So Let's See What Happens

[bafbrian]

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.

Uh, we don't do use pure capitalism in this country, I think that is evident given the current economic climate. The current Health Insurance system is broken. The way the system works is, you either have the money to purchase health insurance or not. In this country, if you cannot afford health insurance, then its too bad. That is the problem. If I have would opted to purchase health insurance when I turned 18, I would of had to sacrifice my own livelihood (housing and bills) just to maintain it.

It is not as simple as, try one insurance company and if you don't like it, switch. That option is not always available, more common in rural areas. More common is that one insurance company has a monopoly on an area and you don't have a choice. Giving companies the opportunity to sell insurance across state lines and increase competition would help reduce costs. Unfortunately, even with more competition, it doesn't guarantee that everyone will be able to afford health insurance. What about those who still couldn't afford it? Does we just tell them "good luck"?

[David88vert]

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.

First, I actually have been overseas to several countries. I have friends from around the world also, and have discussed various healthcare systems with those who have had to live with it for most of their lives as well. There are good points and bad points to every healthcare system.

I have been healthy all of my life, and have health insurance. I have paid my dental and vision out of my pocket though, and it has been much cheaper than if I had paid for it through taxes or insurance.

The key to insurance is to understand what it is for. It is not a maintenance payment to cover every little cost - it is a payment to cover major medical high-cost issues. Insurance should not be used to cover a regular checkup - that should be paid out of pocket.
If your car needs an oil change, do you call your auto insurance company and expect them to pay for it? If you need new windshield wipers, do you submit an insurance claim? The problem that I see with your idea of socialized healthcare is that it is not realistic in controlling its costs - in order to be affordable, only major costs should be covered under a plan, and the rest should be out-of-pocket, if you want a system that can work.

[bu villain]

I know this is just an anecdote but I lived in a country with socialized healthcare for a while. My wife went in for things I would never dream of going in for (stomach ache, simple fever, etc). She would go during her lunch break sometimes and waiting was never an issue and it was all free. As a foreigner, I wasn't covered under the government and yet I paid less than I would have had to pay here with my corporate health insurance plan. It seems clear to me that the cost of healthcare is a bigger problem than whether it is private or government controlled.

[David88vert]

I know this is just an anecdote but I lived in a country with socialized healthcare for a while. My wife went in for things I would never dream of going in for (stomach ache, simple fever, etc). She would go during her lunch break sometimes and waiting was never an issue and it was all free. As a foreigner, I wasn't covered under the government and yet I paid less than I would have had to pay here with my corporate health insurance plan. It seems clear to me that the cost of healthcare is a bigger problem than whether it is private or government controlled.

I agree 100% with that statement. Cost is the biggest issue.

[blaknoize]

I know this is just an anecdote but I lived in a country with socialized healthcare for a while. My wife went in for things I would never dream of going in for (stomach ache, simple fever, etc). She would go during her lunch break sometimes and waiting was never an issue and it was all free. As a foreigner, I wasn't covered under the government and yet I paid less than I would have had to pay here with my corporate health insurance plan. It seems clear to me that the cost of healthcare is a bigger problem than whether it is private or government controlled.

It was all free... in a sense as its not all up front. That is the point of all this debate and arguing. I could care less who or what gets help from my tax $$, your alive and well. Not suffering only because u cant afford the care. To me, it doesnt matter. Through all the #'s and all the statistics... why does it matter? When you need help, you get it, simple as that, then continue on till the next time you need it or not at all.

Help your friends help their friends, your neighbors help their neighbors and their neighbors friends. You alive, your suffering, get the help and go on with life. Shut up with all the cost this and cost that.

[David88vert]

It was all free... in a sense as its not all up front. That is the point of all this debate and arguing. I could care less who or what gets help from my tax $$, your alive and well. Not suffering only because u cant afford the care. To me, it doesnt matter. Through all the #'s and all the statistics... why does it matter? When you need help, you get it, simple as that, then continue on till the next time you need it or not at all.

Help your friends help their friends, your neighbors help their neighbors and their neighbors friends. You alive, your suffering, get the help and go on with life. Shut up with all the cost this and cost that.

Why don't you go ahead and send the government another 10% of your pay to get us started? Go ahead, cut the check today for 2010 and send it in.

[AirMax95]

There are enough taxes taken/given already. The problem lies in that we have "governing" officials who either A) Have their own personal agenda for things, B) Are too stupid to admit they don't know what they are doing, C) Aren't called out and reprimanded accordingly. We blow money like dope boys at a strip club on free parking and entry night. Proper allocation of funds would be a good starting point to get things on track, just saying.

I'd rather have a Nanny McFrugal running the ship. I'm going to the capital soon to sit in on a session, just to see/hear how these "smart people" work on the local level.

Nathan Deal comes to mind, lol. We elevcted and offical that can mange his own funds to manage our state....HOE LEE SHIaTsu.

[bu villain]

It was all free... in a sense as its not all up front. That is the point of all this debate and arguing. I could care less who or what gets help from my tax $$, your alive and well. Not suffering only because u cant afford the care. To me, it doesnt matter. Through all the #'s and all the statistics... why does it matter? When you need help, you get it, simple as that, then continue on till the next time you need it or not at all.

Help your friends help their friends, your neighbors help their neighbors and their neighbors friends. You alive, your suffering, get the help and go on with life. Shut up with all the cost this and cost that.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Whether you like it or not, doctors have to get paid, hospitals need operating income, cutting edge technology, research and treatment is expensive. We do not have unlimited resources. The goal should be how to get the best care for as many people as possible with the resources we have. That is anything but simple.

[BanginJimmy]

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Whether you like it or not, doctors have to get paid, hospitals need operating income, cutting edge technology, research and treatment is expensive.

And you have pointed out the biggest drawback of every socialized medicine model in the world. They simply dont have the money for everything. So instead of cutting edge technology you get something that works, but not as well. Have you ever seen a Brit's dental work? How about the scars from a simple, in the US, surgery in Soviet Russia? Doctors dont get paid well at all in many of these countries. In India, every doctor worth anything leaves as soon as possible. This has left a huge shortage of doctors, and even worse, a shortage of doctors capable of teaching their specialties. Hospitals with funds shortages leads to rationing and long waits for simple procedures. I read a story about a Canadian kid that had to wait 2 months in a knee brace for an MRI. Here in the US, I saw my doc on a monday morning and got my MRI done later that day. The next monday I got the results of my MRI back. That would not even be considered possible, nevermind the norm, in Canada.

[David88vert]

There are enough taxes taken/given already.

WHO are the taxes taken from? What percentage group are you in? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%? In order to be "fair", everyone should be inputing into system as a percentage of their needs.
What you are advocating is a system that takes from those that succeed and gives free healthcare to those who have not put into the system in a proportiate amount to what they claim. That only works if you are one that does not put into the system in an equivacable amount to what you received from the system.

[blaknoize]

Why don't you go ahead and send the government another 10% of your pay to get us started? Go ahead, cut the check today for 2010 and send it in.

I can afford the 10% so it wouldn't bother me to do so. I'm not indebted, actually I have no debt and making only 36k a year I can thoroughly afford that. Are you indebted so much that 10% will bury u or something? Or is because your greedy? I will travel abroad and compare what I'm saying now to what I'm hearing from my UK co-worker or my Canadian co-worker. Your worried about a bit of money so u can get STUFF. I could live with 20% of my wages cut for the sake of others and myself needed super expensive ass help.

Just 2-3% of all the income everyone makes in this country could remedy that doc pay/technology and maybe even infrastructure issue (or most) and that could be a flat tax, since the amount they pay in the tax is higher in relation to the amount they make. But we're all to worried about being "rich" and being taxed at the "rich" level, when none of us are RICH. We're middle-class!! If you can fucking live on your less than 40k or 80k a year and aren't spending and spending and spending on nothing important, no 1-10% of income cut will matter.

So again, I will be traveling to The UK hopefully next spring and stay for a week, get my teeth worked on and ask plenty of questions to those in the business and/or have been serviced by this (shitty, long-wait period, dated technology area, who are all poor and unable to compete with the American Dollar) and let you all know what its really about and not what your hearing on TV.

[Browning151]

Or is because your greedy?

Please, define greed.

[David88vert]

I can afford the 10% so it wouldn't bother me to do so. I'm not indebted, actually I have no debt and making only 36k a year I can thoroughly afford that. Are you indebted so much that 10% will bury u or something? Or is because your greedy? I will travel abroad and compare what I'm saying now to what I'm hearing from my UK co-worker or my Canadian co-worker. Your worried about a bit of money so u can get STUFF. I could live with 20% of my wages cut for the sake of others and myself needed super expensive ass help.

Just 2-3% of all the income everyone makes in this country could remedy that doc pay/technology and maybe even infrastructure issue (or most) and that could be a flat tax, since the amount they pay in the tax is higher in relation to the amount they make. But we're all to worried about being "rich" and being taxed at the "rich" level, when none of us are RICH. We're middle-class!! If you can fucking live on your less than 40k or 80k a year and aren't spending and spending and spending on nothing important, no 1-10% of income cut will matter.

So again, I will be traveling to The UK hopefully next spring and stay for a week, get my teeth worked on and ask plenty of questions to those in the business and/or have been serviced by this (shitty, long-wait period, dated technology area, who are all poor and unable to compete with the American Dollar) and let you all know what its really about and not what your hearing on TV.

Since you can afford to, please go ahead and do it. Make a video of it and post it for us to see. Actually go ahead and start sending in an extra 10% to the government. Don't just talk about it.


Can I afford to send an extra 10%? I already do, as I am in one of the higher tax brackets. I'm already doing more than my part, as I do not use any government paid healthcare - I have to pay for that myself also.

Utilizing the money that I earn for my own family is not greedy, it's practical. Utilizing government money that you did not earn to pay your costs is greedy.

Why are you traveling to the UK to get your teeth worked on? Because it's cheaper? Why don't you just pay a dentist here?
You have already shown that you have no clue about how R&D is funded for technological advances. Do you really think that the UK is the leader in technilogical advances in dentistry?

[bu villain]

I read a story about a Canadian kid that had to wait 2 months in a knee brace for an MRI. Here in the US, I saw my doc on a monday morning and got my MRI done later that day. The next monday I got the results of my MRI back. That would not even be considered possible, nevermind the norm, in Canada.

That is because in Canada, care is rationed by need and in the US it is rationed by who has the most money. You can get your health care fast because you can afford insurance and/or the cost of the MRI. There is no line to wait in because many of the people who might have been in the line can't afford it and thus go without treatment all together. It's obvious which system is better for you but less so for society as a whole.

[bu villain]

Some feel it is a moral imperative to provide healthcare for those who can't afford it while others feel no moral obligation to help others obtain healthcare. I doubt any amount of discussion will bridge this fundamental gap. That's why our laws and regulations should focus on the things we can all agree on (e.g, lowering costs, promoting preventative care, health education, etc.)

[AirMax95]

....delete

[AirMax95]

WHO are the taxes taken from? What percentage group are you in? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%? In order to be "fair", everyone should be inputing into system as a percentage of their needs.
What you are advocating is a system that takes from those that succeed and gives free healthcare to those who have not put into the system in a proportiate amount to what they claim. That only works if you are one that does not put into the system in an equivacable amount to what you received from the system.

Whoa Whoa....maybe my cronic boredness at work allowed me to give poor response.

I am saying plainly that the idea of taxing more, at this point, is pointless. An extra 10% is not going to help if the current "contributions" are being poorly allocated.

I fall in the 25% range, fearing 28% change.

[David88vert]

Whoa Whoa....maybe my cronic boredness at work allowed me to give poor response.

I am saying plainly that the idea of taxing more, at this point, is pointless. An extra 10% is not going to help if the current "contributions" are being poorly allocated.

I fall in the 25% range, fearing 28% change.

Ok, I understand your saying that we do not need to collect more taxes as a whole for the country to add to healthcare. I disagree with this, as we are already running a bigger deficit each year, and adding additional costs of healthcare would have to be collected from somewhere/someone - or other programs would have to be cut or funding reduced. You cannot give additional benefits without affecting either source of revenue or expenditures.

Now, WHO would pay more? The rich? Why should they pay for others people's healthcare? They don't utilize the socialist healthcare in other countries due to the waiting and inferior care. They come to the US to get the best care, as they can afford it. So it wouldn't really be fair to charge them for a service they do not use, is it? Would you like to pay for my next tuneup to my car, just because I think you can afford it better?

The poor cannot afford to pay for they system - but that is exactly who uses the majority of the current healthcare systems benefits right now. The poor tend to run to the emergency room for every small thing, as they do not want to pay for a doctor. If you don't believe it, go to the ER at any hospital in the metro area and see for yourself. In California and Texas, hospitals are closing their doors due to the sheer amount of illegals who do not pay, and are abusing the free part of our system right now.

So tell me, who should pay for the system? The ones who use the system, or those who don't? Socialist healthcare reform is always touted as being "fair,", but the fact is, it is not fair. It undermines a capitalist economy by the explotation of resources from society members that are successful, to those who choose to make poor choices. The fact is, if you are indigent, you already get free healthcare. If you have resources, you can purchase advanced healthcare through cutting-edge technology and drugs.

[BanginJimmy]

That is because in Canada, care is rationed by need and in the US it is rationed by who has the most money. You can get your health care fast because you can afford insurance and/or the cost of the MRI. There is no line to wait in because many of the people who might have been in the line can't afford it and thus go without treatment all together. It's obvious which system is better for you but less so for society as a whole.

Wrong as usual. Care is not rationed in the US any more than BMW's and Vette's are. I dont have a lot of money, but I have a very nice health care plan because throughout my life I made a couple good choices to go along with the bad ones. I managed to learn a marketable skill that landed me a job with a multi-national corporation that offers its employees quality health and pension plans.

With that said, why should it be my responsibility to purchase a health care plan for someone that chose to break into a house instead of get a job? He got caught, served time, now cannot find more than a menial job because he is a felon. How about the 18y/o mother that has 2 kids by 2 different dads? Since I didnt get her pregnant, why should I foot the bill for it anymore than I already do?

Dont give me that crap about compassion either. I probably give a greater percentage of my money to charities than 99% of this board because the charities I give to, I know where the money is going. I know it is not going to the sponges of society, but to the kids that those sponges bring into the world.

[BanginJimmy]

Please, define greed.

x2


I would love to hear this.

[blaknoize]

Since you can afford to, please go ahead and do it. Make a video of it and post it for us to see. Actually go ahead and start sending in an extra 10% to the government. Don't just talk about it.
Can I afford to send an extra 10%? I already do, as I am in one of the higher tax brackets. I'm already doing more than my part, as I do not use any government paid healthcare - I have to pay for that myself also.
Utilizing the money that I earn for my own family is not greedy, it's practical. Utilizing government money that you did not earn to pay your costs is greedy.
Why are you traveling to the UK to get your teeth worked on? Because it's cheaper? Why don't you just pay a dentist here?
You have already shown that you have no clue about how R&D is funded for technological advances. Do you really think that the UK is the leader in technilogical advances in dentistry?

Obviously because its cheaper. A dentist here will cost to much for me to pay out of pocket as I dont run on credit. There is a better way to get that done without going upside down in cost, just to eat food and smile.

On this technology thing you talk about. Since we have the latest and greatest why is it that none of the people that really need it get to use it? Its only those with the money that can get scan for their life. Your 31, you've seen people die off that you knew (maybe because I know I have) due to the inability to afford that scan or... can afford the scan but not the work because the scan itself cost them both arms. You may complain of your tax but at least you can complain, this money thing makes you think your better or have done something better than another person your same age.

Now to my 10% contribution to government, that will be a no, because our government will not use it for what its intended for. But as an example: If my family gave your family 10% of their earnings and your family gave mine the same, we would "insure" one another and if another family gave 10% of their earnings neither one of those families would have to worry about payment because its already paid for. Its an investment in one another for when your GOING to need it. Works exactly the same as saving for retirement, that money we ALL put into our system would earn interest on itself and be available to those 3 families that need REAL help or just simple repairs to ones body. Now imagine if a whole community did that, or can u imagine sharing a few bills here and their for solidarity?

To continue: say that neighborhood and its 10% contribution to one another was used to push 1 student of each respective practice for any kid that really wanted to help their fellow neighbors. Oh look, free college education on behalf of the neighborhood for you to help the neighborhood out AND as a bonus, u get paid from the neighborhood for helping folks that need it, because thats your job. You could probably do that with just 2% of that 10% of each neighbor in the area. You will try and find specific #'s and incidents of pay grades and all that, ladeda, but its an example.

Whats your income? 45k, 70k? Your living great I could only imagine that for myself, but once I get there I can complain about things like how much I'm paying in taxes and what not, but... of the available income and disposable income I have, I can enjoy myself, 36k is enough for me to get a nice 1 level home with a full basement (value of roughly 110k), 2 car garage, new car payment (of 25k or less) and finance new furniture out the ass and get my lil goodies I want here and there.

To try and answer the greed I mentioned, which I cant, but I will try. Your not willing to help someone in need is greed. Just as a country not willing to help its people in need is greed. I may have said this before, but if America has the BEST health care system with the BEST doctors and the BEST technology, how come we are the worse off? We dont live as long as others in other nations poorer than us, which can be found, again on the CIA factbook. We dont live any longer than any nation that is "social" in its health needs with this AMAZINGLY NEW TECHNOLOGY we have and incredibly high paid doctors. I would only assume with a country that is balling in the trillions we could afford a few billion to help one another so... as I said previously, this strong profitable nations workforce can continue to grow, learn and prosper and even attract others to move here for the hopes of the same.

Yall try to bash me on Norway, the UK, France, Germany even, but you cannot deny the fact that they all live longer than us. Not sure how u could possibly find any issues with Norway, your just worried about their tax, even though they're balling with even half their income their making more than us. NOK is less than Dollar, but Dollar is less than Euro, NOK and Euro exchange not NOK and Dollar. Because in this mind, if the currency is worth LESS to another, that means it can buy the exact same in THAT country for less. 45,000 Euros a year only make around 36,000 Kroners a year. So a Norwegian wouldn't need as much to buy the same products.

To conclude, no I wont send 10% to this Government, but would I give my 10% a check to someone that really needed it, yes, because thats only $60 a paycheck, $60 that, if you needed it every week, would help u get your medication so you can fuking live. Also the "rich" get the amazing Bush Tax CUT of almost 85k a year, at least the highest rollers in this country, Alan Grayson can tell you that.

-- You may have some amazing ass insurance because u can afford it, but if u just so happen to be that man or woman that becomes diseased solely because thats what your body will do when it gets older, and you 70k a year is maxed out through ur final few yrs of home payments, car notes for the kids and grand kids, charitable "gifts", your medication(s) and the cost of living and those super bills that you incurred because u needed help, u will then request help. But bitches like you guys over here huffing and puffing over a little bit of your income going to help the needy because they arent "like you" and you cant verify why they need the help, will let them die. Oh just you wait till we all bang 60's, late 70's even 80's yet cant die, but must use medication and or need routine checkups and physicals and whatnot to function in our day to day lives, seeing every fukin year we are 10, 20, 40, 50k in debt simply because we're alive. When all along, those 40+ yrs of youth we all could of put our into something for our own futures to help us survive when we need it. 1%, 6%, 11%, why do u care, its just a little bit of money. Its not just for "those other fukin people u dont know" its also for you, because all those fukin people u dont know are doing it to, for other people they dont fukin know. One day that "person u dont fukin know" could be you and those other fukin people u dont know will help you. Not because they wont to or because they care for u, but because they can and thats how it is.

[blaknoize]

And yes, I will travel, for the experience, because I'm not narrow-minded and I would love for this rich ass country to show some care for each other, because all of us made this country rich and the "rich" aren't going to aid us without us speaking up. The idea, again, isnt far-fetched, if there are issues with "social" care then lets actually analyze it. Its not hard, pick out the things that are obviously in disarray and test different ideas till we get it right. Not sit here and bitch.

Yall bitches protect the rich because they're "RICH" not because your rich. If I was rich I wouldn't mind. If I made 1.5mil net (ignore tax for this example) lost 5mil in taxes, whatever, I'm balling, fucking bbaaallliinngg, you can tax the shit outta me but I'm still balling. I have a home, a car, a washer dryer, can take trips, fix shit, make bad decisions and all that without a worry in my mind because I'm STILL MAKING ONE FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS A FUCKING YEAR. Your all worried about some fukin taxes for the rich. If your total amount income regardless of tax is a million dollars, why would you complain? Is it because other people are telling you what they are making or grossing or netting? You cant even spend a million a year if you live right.

[David88vert]

Obviously because its cheaper. A dentist here will cost to much for me to pay out of pocket as I dont run on credit. There is a better way to get that done without going upside down in cost, just to eat food and smile.

And there you go. You ar not looking for advances in dentistry, and to have the best possible. You are just looking for a cheap price. That is the difference between you and I. I want quality in dental care - and I spend it out of pocket. I had no trouble saving up and affording my family's dental care, why should I pay for others dental care, when no one else is going to assist me?

On this technology thing you talk about. Since we have the latest and greatest why is it that none of the people that really need it get to use it? Its only those with the money that can get scan for their life. Your 31, you've seen people die off that you knew (maybe because I know I have) due to the inability to afford that scan or... can afford the scan but not the work because the scan itself cost them both arms. You may complain of your tax but at least you can complain, this money thing makes you think your better or have done something better than another person your same age.

The poor do get to use it - whenever they really need it for LIFE-SAVING needs. We have free emergency care for those that do not have the financial means to support themselves. They get x-rays, cat scans, etc - if they are in emergency care. Go to any hospital and ask the financial department where there money comes from for those in lower income levels. Technnology works well - who do you think got rid of polio, smallpox, etc? Where do you think almost all of the drugs available have come from?

Now to my 10% contribution to government, that will be a no, because our government will not use it for what its intended for. ...

And what exactly makes you think that if we "fund" a healthcare program, that it will get the funding marked to it? We already have healthcare programs, and if the government is doing such a poor job now, what makes you think it will get better if you give them more money? If you say that they do not need more money, tell us where they are going to pull that money from -in other workds, what programs are they going to cut.

To continue: say that neighborhood and its 10% contribution to one another was used to push 1 student of each respective practice for any kid that really wanted to help their fellow neighbors. Oh look, free college education on behalf of the neighborhood for you to help the neighborhood out AND as a bonus, u get paid from the neighborhood for helping folks that need it, because thats your job. You could probably do that with just 2% of that 10% of each neighbor in the area. You will try and find specific #'s and incidents of pay grades and all that, ladeda, but its an example.

There is no free lunch - and no free college. You are living in a dream world if you think there is. There are tax incentive programs in place for people to plan for college now. Look up 529's. Better education does not mean that the person you send through will get a better job, or be a better member of society either. People complain about the cost of their HOA's now, and have trouble paying basic living expenses now - and you want them to pay for someone else's kid to go party at UGA? Let me bring you back to reality - we do not live in a utopian society, as one never has existed, nor ever will. There is no magical government system that will give everyone the perfect life. Life is about making choices and living with those choices.

Whats your income? 45k, 70k? Your living great I could only imagine that for myself, but once I get there I can complain about things like how much I'm paying in taxes and what not, but... of the available income and disposable income I have, I can enjoy myself, 36k is enough for me to get a nice 1 level home with a full basement (value of roughly 110k), 2 car garage, new car payment (of 25k or less) and finance new furniture out the ass and get my lil goodies I want here and there.

My income is enough for me to be in a higher tax bracket. Do I have disposable income? No. Why? Because I already pay out enough in taxes to cover all of your family's emergency care needs right now.

...I may have said this before, but if America has the BEST health care system with the BEST doctors and the BEST technology, how come we are the worse off? We dont live as long as others in other nations poorer than us, which can be found, again on the CIA factbook. We dont live any longer than any nation that is "social" in its health needs with this AMAZINGLY NEW TECHNOLOGY we have and incredibly high paid doctors. I would only assume with a country that is balling in the trillions we could afford a few billion to help one another so... as I said previously, this strong profitable nations workforce can continue to grow, learn and prosper and even attract others to move here for the hopes of the same.

Americans life expectancy is not because of the medical care, but rather, the choices they make. We eat unhealthy food because it tastes good, we smoke, we drink, etc - all because we chose to. Our technology allows us to have these indulgences and still keep a long life. Additionally, "helping everyone" through the force of taxes is not choosing to help out your fellow humans. Tht wouldn't solve this "greed" of wanting to keep what you earn through work. If I choose to help, it should be just that - a choice. I give to charities already, but it is my choice who I give it to, and how much.

Yall try to bash me on Norway, the UK, France, Germany even, but you cannot deny the fact that they all live longer than us. Not sure how u could possibly find any issues with Norway, your just worried about their tax, even though they're balling with even half their income their making more than us. NOK is less than Dollar, but Dollar is less than Euro, NOK and Euro exchange not NOK and Dollar. Because in this mind, if the currency is worth LESS to another, that means it can buy the exact same in THAT country for less. 45,000 Euros a year only make around 36,000 Kroners a year. So a Norwegian wouldn't need as much to buy the same products.

To conclude, no I wont send 10% to this Government, but would I give my 10% a check to someone that really needed it, yes, because thats only $60 a paycheck, $60 that, if you needed it every week, would help u get your medication so you can fuking live. Also the "rich" get the amazing Bush Tax CUT of almost 85k a year, at least the highest rollers in this country, Alan Grayson can tell you that.

$60 a week, $3120 a year - Are you unable to purchase medical insurance and dental care for that much each year? You shouldn't spend even close to that. Most of it should be available for investment. If you are responsible for your own financial future, you should be able to not only pay for medical needs, but also contribute to reducing your future needs from the government. For me, it would be a lot more than $60 a week.

-- You may have some amazing ass insurance because u can afford it, but if u just so happen to be that man or woman that becomes diseased solely because thats what your body will do when it gets older, and you 70k a year is maxed out through ur final few yrs of home payments, car notes for the kids and grand kids, charitable "gifts", your medication(s) and the cost of living and those super bills that you incurred because u needed help, u will then request help. But bitches like you guys over here huffing and puffing over a little bit of your income going to help the needy because they arent "like you" and you cant verify why they need the help, will let them die. Oh just you wait till we all bang 60's, late 70's even 80's yet cant die, but must use medication and or need routine checkups and physicals and whatnot to function in our day to day lives, seeing every fukin year we are 10, 20, 40, 50k in debt simply because we're alive. When all along, those 40+ yrs of youth we all could of put our into something for our own futures to help us survive when we need it. 1%, 6%, 11%, why do u care, its just a little bit of money. Its not just for "those other fukin people u dont know" its also for you, because all those fukin people u dont know are doing it to, for other people they dont fukin know. One day that "person u dont fukin know" could be you and those other fukin people u dont know will help you. Not because they wont to or because they care for u, but because they can and thats how it is.

Perhaps you still don't understand - plan for your OWN financial future. It is clear that you are not currently prepared for your own financial future, and have not covered all of your own needs yet. With that in mind, what makes you think that you have acquired enough knowledge to explain to those that are prepared how they should spend their money? Currently, you are one of those that is in the lower income brackets, looking for others to pay your way, and make life easier for you. Why should I, one who has already been where you are, and have worked hard and made good decisions, and lived below my means, give you the money that I have earned and worked for, for free? Specifically, why should I personally pay for your health insurance? That is what you are asking for - for me to personally pay for your health insurance.

[David88vert]

And yes, I will travel, for the experience, because I'm not narrow-minded and I would love for this rich ass country to show some care for each other, because all of us made this country rich and the "rich" aren't going to aid us without us speaking up. The idea, again, isnt far-fetched, if there are issues with "social" care then lets actually analyze it. Its not hard, pick out the things that are obviously in disarray and test different ideas till we get it right. Not sit here and bitch.

Yall bitches protect the rich because they're "RICH" not because your rich. If I was rich I wouldn't mind. If I made 1.5mil net (ignore tax for this example) lost 5mil in taxes, whatever, I'm balling, fucking bbaaallliinngg, you can tax the shit outta me but I'm still balling. I have a home, a car, a washer dryer, can take trips, fix shit, make bad decisions and all that without a worry in my mind because I'm STILL MAKING ONE FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS A FUCKING YEAR. Your all worried about some fukin taxes for the rich. If your total amount income regardless of tax is a million dollars, why would you complain? Is it because other people are telling you what they are making or grossing or netting? You cant even spend a million a year if you live right.

Since housing is a need also, and a lot of people are homeless, the rich should build everyone a house also while they pay for their healthcare also, right?

Who decides how people should live? You? You think that everyone should live the same way, and have the same needs? You think the government should make the decision on where you live, how much food you are provided (so everyone gets the same amount - to be fair), what possessions that they own, etc? That's communism, plan and simple. Sounds like you might want to move to a communist country. Why don't ou do that, and let us know how that works out for you.

[blaknoize]

Perhaps you still don't understand - plan for your OWN financial future. It is clear that you are not currently prepared for your own financial future, and have not covered all of your own needs yet. With that in mind, what makes you think that you have acquired enough knowledge to explain to those that are prepared how they should spend their money? Currently, you are one of those that is in the lower income brackets, looking for others to pay your way, and make life easier for you. Why should I, one who has already been where you are, and have worked hard and made good decisions, and lived below my means, give you the money that I have earned and worked for, for free? Specifically, why should I personally pay for your health insurance? That is what you are asking for - for me to personally pay for your health insurance.

I'm younger than you, my income is lower than you, my education is lower than you. I throw my numbers out there for real examples. So no, that is incorrect on me expecting and wanting hand-outs and assistance, even though we have all had assistance from family and friends to get where we are today, you have, I have. I know many who do and could use it to better their lives and get through it all to see a good future then pursue it, thats the point.

[blaknoize]

Since housing is a need also, and a lot of people are homeless, the rich should build everyone a house also while they pay for their healthcare also, right?

Who decides how people should live? You? You think that everyone should live the same way, and have the same needs? You think the government should make the decision on where you live, how much food you are provided (so everyone gets the same amount - to be fair), what possessions that they own, etc? That's communism, plan and simple. Sounds like you might want to move to a communist country. Why don't ou do that, and let us know how that works out for you.

Why are u talking about housing? This isnt about housing, its about healthcare for all. Just like why Honda provides "safety for everyone" in all of their cars, DX to EX because its unfair to provide only a person that is better off than u; a chance to survive a crash. It is unfair in Honda's eyes to allow someone else that can spend just a bit more to drive a more "premium" class car in their lineup a higher chance of survival in an accident than any other person who picked up a lesser version of that same car.

Same thing in relation to healthcare, why is it that someone else can get the care they need if they have the $$ but another person with a little less $$ cannot? Stop this trying to roll me into communist ideas, its a socialistic idea that is, again, being used by every other industrialized nation but us.

[BanginJimmy]

Just like why Honda provides "safety for everyone" in all of their cars, DX to EX because its unfair to provide only a person that is better off than u; a chance to survive a crash. It is unfair in Honda's eyes to allow someone else that can spend just a bit more to drive a more "premium" class car in their lineup a higher chance of survival in an accident than any other person who picked up a lesser version of that same car.

This has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. A Hummer is safer than a DX or EX also, so should we be required to buy one of those?

Same thing in relation to healthcare, why is it that someone else can get the care they need if they have the $$ but another person with a little less $$ cannot?

Because this is the real world, not a socialist utopia. People that make more money have better things. Back to your car analogy. Should everyone be required to buy a Civic because there are some people that cant afford a BMW? Why is it that someone can get a better car just because they have more money?

Stop this trying to roll me into communist ideas, its a socialistic idea that is, again, being used by every other industrialized nation but us.

So now we should do it because everyone else does it, is that really your argument? Remember, the people from those countries that can afford it come to the US for medical care for a reason. Our medical care is better in every imaginable way.

[David88vert]

Why are u talking about housing? This isnt about housing, its about healthcare for all. Just like why Honda provides "safety for everyone" in all of their cars, DX to EX because its unfair to provide only a person that is better off than u; a chance to survive a crash. It is unfair in Honda's eyes to allow someone else that can spend just a bit more to drive a more "premium" class car in their lineup a higher chance of survival in an accident than any other person who picked up a lesser version of that same car.

Same thing in relation to healthcare, why is it that someone else can get the care they need if they have the $$ but another person with a little less $$ cannot? Stop this trying to roll me into communist ideas, its a socialistic idea that is, again, being used by every other industrialized nation but us.

Emergency care is already provided by our current system. No one can be refused emergency medical care under current laws.
The healthcare push from the liberal platform is to provide maintenance care to everyone through taxation. This is not the same thing.

Ultimately, it all comes down to this question: Who pays for it? Liberals claim it's everyone, but its not that simple. Those that pay federal payroll tax (including SS and Medicare), pay for the current system for everyone. Those that are working for cash, not working, or working in an environment where they can manipulate what they are "paid", pay less than most, or nothign at all. That's a lot of people. Everyone benefits though. Since this money is not enough to support additional healthcare, you will need another source of federal income to support the additional costs.

47% of Americans pay no income tax, it means the other 53% are paying all of the cost for the current programs offered by the government. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly....html?x=0&.v=1
Please explain how it is fair for half of America to be forced to pay for the benefits of the entire country? Where is your social equality and justice in that?
You think that the rich don't pay enough, and should pay more?:
"The top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government."
"The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment."
"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
You think that is fair?

[BanginJimmy]

Something I heard today on the radio that made a lot of sense.


The truely rich, do not pay social security taxes, medicare taxes or income taxes. The truely rich are also not tied to any single country so they can go to wherever the tax situation and lifestyle are balanced to their liking.

The added taxes in the health care bill and if the Bush Tax cuts expire will affect only the high income earners. These are the people that worked their tails off going through college and working up the corporate or practice ladder into high paying positions. These high income earners are the men and women that routinely pulled all nighters studying at Harvard, Yale, and Cornell. They graduated and moved onto even higher degrees with even more long hours. After school, these evil people started doing the grunt work of a first year associate at a major law firm or doing rounds during their residency. What these people are not is trust fund babies that never work a day in their life. Even if they grew up with a silver spoon, they had to earn their stripes in the exact same manner as anyone else that sat in their seat.

[bu villain]

Wrong as usual. Care is not rationed in the US any more than BMW's and Vette's are. I dont have a lot of money, but I have a very nice health care plan because throughout my life I made a couple good choices to go along with the bad ones. I managed to learn a marketable skill that landed me a job with a multi-national corporation that offers its employees quality health and pension plans.

With that said, why should it be my responsibility to purchase a health care plan for someone that chose to break into a house instead of get a job? He got caught, served time, now cannot find more than a menial job because he is a felon. How about the 18y/o mother that has 2 kids by 2 different dads? Since I didnt get her pregnant, why should I foot the bill for it anymore than I already do?

Dont give me that crap about compassion either. I probably give a greater percentage of my money to charities than 99% of this board because the charities I give to, I know where the money is going. I know it is not going to the sponges of society, but to the kids that those sponges bring into the world.

Owning a BMW or Vette will not add 10 to 20 quality years to your life but access to basic healthcare can. You can't pretend we all live independently from one another. It's easy to just blame someone for their mistakes and wash your hands of them but it doesn't change the fact that our future as a society would be better if we have a healthier populace. Imagine how much more productive our society would be if sick days were cut in half and people could work 10 years longer. Healthcare costs would drop dramatically using smart preventative medicine. This is not about charity or fairness, this is effectiveness.

It's also interesting to see how you categorize poor people as all being deadbeats and felons.

[BanginJimmy]

Owning a BMW or Vette will not add 10 to 20 quality years to your life but access to basic healthcare can.

No it wont, but either will rationed healthcare.

You can't pretend we all live independently from one another. It's easy to just blame someone for their mistakes and wash your hands of them but it doesn't change the fact that our future as a society would be better if we have a healthier populace. Imagine how much more productive our society would be if sick days were cut in half and people could work 10 years longer.

The same can be said of our schools. How long has the govt been running those into the dirt all the while limiting your choices in which school you or your kids can go to.

Healthcare costs would drop dramatically using smart preventative medicine. This is not about charity or fairness, this is effectiveness.

I'm not going to search for the article again, but I posted one sometime last year in one of the other large healthcare threads about how all this preventive medicine will actually be more expensive when looked at on a macro scale. Basicly, if you run a $100 (low estimate) test on 1 million people a year for a disease that costs 100k (high estimate) to treat, you need to find 10,000 people with that disease every year just to break even. Even the most aggressive and widespread cancers dont have an infection rate even close to that.

It's also interesting to see how you categorize poor people as all being deadbeats and felons.

That is typicly the case. People that stay out of trouble and apply themselves to their schooling and work typically do not end up poor. I dont want to hear a sob story either about the lady with 2 kids and no job that is poor because her husband died or left either. That is a rare case and typically centers on someone that was pregnant at a young age and either didnt graduate from HS or didnt make an effort to get a job on her own or who was married to some deadbeat that was more worried about getting pussy and being cool that working and school. Both of which can be catagorized in with daedbeats and felons.

[David88vert]

Owning a BMW or Vette will not add 10 to 20 quality years to your life but access to basic healthcare can. You can't pretend we all live independently from one another. It's easy to just blame someone for their mistakes and wash your hands of them but it doesn't change the fact that our future as a society would be better if we have a healthier populace. Imagine how much more productive our society would be if sick days were cut in half and people could work 10 years longer. Healthcare costs would drop dramatically using smart preventative medicine. This is not about charity or fairness, this is effectiveness.

It's also interesting to see how you categorize poor people as all being deadbeats and felons.

The UN disagrees with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ife_expectancy
France's and Norway's LE is 80, and the US is 78 - basic math tells you that it is 2, not 10 - and we have a lot more people die of unnatural causes - such as car crashes.

[bu villain]

No it wont, but either will rationed healthcare.

So are you arguing that providing regular basic health care will not increase quality and length of life at all?

The same can be said of our schools. How long has the govt been running those into the dirt all the while limiting your choices in which school you or your kids can go to.

What are you getting at? That everyone would be better educated if there were no public schools? I don't disagree that public schools suck, but the alternative would probably leave millions of kids receiving no education what so ever. Also I wasn't aware that the gov would stop you from attending a private school if you could afford it.

I'm not going to search for the article again, but I posted one sometime last year in one of the other large healthcare threads about how all this preventive medicine will actually be more expensive when looked at on a macro scale. Basicly, if you run a $100 (low estimate) test on 1 million people a year for a disease that costs 100k (high estimate) to treat, you need to find 10,000 people with that disease every year just to break even. Even the most aggressive and widespread cancers dont have an infection rate even close to that.

That's why you wouldn't test for that disease. We should only test for the things that would likely have an impact. That's why I said SMART preventative medicine. Additionally routine checkups are good for doctor patient interaction about health in general. Everyone knows cheeseburgers are not healthy but you are a lot more likely to change your diet if a doctor tells you that you are on track for a heart attack.

That is typicly the case. People that stay out of trouble and apply themselves to their schooling and work typically do not end up poor. I dont want to hear a sob story either about the lady with 2 kids and no job that is poor because her husband died or left either. That is a rare case and typically centers on someone that was pregnant at a young age and either didnt graduate from HS or didnt make an effort to get a job on her own or who was married to some deadbeat that was more worried about getting pussy and being cool that working and school. Both of which can be catagorized in with daedbeats and felons.

Any data to support this vast generalization? Even if this absurd statement were true, I still think our society would be better off if former felons, irresponsible mothers, and various other people who made mistakes in their lives were able to get BASIC health care.

[bu villain]

Sorry if you thought I meant every single person in the country would experience such results. The people with great health care plans already would not likely see an increase at all but the nearly 50 million people living below the poverty line might be a bit better off.

[BanginJimmy]

So are you arguing that providing regular basic health care will not increase quality and length of life at all?

Not for the people that are paying for it. The people that are paying for it will see no difference.

What are you getting at? That everyone would be better educated if there were no public schools? I don't disagree that public schools suck, but the alternative would probably leave millions of kids receiving no education what so ever. Also I wasn't aware that the gov would stop you from attending a private school if you could afford it.

That kids would be far better educated if the govt got out of the way. If I have kids that are of school age, let me take the portion of my taxes that go to schools and use it to put my kids through the school of my choice or give me a voucher equal to that sum. Under the current system, if I want to send my kids to a private school I have to pay to send your kids to school while paying additional money out of pocket to send my kids to school. If a voucher system was in place, anyone could afford to send their kids to private schools.

That's why you wouldn't test for that disease. We should only test for the things that would likely have an impact. That's why I said SMART preventative medicine. Additionally routine checkups are good for doctor patient interaction about health in general. Everyone knows cheeseburgers are not healthy but you are a lot more likely to change your diet if a doctor tells you that you are on track for a heart attack.

So what disease do you test for? I brought up cancer, what would have more of an impact than that? I know how we could reduce those costs, we could only test the people that fit a certain criteria and dont have any other serious health issues. We wont call that rationing though, we will call that SMART preventive medicine.

Do you really believe that the majority of people in this country are going to change their habits because a doctor says it isnt healthy? If that was the case, fast food chains would be gone and Phillip Morris execs would be looking for other jobs.

Any data to support this vast generalization? Even if this absurd statement were true, I still think our society would be better off if former felons, irresponsible mothers, and various other people who made mistakes in their lives were able to get BASIC health care.

Since 1996, the poverty rate of single-mother families declined by roughly 20 percent, from 41.9 percent to 33.6 percent in 2001.

Not an exact statistic, but 1/3 of all single mothers live in poverty.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/h...equal_time.htm

[BanginJimmy]

The people with great health care plans already would not likely see an increase at all but the nearly 50 million people living below the poverty line might be a bit better off.

Not true at all. There is no telling how many of those below the poverty line would simply go on doing what they did to start with such as eating too much garbage food, smoking, doing drugs and drinking too much alcohol.

[David88vert]

Sorry if you thought I meant every single person in the country would experience such results. The people with great health care plans already would not likely see an increase at all but the nearly 50 million people living below the poverty line might be a bit better off.

Not true. As I showed before, you will need additional funding to expand healthcare to 47 million additional people. That is fact.
As employers drop their plans, insurers will raise the rates to the employers that don't in order to keep their profit margins. Those that continue to have employer provided healthcare plans will have to pay more for the same coverage PLUS pay into the government program. The only option for millions will be to drop their plans and join the government plan - essentially forcing insurance companies out of the healthcare business and creating a single payer system.
The same happens for those with private pay healthcare plans.
Additionally, all of those employed by helathcare insurers will need to look for new jobs, which could dump more people into the government system, and cost them their healthcare plans.
Now, since the government is known to screw up almost every single program that they have ever done, do you think that these people will receive better care than they currently pay for? They won't, and you know it.

[bu villain]

Not for the people that are paying for it. The people that are paying for it will see no difference.

Well I am one of the ones paying for it and I think it's a worthwhile use of my money because the basic health of the people in my country concerns me.

That kids would be far better educated if the govt got out of the way. If I have kids that are of school age, let me take the portion of my taxes that go to schools and use it to put my kids through the school of my choice or give me a voucher equal to that sum. Under the current system, if I want to send my kids to a private school I have to pay to send your kids to school while paying additional money out of pocket to send my kids to school. If a voucher system was in place, anyone could afford to send their kids to private schools.

Hey that sounds great but how will you fund schooling for the kids of poor parents?

So what disease do you test for? I brought up cancer, what would have more of an impact than that? I know how we could reduce those costs, we could only test the people that fit a certain criteria and dont have any other serious health issues. We wont call that rationing though, we will call that SMART preventive medicine.

I am not a doctor so I can't tell you which diseases would be cost effective to test for. Additionally its not just testing for disease it's also vaccinations, education, and treatment. If you can discover and treat say high blood pressure with a cholesterol pill, that can save a lot of money if it prevents an emergency room trip for a heart attack. I don't understand why you equate preventative medicine with rationing.

Do you really believe that the majority of people in this country are going to change their habits because a doctor says it isnt healthy? If that was the case, fast food chains would be gone and Phillip Morris execs would be looking for other jobs.

I agree some people will never change certain habits but many others will. Look at the rates of smoking in this country over the last 50 years. What do you attribute the declines to if not education about the health consequences? Do you really not know anyone who has changed their diet, drinking/smoking habits, or exercise based on their doctor's advice? How many diabetecs do you think died because they couldn't be bothered with their insulin injections? Just because something is not a cure all does not mean it has no value.

Not an exact statistic, but 1/3 of all single mothers live in poverty.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/h...equal_time.htm

This is incorrect logic to assume (if p then q) means (if q then p). Even if 3/3 single mothers live in poverty, that doesn't mean that any significant portion of poor people are single mothers. To make matters worse, you are further assuming that most single mothers are so because they were just plain irresponsible as opposed to death of a husband, divorce, etc.

[bu villain]

Not true. As I showed before, you will need additional funding to expand healthcare to 47 million additional people. That is fact.

Never said it wouldn't take additional funding. You quoted where I said that those with good health care now wouldn't see an increase but that was talking about an increase in life expectancy, not costs.

As employers drop their plans, insurers will raise the rates to the employers that don't in order to keep their profit margins. Those that continue to have employer provided healthcare plans will have to pay more for the same coverage PLUS pay into the government program. The only option for millions will be to drop their plans and join the government plan - essentially forcing insurance companies out of the healthcare business and creating a single payer system.
The same happens for those with private pay healthcare plans.
Additionally, all of those employed by helathcare insurers will need to look for new jobs, which could dump more people into the government system, and cost them their healthcare plans.

Why hasn't the government option pushed private schools out of business, or UPS/FedEx out of the mail business? There will always be a private market for people who want better coverage and better customer service than the government will provide.

Now, since the government is known to screw up almost every single program that they have ever done, do you think that these people will receive better care than they currently pay for? They won't, and you know it.

I am pretty happy with many government programs (NASA, FDA, national highway system, USPS just to name a few). You are right though that I don't think people who pay for their health care now will get better care by having a government option, but that's not my goal. My first goal is to get everyone a basic level of care and then secondly, how to bring down costs for everyone.

[David88vert]

Never said it wouldn't take additional funding. You quoted where I said that those with good health care now wouldn't see an increase but that was talking about an increase in life expectancy, not costs.

Why hasn't the government option pushed private schools out of business, or UPS/FedEx out of the mail business? There will always be a private market for people who want better coverage and better customer service than the government will provide.

I am pretty happy with many government programs (NASA, FDA, national highway system, USPS just to name a few). You are right though that I don't think people who pay for their health care now will get better care by having a government option, but that's not my goal. My first goal is to get everyone a basic level of care and then secondly, how to bring down costs for everyone.

The UN has shown that the average life expectancy will not change. However, if people have to pay out more to fund other people's healthcare costs, where do you think they will suffer? The most likely place is in the quality of the food they purchase. If they are forced to purchase lower quality food, then their health may suffer.

Do you have any idea how much private school costs? I do. I send my daughter to private school, and believe me, it is a sacrifice. I have no choice but to make this sacrifice though, as public education is so poor in quality in Georgia, and specifically in DeKalb County, that I cannot place her in a location that is not conducive to her development. Luckily, there are enough other people who feel the same way and make the sacrifice. I also sacrifice to provide them with quality private healthcare insurance - as a responsible parent should. A government program would increase my cost and sacrifice to maintain the status quo. How is that fair to someone who works and provides for his family? Your method of providing healthcare lowers the quality of care and raises the cost for me and my family - and these are the people that I am personally responsible for - not a stranger on the other side of the country who chooses to drink and smoke and ruin their kidneys, lungs,and heart, and who is unwilling to pay for his own health insurance.