US/Obama Healthcare Plan Consolidated MEGA-THREAD

[Greed and Death]

When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

Ah, so if you change the definition of a word, then your argument makes sense.

The price you pay for a postage stamp is not a tax, it is a price. You pay money for a service rendered. Your income taxes are a tax because you have no choice but to pay them or go to jail.

Consult the dictionary if you don't believe me.

" 1.

A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government."

The post office loses money every year. Meaning it survives on tax revenue. It is a tax. And an extremely wasteful one at that.

It only started losing money recently

Again, you're getting off track. Why are "premiums" going to be sufficient to completely fund Obamacare? We know costs will escalate well beyond the 10 year estimate. In fact, didn't the CBO, or GAO call the budget unsustainable?

Because premiums are like a stamp.
They are not based off your income, they are based off if you want to send a letter or not.
You don't want to send a letter or receive health care coverage then you don't owe a dime.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

Ah, so if you change the definition of a word, then your argument makes sense.

The price you pay for a postage stamp is not a tax, it is a price. You pay money for a service rendered. Your income taxes are a tax because you have no choice but to pay them or go to jail.

Consult the dictionary if you don't believe me.

" 1.

A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government."

The post office loses money every year. Meaning it survives on tax revenue. It is a tax. And an extremely wasteful one at that.

It only started losing money recently

Again, you're getting off track. Why are "premiums" going to be sufficient to completely fund Obamacare? We know costs will escalate well beyond the 10 year estimate. In fact, didn't the CBO, or GAO call the budget unsustainable?

Raise premiums, reduce health care costs. In case you haven't noticed, other insurance companies will have to raise premiums or deny care to cover rising costs just as much as any public option. I've never been a believer in the public option idea anyway.

[Sibirsky]

They are not reducing costs. The only proposals by those buffoons will increase costs as I have previously explained.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

Ah, so if you change the definition of a word, then your argument makes sense.

The price you pay for a postage stamp is not a tax, it is a price. You pay money for a service rendered. Your income taxes are a tax because you have no choice but to pay them or go to jail.

Consult the dictionary if you don't believe me.

" 1.

A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government."

The post office loses money every year. Meaning it survives on tax revenue. It is a tax. And an extremely wasteful one at that.

It only started losing money recently

Again, you're getting off track. Why are "premiums" going to be sufficient to completely fund Obamacare? We know costs will escalate well beyond the 10 year estimate. In fact, didn't the CBO, or GAO call the budget unsustainable?

Because premiums are like a stamp.
They are not based off your income, they are based off if you want to send a letter or not.
You don't want to send a letter or receive health care coverage then you don't owe a dime.

But don't the five current plans all require participation in some sort of health plan? I believe they do, so we're essentially forced to buy that stamp, regardless of our wants. That's a tax.

[Sibirsky]

When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

Ah, so if you change the definition of a word, then your argument makes sense.

The price you pay for a postage stamp is not a tax, it is a price. You pay money for a service rendered. Your income taxes are a tax because you have no choice but to pay them or go to jail.

Consult the dictionary if you don't believe me.

" 1.

A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government."

The post office loses money every year. Meaning it survives on tax revenue. It is a tax. And an extremely wasteful one at that.

It only started losing money recently

Again, you're getting off track. Why are "premiums" going to be sufficient to completely fund Obamacare? We know costs will escalate well beyond the 10 year estimate. In fact, didn't the CBO, or GAO call the budget unsustainable?

Because premiums are like a stamp.
They are not based off your income, they are based off if you want to send a letter or not.
You don't want to send a letter or receive health care coverage then you don't owe a dime.

But don't the five current plans all require participation in some sort of health plan? I believe they do, so we're essentially forced to buy that stamp, regardless of our wants. That's a tax.

Of course it's a tax. It's the tax and spend age!

[Greed and Death]

When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

Ah, so if you change the definition of a word, then your argument makes sense.

The price you pay for a postage stamp is not a tax, it is a price. You pay money for a service rendered. Your income taxes are a tax because you have no choice but to pay them or go to jail.

Consult the dictionary if you don't believe me.

" 1.

A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government."

The post office loses money every year. Meaning it survives on tax revenue. It is a tax. And an extremely wasteful one at that.

It only started losing money recently

Again, you're getting off track. Why are "premiums" going to be sufficient to completely fund Obamacare? We know costs will escalate well beyond the 10 year estimate. In fact, didn't the CBO, or GAO call the budget unsustainable?

Because premiums are like a stamp.
They are not based off your income, they are based off if you want to send a letter or not.
You don't want to send a letter or receive health care coverage then you don't owe a dime.

But don't the five current plans all require participation in some sort of health plan? I believe they do, so we're essentially forced to buy that stamp, regardless of our wants. That's a tax.

And that's what I am opposing.
mandatory insurance. Because paying a tax shouldn't be based off of how healthy or unhealthy you are.
Mandatory insurance premiums basically make a tax that increases with you being old and/or sick.
It should either be based off of how much you make (income tax), How much you buy (sales Tax) or how much you own (property tax).

[Greed and Death]

When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

Ah, so if you change the definition of a word, then your argument makes sense.

The price you pay for a postage stamp is not a tax, it is a price. You pay money for a service rendered. Your income taxes are a tax because you have no choice but to pay them or go to jail.

Consult the dictionary if you don't believe me.

" 1.

A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government."

The post office loses money every year. Meaning it survives on tax revenue. It is a tax. And an extremely wasteful one at that.

It loses money some years and makes money other years.
However it is heavily subsidized. Various law enforcement agencies provide security screening for packages.
Post offices are exempt from property taxes and sales taxes. And they can force 3rd parties to sell their products without markup.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Heh, that was a riot funny. You know how in the upper right of your screen, targetted ads come up based on what is on the page?

Well, The one I saw for THIS page was something related to Tax Debt relief. PRICELESS!! I wish I took a screengrab.

[Grave_n_idle]

At least I got cute. And the decline of the standard of living. For whatever reason. I do not really care what causes it. I care that it happens. For, I will not be as well off. And my children will be much worse off. And so on.

Not necessarily - the decline isn't a new trend, it's an adjustment that has been coming for decades.

If we can weather that storm, and work on fixing the social infrastructure, we'll be leaving a better world, overall, for our kids.

[Grave_n_idle]

All right, I'm dense. Government takes taxes, calls it subsidies, funds Medicaid. Government takes taxes, calls it premiums, funds Obamacare.

What's the difference besides the name applied to the tax revenue?

Obamacare isn't being suggested as being funded by taxes. It is being projected as being paid for from premiums paid by subscribers.

[Grave_n_idle]

Those cancers are also the easiest to treat among all the cancers.

You were watching Al Franken, weren't you? So what? Why can't the rest of the world treat the easy stuff as well as we can in the U.S.? Show me some examples where the U.S. fails to treat the hard cancers as well as countries with government run care programs.

A better question would be how does Sweden achieve comparable cancer survival rates under an evil communist health care system?

Since we're only asking questions and not answering them, why does Sweden stand alone?

It doesn't. Question answered.

So you can provide some real data,right?

I did, earlier in this thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... urope.html

I guess... It's a hell of an indictment of the UK, though. But tell me this... Why does a small difference in life expectancy, or infant mortality count for so much, but a couple percentage points in cancer survival rates count for so little? Is it because of the relative position of the US in those studies?

Why do opponents of healthcare reform always harp on about the very slightly higher cancer survivability that the US has, and ignore ALL the other places we fall behind the rest of the world?

Why do opponents of healthcare reform always talk about how much it will cost, and wave away the fact that we pay twice as much as anyone else for less quality?

[Grave_n_idle]

They are not reducing costs. The only proposals by those buffoons will increase costs as I have previously explained.

You say 'explained', but you mean 'predicted'.

[Grave_n_idle]

anyone wish to address my "hobo with cancer" arguement and why we arent proposing free healthcare?

I suspect that your hobo would be able to receive Medicaid, should he decide to register -- back to the uninsured die more often than insured fallacy. Medicaid isn't being cut, so if he isn't 65+, and eligible for Medicare, which is being cut, then he should be fine.

He should see a community organizer and sign up for food stamps, too. Maybe get some tax help, as well.

Someone said that we arent promising FREE healthcare. But we are promising Universal healthcare. So a hobo, aged 25 years old (hes a druggy/drunk) gets liver cancer. He goes and gets treatment. He cant pay. How is that ANYTHING other than FREE?

Just as a thought, while we're talking about that scenario.

The UK would offer that care to that hobo, and the cost per capita is STILL half of what it is in the US.

The problem isn't helping pay for those less fortunate.

[Buxtahatche]

man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

Good sources, Kilo.
But, 'Sierra Mike Foxtrot,' these guys will not pay any attention to it.
They seem to believe that they can change the world given enough of my tax money... if for no other reason than if they tax me enough, I won't be able to afford any kind of private services and will be forced to use their infinitely crappier government-provided ones.

Like Rome, they believe that Bread and Circuses will distract the masses for the decaying state of their sorry nation. Of course, nothing will work when the nation finally does decay and the barbarians come rushing in to take away their freedoms, to say nothing of their precious social services. Sometimes, I wish the US would just hurry up and come unglued so people that want an honest chance to start over with a clean slate and a government that truly serves the interest of the people could have one. I know life would suck for a generation or so... but I could live with that if my kids (or grandkids) could have it better than I do now.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

Good sources, Kilo.
But, 'Sierra Mike Foxtrot,' these guys will not pay any attention to it.
They seem to believe that they can change the world given enough of my tax money... if for no other reason than if they tax me enough, I won't be able to afford any kind of private services and will be forced to use their infinitely crappier government-provided ones.

Like Rome, they believe that Bread and Circuses will distract the masses for the decaying state of their sorry nation. Of course, nothing will work when the nation finally does decay and the barbarians come rushing in to take away their freedoms, to say nothing of their precious social services. Sometimes, I wish the US would just hurry up and come unglued so people that want an honest chance to start over with a clean slate and a government that truly serves the interest of the people could have one. I know life would suck for a generation or so... but I could live with that if my kids (or grandkids) could have it better than I do now.

Man. We are cut from the same cloth. My threads here lately have been warning, pleading, SHOUTING for people to wake the sleeping dragon and stand up and have a voice. We have been silent too long. I have hope, hope that there will be that one spark that kicks off the powerkeg and makes people go "WTF is going on America?" I am glad to see I am not alone. "Back to back"?

BTW, gimme a hint "SMF"???

[Jocabia]

I thought the CBO letter to Congress back in August put a lid on the "preventive care costs less" argument, when they stated quite clearly that the expanded use of preventive care leads to higher overall expenditures on medical care.

I would like to see this letter, since preventive care being cheaper is pretty much a staple view in every maintenance schedule ever created for basically every type of care, from mechanics to electronics to teeth to diet to health.

I'd like to see the evidence that "put a lid on preventive care costs less". I'll assume that it ignores the effect on downtime, unemployment, disability and emergent care, but I'm willing to give it a look since it's pretty much what I consult on at my job.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

First of all, NO proposal is offering free healthcare. It would help if you started with that understanding, because you're not talking about reality.

Now that we're back to reality, let's actually look at it. Examining the other countries in the world that have engaged in universal healthcare the result is pretty obvious. Yes, there is some waiting for certain services in some places. However, there is an accompanied decrease in cost of services (not to the consumer alone, but overall) and there is an increase in the result.

So tell me why the line is a problem as opposed to the very real people are dying problem we currently have?

If we arent proposing FREE health care tell me exactly how the homeless guy on the street with 2 quarters in his pocket, is going to get healthcare? He gets cancer. What now? He buys insurance for $.50? Goes into the cancer clinic?

If he does not have to pay for the healthcare he gets, that, by definition is FREE. UNLESS, of course, you ban CHARGING for healthcare, then there is a PRICE, just $0.00.

Here it is Jocabia.

[Jocabia]

First of all, NO proposal is offering free healthcare. It would help if you started with that understanding, because you're not talking about reality.

Now that we're back to reality, let's actually look at it. Examining the other countries in the world that have engaged in universal healthcare the result is pretty obvious. Yes, there is some waiting for certain services in some places. However, there is an accompanied decrease in cost of services (not to the consumer alone, but overall) and there is an increase in the result.

So tell me why the line is a problem as opposed to the very real people are dying problem we currently have?

If we arent proposing FREE health care tell me exactly how the homeless guy on the street with 2 quarters in his pocket, is going to get healthcare? He gets cancer. What now? He buys insurance for $.50? Goes into the cancer clinic?

If he does not have to pay for the healthcare he gets, that, by definition is FREE. UNLESS, of course, you ban CHARGING for healthcare, then there is a PRICE, just $0.00.

Jocabia, will you address this please?

You do realize that that homeless guy gets healtcare now, right? He's eligible for medicaid. Seriously, as a general rule, you shouldn't enter a topic unless you've got the first clue. I'll help you, though. The first thing you need to do is take a look at what currently exists. Medicaid. Medicare. And how people who don't qualify for those use emergent care, currently, and who pays for all three. Okay, now, go and read up on what is being proposed. Let me know when you're done.

[Jocabia]

Lines. Waiting.

When something is free, people will line up for it. Healthcare and the dollars to support it are limited. When you give away a limted resource, you run out.

Try this. Bake 4 dozen cookies. Take them to your local movie store and sit out front with a table. Put 2 dozen cookies on the table and put a "free cookies" sign on the table. Observe. People will come by and grab them by the handfuls, and they will be gone in like 3 minutes.

Now, take away the "free cookie" sign and replace it with "Cookies $2 each". See how long those cookies last.

First of all, NO proposal is offering free healthcare. It would help if you started with that understanding, because you're not talking about reality.

Now that we're back to reality, let's actually look at it. Examining the other countries in the world that have engaged in universal healthcare the result is pretty obvious. Yes, there is some waiting for certain services in some places. However, there is an accompanied decrease in cost of services (not to the consumer alone, but overall) and there is an increase in the result.

So tell me why the line is a problem as opposed to the very real people are dying problem we currently have?

Waiting time increase - thank you for admitting it.
Decrease of cost of services - how do we know, it is not because of lower quality? We can decrease costs by other means.
Increase of result - do you mean more people covered? If not, please elaborate.
I never said, what we have now is the prefect system, and needs no reform.

Um, you do realize we're not all arguing about the same thing, right? Trying to paint your opposition as all one person just so you can strike the weakest is a weak strategy and won't work. Do better.

We know that we pay more than the rest of the world with similar economic systems but healthcare systems more like we propose. There is tons more evidence of a decrease in cost than there is for your claimed decrease in the standard of living.

The increase in result is that universal systems tend use preventive care. Any expert in preventive care (and it doesn't have to be healthcare, ask a maintenance organization about the value of preventive care on their equipment) will tell you that preventive care is cheaper than emergent care. It's provable that our system encourages emergent care over preventive care and I provided a source for that. Also, we can expect an improved life expectancy and infant mortality given that every system that does better than us provides universal care and focuses on preventive care (which again is a definitive reason for increase in quality of life).

I am not arguing against preventive care. I am arguing against the government providing it.

Then you are arguing against it. People don't get preventive care now because they don't have access to it and cannot afford it. So instead of giving people the preventive maintenance that the government requires for pretty much ever other engine of our economy, we wait till they completely break down and then waste a ton of money trying to make them comfortable while they wait to die.

[Jocabia]

man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

Good sources, Kilo.
But, 'Sierra Mike Foxtrot,' these guys will not pay any attention to it.
They seem to believe that they can change the world given enough of my tax money... if for no other reason than if they tax me enough, I won't be able to afford any kind of private services and will be forced to use their infinitely crappier government-provided ones.

Like Rome, they believe that Bread and Circuses will distract the masses for the decaying state of their sorry nation. Of course, nothing will work when the nation finally does decay and the barbarians come rushing in to take away their freedoms, to say nothing of their precious social services. Sometimes, I wish the US would just hurry up and come unglued so people that want an honest chance to start over with a clean slate and a government that truly serves the interest of the people could have one. I know life would suck for a generation or so... but I could live with that if my kids (or grandkids) could have it better than I do now.

Man. We are cut from the same cloth. My threads here lately have been warning, pleading, SHOUTING for people to wake the sleeping dragon and stand up and have a voice. We have been silent too long. I have hope, hope that there will be that one spark that kicks off the powerkeg and makes people go "WTF is going on America?" I am glad to see I am not alone. "Back to back"?

BTW, gimme a hint "SMF"???

People are awaka and are using their voice and it's saying, give us affordable healthcare. You're just upset that they're not saying what you want to hear.

The difference between them and you is that most of them know what medicaid is. Most of them know what medicare is. Most of them know that these systems work very well in other countries where people are generally healthier, live longer and have healthier babies. They're paying attention and looking at the facts and you're focusing on anecdotal evidence and prognostication and they need to wake up?

[Jocabia]

Where exactly has my argument failed? My argument has succeeded. Obviously not in convincing you, but that's besides the point. The government has failed in projecting costs of various healthcare programs in the past by staggering amounts. I know, I know, lets give them the power over our healthcare. But wait! That is not enough! We should also make them be bankers, and car manufacturers. And run insurers. Seriously, as good as Obama is, we should abolish all private business and have him run it. That is the best way out of this private market created mess. Fuck those greedy capitalists. Scum.

/sarcasm

The government has so it's best that we look at similar systems. All historic and current data points away from your system and toward the proposed system. Now, I don't know where you studied economics but did they actually encourage you to actually look at similar systems and see how they work?

I think you missed my point entirely. Where did you study economics? I am quite curious.

I disagree with your point. I didn't miss it. Your point ignores the evidence and it does in a pretty obvious fashion. I studied at the University of Illinois, but I didn't major in economics.

I hope you're not trying an appeal, here, since knowing economics and applying it are not the same things. You're trying to do everything but focus on the point. You want to complain about the bailouts do it elsewhere. It's irrelevant to this thread. You want to complain about big government, do it elsewhere. It's irrelevant to this thread. You want to talk about healthcare, let's have that discussion. However, you're going to have to be willing to the already existing economics systems that incorporate universal healthcare. You're going to have to be willing to look at preventive care v. emergent care (which is my personal area of expertise). You're going to have to actually address the evidence. "I have a gut feeling" is not evidence.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

Good sources, Kilo.
But, 'Sierra Mike Foxtrot,' these guys will not pay any attention to it.
They seem to believe that they can change the world given enough of my tax money... if for no other reason than if they tax me enough, I won't be able to afford any kind of private services and will be forced to use their infinitely crappier government-provided ones.

Like Rome, they believe that Bread and Circuses will distract the masses for the decaying state of their sorry nation. Of course, nothing will work when the nation finally does decay and the barbarians come rushing in to take away their freedoms, to say nothing of their precious social services. Sometimes, I wish the US would just hurry up and come unglued so people that want an honest chance to start over with a clean slate and a government that truly serves the interest of the people could have one. I know life would suck for a generation or so... but I could live with that if my kids (or grandkids) could have it better than I do now.

Man. We are cut from the same cloth. My threads here lately have been warning, pleading, SHOUTING for people to wake the sleeping dragon and stand up and have a voice. We have been silent too long. I have hope, hope that there will be that one spark that kicks off the powerkeg and makes people go "WTF is going on America?" I am glad to see I am not alone. "Back to back"?

BTW, gimme a hint "SMF"???

People are awaka and are using their voice and it's saying, give us affordable healthcare. You're just upset that they're not saying what you want to hear.

The difference between them and you is that most of them know what medicaid is. Most of them know what medicare is. Most of them know that these systems work very well in other countries where people are generally healthier, live longer and have healthier babies. They're paying attention and looking at the facts and you're focusing on anecdotal evidence and prognostication and they need to wake up?

I know exactly what medicare is. My wife is currently ON it. You quote stuff as fact "systems work very well in other countries where people are generally healthier, live longer and have healthier babies." Really? What do the facts say? Show me some facts. Hard comparitive statistics of mortality rates.

According to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate and I will find anouther source if wiki does not suit you:

UK 9.9
Japan 9.0
France 8.9
US 8.2
Canada 7.4 (granted better)

So according to this data, People are healthier in some other countries yeah, but not the ones that have "universal healthcare" except Canada, but their wait times are higher.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Where in the rules of this game does it state that you have to be rude to your opponent in order to play?

[Jocabia]

I know exactly what medicare is. My wife is currently ON it. You quote stuff as fact "systems work very well in other countries where people are generally healthier, live longer and have healthier babies." Really? What do the facts say? Show me some facts. Hard comparitive statistics of mortality rates.

According to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate and I will find anouther source if wiki does not suit you:

UK 9.9
Japan 9.0
France 8.9
US 8.2
Canada 7.4 (granted better)

So according to this data, People are healthier in some other countries yeah, but not the ones that have "universal healthcare" except Canada, but their wait times are higher.

Hmmm...

Okay, let's start with Infant mortality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ality_rate

According to the UN we rank 33. According to the US, we rank 46. This should put in the context of the US paying more for healthcare than EVERY other country in the world. More than has ever been paid in the history of the world. And we rank at best 33rd.

For example, a child is twice as likely to die before the age of five in the US than in Sweden, for example. Roughly the same when compare to Norway or Japan or Iceland. You'd think that would make us want to look at what Sweden, Norway, Japan and Iceland are doing, but not in your world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... expectancy

For life expectancy, we rank 35th by member nations. Fine one that did better than us and having a free market solution. You won't. It doesn't exist.

Men live three years longer in Japan. Women live five years longer. Again, you'd think that would make us want to look at Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Japan

Not in your world, though. That would just make too much sense. Instead jam your head firmly into the sand and just keep saying that if we just pretend like the free market will fix it, it will. Just keep ignoring the evidence, because the evidence lays your claims to waste.

You obviously don't know what a death rate is, so please don't bring it up again. It took three days for me to explain it to the last guy who started an argument about it because he wanted to claim that white people were going extinct in Norway.

Your turn. Since the free market is such a great solution you must have dozens of examples of countries with more free market solutions that have better healthcare than the US. Give me one.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

Good sources, Kilo.
But, 'Sierra Mike Foxtrot,' these guys will not pay any attention to it.
They seem to believe that they can change the world given enough of my tax money... if for no other reason than if they tax me enough, I won't be able to afford any kind of private services and will be forced to use their infinitely crappier government-provided ones.

Like Rome, they believe that Bread and Circuses will distract the masses for the decaying state of their sorry nation. Of course, nothing will work when the nation finally does decay and the barbarians come rushing in to take away their freedoms, to say nothing of their precious social services. Sometimes, I wish the US would just hurry up and come unglued so people that want an honest chance to start over with a clean slate and a government that truly serves the interest of the people could have one. I know life would suck for a generation or so... but I could live with that if my kids (or grandkids) could have it better than I do now.

Man. We are cut from the same cloth. My threads here lately have been warning, pleading, SHOUTING for people to wake the sleeping dragon and stand up and have a voice. We have been silent too long. I have hope, hope that there will be that one spark that kicks off the powerkeg and makes people go "WTF is going on America?" I am glad to see I am not alone. "Back to back"?

BTW, gimme a hint "SMF"???

People are awaka and are using their voice and it's saying, give us affordable healthcare. You're just upset that they're not saying what you want to hear.

The difference between them and you is that most of them know what medicaid is. Most of them know what medicare is. Most of them know that these systems work very well in other countries where people are generally healthier, live longer and have healthier babies. They're paying attention and looking at the facts and you're focusing on anecdotal evidence and prognostication and they need to wake up?

Also, you are argueing 2 different things: Affordable healthcare and universal healthcare(insurance).

I am with you that reducing the cost of healthcare is important. NO doubt. So is reducing the waste and fraud of medicare/aide. Fine. We dont need another system. We just need to clean up the system we have.
Pass comprehensive litigation reform
Give insurance companies the ability to compete across state lines
Make insurace portable (across companies)
Reduce the amount of time and paperwork doctors need to file claims
Eliminate "cherry picking" of the insured
Eliminate "pre-existing conditions" clauses, (sticky here, for several different reasons I can get into if you want)

yeah, I have no problem with passing legislation to make Healthcare more affordable. Most of the measures dont even require expanding the Govmt.

As far as Universal Insurance Coverage:
Make the changes necessary to reduce costs.
Cover through existing, but streamlined, Medicare/aide programs the old, chronically ill, and the children of the poor
Make private insurace affordable (see above) and empower employers to administer the insurance in effective/efficient ways
For those who are UNWILLING to work. NO govmt handouts. Incentivise people to donate to private charities on a 1:1 deduction basis. For every dollar you giveto charity, 1 dollar comes directly off your bottom line tax bill. This will cover those who are lazy so they arent dying in the streets. At least most of them, we cant have everything now can we?