all of these models.

In the US we use capitalism and the power of choice to demand better care and it works. You dont like your doc, go find another one. Dont like the way you are treated by your insurance company, move on to a different one. In Norway, for example, if you dont like your insurance company, too bad, thats all you get. In Canada, if you dont like your insurance company, too bad, and if you go somewhere else you can be fined for it.

[blaknoize]

In the US we use capitalism and the power of choice to demand better care and it works. You dont like your doc, go find another one. Dont like the way you are treated by your insurance company, move on to a different one. In Norway, for example, if you dont like your insurance company, too bad, thats all you get. In Canada, if you dont like your insurance company, too bad, and if you go somewhere else you can be fined for it.

How can you even say that about another country and its people though, have u BEEN to Canada for your needs, have u BEEN to Norway or The UK or France? My "solution" is already in practice and given the numbers and the overall longevity of the people whom use that form of healthcare and arent shackled with debt, I believe fully that it works well. This current capitalist approach to healthcare is completely incorrect. There may be an "insurance" as you say over there however, I believe that to be incorrect in itself. Its a practice called solidarity, each person has and will continue to help one another in their greatest time of need. They understand this because, unlike America and TV, they KNOW they will eventually need help and KNOW they arent likely to afford the brunt of skyrocketing prices like we have here in America. So instead, they have a system set to help all and it will hopefully remain that way.

You ignored my run down of a capitalist business model in generic form about our current system here. If healthcare is a business, owned by businessmen and women, the business must be profitable so their may be the GOOD instances where care is given to a particular person and its all over our news as "American Health Care is rated whatever." Thats all well and dandy but when you come down hard with something and cant afford it and your company drops u, who will come to ur rescue? In social world, WE have your back and the government owns the business so it will never be broke and have to worry about turning a profit, the doctors are paid by us and have great equipment and great education and a passion for their work.

I've needed my crown replaced in my mouth for the past 3yrs yet I havent gone to a dentist because that crown alone will cost me $800 plus the work needed to my other 3 missing teeth and all pitted ones. You know why I havent? I CANT FUKIN AFFORD IT, I've been quoted in the 3k plus range, not even counting the initial scan and so forth. So u kno what I'ma do? I'll go overseas, get that work done and tell yall all about it. Tell u how little time I spent in the waiting room and bring back my meager bill, if any and rub it all in ur face. My cousin just so happen to not need any care while abroad so I cant use his trip for a basis of this argument.

IDK bout u Jimmy or even David, you guys are in ur 30's, you two must of dodged everything health related and are just as healthy as possible. Great teeth, good vision, strong bones, no family histories of cancer or diabetes or anything for that matter to talk down on this. Its not even an idea I just came up with on my own, it is in practice. Also, those over their aren't scared to tell their government what to do, if they didnt like their current system and the way it was ran, it would be handled. They protest and those in Parliament and in Power understand that they better do work or suffer removal from their role. Americans are scared to speak out and just agree with what is told to them.