Universal Health Care Reform in the United States

[BDunnell]

Middle of the road??

That is why they got the only Conservative in the UK, Daniel Hannan, to talk about how rubbish he thinks the NHS.

Precisely right.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Fox are the middle ground. The middle ground between Rush Limbaugh and the KKK.

[chuck34]

The answer to this question is contained in none other than your own post:

The basic profit motive of all businesses is in direct opposition to patient care. There is in essence only two methods of increasing profit - Either increasing end user costs, which you've already got because on a per person basis as a nation you already pay more than any any other country in the world.

Take all the profits out of the system then. You still have to control costs. Even not-for-profit organizations, or the government have to control costs. You can't just print money to pay all the doctors, lawyers, beurocrats etc. Congressmen and Senators have the same issue. They can't raise the quality of patient care without raising taxes. Who was the last politician that got re-elected after raising people's taxes? So there may not be a "profit motive" in a government system. But there is a "cost control" motive. Just different shades of the same thing. Why do people seem to believe that government is this great and wonderful bennevolent entity that just does things for the good of everyone, and has this giant stack of never-ending money?


Or by lowering costs; how can you possibly improve patient care by lowering costs?

I have no idea. I don't think you can. But President Obama and the Dems in Congress seem to think they can. So you tell me, how can you improve patient care by lowering costs?


Cost overruns are surely more desirable than lowered patient outcomes.

There will be costs overruns in a government system. Huge cost overruns. Don't you doubt that for a minute. Why is that not desirable? Because this country is BROKE. Worse than broke we are hugely in debt. Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, and a whole host of other programs are just about out of money. They won't be able to pay out their obligations in about decade or so. Now you want to add $1,000,000,000,000 on top of that (and when was the last time that the government got the price right for one of their programs?). How do you pay for that?


You can't honestly tell me that because you pay higher premiums, you're getting a better level of service, can you?

Yes I can. You get what you pay for, most times.


Why in principle is it desirable for instance to value patients according to their level of incomes? Where's the equity in that?

Why is it desirable for you to take my hard earned money and give it to someone that I don't know, and perhaps they are just sucking off the system, not working, not contributing anything to anyone? Where's the equity in that?

[anthonyvop]

Like it or not Fox is the most un-biased and middle of the road major media outlet in the US. Unfortunately those on the left are quick to call bias any story that questions their ideals.

Of their 4 top shows only Hannity can be considered partisan. O'Reily bashed Bush as much as he does Obama and in fact has written a pro-Obama article for Parade magazine. Sustern slants a shade to the left in some issues and beck is.......well he hates everyone.

All of the other Networks either lean to the left,(ABC and CNN), Firmly left (CBS & NBC) or Radically Left(PBS & MSNBC)

[BDunnell]

Like it or not Fox is the most un-biased and middle of the road major media outlet in the US. Unfortunately those on the left are quick to call bias any story that questions their ideals.

And so are those on the right, hence your ridiculous comments about Fox being unbiased and all the other networks having a left-wing bias. This is complete rubbish to anyone with all their faculties.

[Rollo]

Like it or not Fox is the most un-biased and middle of the road major media outlet in the US. Unfortunately those on the left are quick to call bias any story that questions their ideals.

All of the other Networks either lean to the left,(ABC and CNN), Firmly left (CBS & NBC) or Radically Left(PBS & MSNBC)

The question of "left and right" means something entirely different in American parlance. The left and right scale seems to refer to the Libertarian-Authoritarian axis of the "Political Compass" (see the link):
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

When Mr Vop talks about something being "to the left" I wonder exactly what he means because almost certainly unless he's either willing to tell us how he defines it, we'll have to accept the standard definitions.

Fox News is a News Corporation media outlet, and like the Wall St Journal, The Times (London), the Australian, the Sun and the Sydney Daily Telegraph, it would be called by the rest of the world as "Centre-Right".

The speech by James Murdoch certainly does not indicate an "unbiased" and "middle of the road" but a very very right shifted view:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2670550.htm
The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit.
The free-market is the ultimate expression of the right, it is by definition the right. (see the Political Compass)

Mr Vop, everyone including News Corporation themselves rejects your notion, even the Wall St Journal admitted as such:
http://www.slate.com/id/2119864/
Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.
Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.

[Rollo]

Why is it desirable for you to take my hard earned money and give it to someone that I don't know, and perhaps they are just sucking off the system, not working, not contributing anything to anyone? Where's the equity in that?

If people can not afford the system, then you've made a value judgment of those people. If you don't think that poor people are worth spending money, then I'll conceed the argument, but remember:
"When the least of society suffers, all of society suffers"
- US Secretary of State (1789 - 1793) Thomas Jefferson

[anthonyvop]

And so are those on the right, hence your ridiculous comments about Fox being unbiased and all the other networks having a left-wing bias. This is complete rubbish to anyone with all their faculties.
Really?

Prove me wrong.

I can prove you that I am right.

[Alexamateo]

Like others have said, there is often a difference between the way "left" and "right" are defined on either side of the pond.

On Fox news, A UCLA study shows that they are the most unbiased of all media outlets in their news reporting. Please also note that this does not include commentary and opinion pieces, but as far as presenting both sides in the news room, they present the most balanced pieces.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

As far as healthcare, a lot of our opinions revolve around whatever we view as the role of government. IMO healthcare is an individual matter and not something the Federal government should have anything to do with.

[Mark in Oshawa]

And so are those on the right, hence your ridiculous comments about Fox being unbiased and all the other networks having a left-wing bias. This is complete rubbish to anyone with all their faculties.

So basically anyone who isn't on the left is a sodding fool? THAT's nonsense and you know better.

Fox is not always playing to the right, and they sure as heck more fair in how they debate topics and air the other side than those idiots on NBC. Or we could talk about CBS where their anchor and his producer set flame to their careers with a fiction that Bush was in the ANG to avoid Vietnam, while they actually had some evidence he volunteered at one point to go over there. They hid THAT truth but put the fictious ppwk up there as truth, which fell apart in 48 hours. THAT's a fair media?

Keith Olbermann on MSNBC would embarass all but the most left media.

Most Ameircan Media has a slant, either slight or great to one side or the other. So does the Canadian media and the BBC in Britain. A smart person watches a few different takes and makes an intelligent estimation where the truth is, but I do know Fox at least will pay lip service to hearing the left. Anyone watching O' Reilly or Beck will notice they have spent their share of time dumping on all the politicians, not just the ones on the left....

[Rollo]

This Sceptered Isle currently on BBC Radio 7 has on this subject, a programme about 1946, touches on the inception of the NHS... but you've only got abot 5 days left before it rolls through:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lkmyl

[crazzycat]

this subject needs more discussion

[chuck34]

If people can not afford the system, then you've made a value judgment of those people. If you don't think that poor people are worth spending money, then I'll conceed the argument, but remember:
"When the least of society suffers, all of society suffers"
- US Secretary of State (1789 - 1793) Thomas Jefferson

No. That is why there are charities. I personally donate quite a lot to the charities of my choice. And you will find that in the US it is the Conservatives that give more to charity by quite a large margin.

It's the difference between what you think the role of government is (to semi-quote Mark). NO ONE wants to just dump poor people in the streets. NO ONE is calling for the dismanteling of the Medicare/Medicaid system (except for Obama himself, who has proposed pulling $650 billion or so from that system to pay for his)

And if you think that Jefferson would have been in favor of this ... well go read some more about him. Because that is just laughable.

[Mark in Oshawa]

this subject needs more discussion

No...this topic is like many, both sides firmly entrenched, with neither side conceding the other has a point.

Me...the guy with universal healthcare and no choice can see arguments on both sides and has tried to take both sides to the middle...with little or no success.

That said, for those who don't understand what Chuck and those against the plan are going on about, are only seeing it as a matter of fact and what I have pointed out more than once that THIS plan isn't anything like what the UK or Canada has...it is a mismash of.....well that's just it isn't it? No one is sure what you are getting except it is VERY expensive and the US of A is broke...in case no one forwarded the memo...

[Rollo]

It's the difference between what you think the role of government is (to semi-quote Mark).

What exactly is the first role of government then? I always thought that it was the general welfare, justice and safety of the people. Perhaps I was wrong.

[chuck34]

What exactly is the first role of government then? I always thought that it was the general welfare, justice and safety of the people. Perhaps I was wrong.

So providing for the general welfare means that the government MUST contol healthcare? As someone else brought up, why don't they buy me my food then? Or my house, afterall I need shelter to live, right?

Providing for the general welfare means that the government sets up conditions whereby which everyone has access to basic necessities of life. I'd say that government setting up Medicare/Medicaid does that quite well, except for the fact that those programs are bankrupt. So, I suppose, Constitutionally we should fix those programs before we do anything else. That is if you really want to argue that government MUST supply healthcare.

Again, do you honestly think that Thomas Jefferson, or for that matter, any Founding Father, would have been on board with government run healthcare?

Oh yeah, one more thing. HOW DO YOU PAY $1,000,000,000,000 WHEN YOUR COUNTRY IS BROKE?

[DexDexter]

What exactly is the first role of government then? I always thought that it was the general welfare, justice and safety of the people. Perhaps I was wrong.

Based on this thread, many Americans seem to be almost afraid of the government and its actions. Why on earth do they have one then?

[chuck34]

Based on this thread, many Americans seem to be almost afraid of the government and its actions. Why on earth do they have one then?

We have a VERY limited government according to our Constitution. It was written that way on purpose.

[Rudy Tamasz]

What exactly is the first role of government then? I always thought that it was the general welfare, justice and safety of the people. Perhaps I was wrong.

Defence, foreign affairs, law and some communications (roads etc.). The citizens can take care of the rest. They should so, I think.

[BDunnell]

Defence, foreign affairs, law and some communications (roads etc.). The citizens can take care of the rest. They should so, I think.

How can citizens take care of transport networks, for instance? Not all transport can be private. There has to be some degree of co-ordination in order to have a network, and private enterprise generally shows itself to be incompetent at this, because of the overriding interest it has in competition rather than co-operation. And why should defence be immune from being run by the private sector?

[anthonyvop]

How can citizens take care of transport networks, for instance? Not all transport can be private. There has to be some degree of co-ordination in order to have a network,
Didn't you read his post?


And why should defence be immune from being run by the private sector?
Our constitution directly addresses a national defense.

Now i would approve of a private army. It is obvious that privately run military organizations are much more effective and efficient.

[BDunnell]

Didn't you read his post?

Er... yes. He only referred to 'some communications', not the means of those communications, and not to modes of transport.



Now i would approve of a private army. It is obvious that privately run military organizations are much more effective and efficient.

How is this obvious? And do not the massive delays and overspends on major military projects indicate that contractors cannot always be trusted to deliver the best possible value and the best possible service to the government, or is this entirely the fault of government, in your considered opinion?

[anthonyvop]

Er... yes. He only referred to 'some communications', not the means of those communications, and not to modes of transport.



How is this obvious? And do not the massive delays and overspends on major military projects indicate that contractors cannot always be trusted to deliver the best possible value and the best possible service to the government, or is this entirely the fault of government, in your considered opinion?
Those overruns are contractors/Government deals.

Those delays and overruns don't happen very often in the private sector. It is called business.

[BDunnell]

Those delays and overruns don't happen very often in the private sector.

Rubbish.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Those delays and overruns don't happen very often in the private sector.

As someone who works in the construction industry I have to say that that is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever read.

[DexDexter]

How can citizens take care of transport networks, for instance? Not all transport can be private. There has to be some degree of co-ordination in order to have a network, and private enterprise generally shows itself to be incompetent at this, because of the overriding interest it has in competition rather than co-operation. And why should defence be immune from being run by the private sector?

British railways are a good example of private transportation and its problems. It was a shock to travel by train in the UK after being used to efficient, on-time, comfortable new trains (run by the government) here.

[BeansBeansBeans]

British railways are a good example of private transportation and its problems. It was a shock to travel by train in the UK after being used to efficient, on-time, comfortable new trains (run by the government) here.

Indeed.

I read an article recently about two London-based supporters of Liverpool FC. They had flown on Easyjet from London to Alicante and then immediately jumped onto another plane from Alicante to Liverpool. The reason? It was cheaper than getting the train from London to Liverpool.

[chuck34]

Indeed.

I read an article recently about two London-based supporters of Liverpool FC. They had flown on Easyjet from London to Alicante and then immediately jumped onto another plane from Alicante to Liverpool. The reason? It was cheaper than getting the train from London to Liverpool.

Competition and the free markets at work. Ain't it great?

[BeansBeansBeans]

Competition and the free markets at work. Ain't it great?

Not to my mind.

If the cost of travelling by train is so expensive that people take the option of flying via a foreigh country to save money, something is badly wrong.

[DexDexter]

Competition and the free markets at work. Ain't it great?

Sarcasm, hopefully.

[schmenke]

The US does often lead the way in pioneering and expensive experiemental surgery. But for 99.999% of cases, that's not what they need.

Indeed. From what I've read, annual spending of medical research into cancer treatment in the U.S. is a tiny fraction of what is spent on similar research into sexual performance enhancing drugs :mark:

[anthonyvop]

Competition and the free markets at work. Ain't it great?
What does competition and free markets have to do with British Rail?

BTW Passenger Air travel is much cheaper and more efficient than rail. The only reason it is cheaper in some countries is because it is subsidized by governments.

[schmenke]

The problem is some generics just aren't as good. My wife takes losec for her acid reflux. The generic that the doctors keep trying to make her accept doesn't seem to work as well as the original Losec. The pharmaceutical industry is the biggest profitteering crooks in the whole medical system, and their manipulation of formulas for various drugs and the generic market is riddled with issues....

For the most part generics do the job, but there are issues....

Generic and brand name drugs are identical. The reason that the brand name drugs are more expensive is because the recouperation of multiple years of research and development is included in the cost. Drug companies are provided a limit on the patent life of the drug, generally 10 years or so, during which time they are the exclusive providers. Once the patent period has expired other companies simply copy the drug formula and sell it at a much cheaper cost, since they have no legacy of R&D to pay for. There are dozens of drug companies (e.g. Apotex in Canada) that do just this, i.e. perform no R&D what so ever while waiting for others’ patents to expire.

[schmenke]

ummmm That would be me if I had the money to swing it.. :)

Ditto :mark:

[DexDexter]

What does competition and free markets have to do with British Rail?

BTW Passenger Air travel is much cheaper and more efficient than rail. The only reason it is cheaper in some countries is because it is subsidized by governments.

British railway system was privatised which lead to a disaster. Google it. Passenger air travel is also much more harmful to the environment than rail.

[chuck34]

Not to my mind.

If the cost of travelling by train is so expensive that people take the option of flying via a foreigh country to save money, something is badly wrong.

Yes something is wrong with the trains. They are run inefficiently, or too many regs, something. Why should the government subsidise that mess? If they can't compete with air travel, then perhaps it's time for the train to go the way of the horse and buggy.

Not that I have anything against train travel. I just think that if someone can come up with a cheaper, more efficient, etc. means to do something (or sell a product) they should be allowed to. And the more expensive, less efficient, et. product or service needs to either addapt or go away.

You know, Capitalism.

[chuck34]

Sarcasm, hopefully.

So you don't like free markets?

[chuck34]

What does competition and free markets have to do with British Rail?

BTW Passenger Air travel is much cheaper and more efficient than rail. The only reason it is cheaper in some countries is because it is subsidized by governments.

VOP, I think we're on the same page. Maybe my post wasn't clear. I'm for competition, and against government subsidise(sp?).

[chuck34]

British railway system was privatised which lead to a disaster. Google it. Passenger air travel is also much more harmful to the environment than rail.

So the government needs to step in and prop up a less efficient, more costly system just so you can feel "green"?

[anthonyvop]

So the government needs to step in and prop up a less efficient, more costly system just so you can feel "green"?

Isn't that what being green is all about?
That smug, pretentious feeling one gets when one abandons logic and embraces group think.

[anthonyvop]

British railway system was privatised which lead to a disaster.
A government mandated monopoly is hardly "free market."

[chuck34]

Isn't that what being green is all about?
That smug, pretentious feeling one gets when one abandons logic and embraces group think.

Pretty much. It seems like a choice to me. Either we destroy our economies to "save" our environment (*cough*China, India*cough* ... who said that?). Or we let our economies recover from this recession and slowly work in what we can to clean stuff up. But that being said, we must remember that CO2 is not a pollutant, IT'S PLANT FOOD.

Ok how did we go from healthcare, to the British Rail System, now to the environment?

Back on topic. There still has been NO ONE who has even taken a serious shot at a plan on how to pay for $1,000,000,000,000 in new government spending. Anybody got a plan? Anyone? Any plan? Anything?

[BDunnell]

Competition and the free markets at work. Ain't it great?

No, because of the environmental damage caused (fact, not something dreamed up to annoy the unthinking right) and the utter absurdity of the situation in question.

[BDunnell]

What does competition and free markets have to do with British Rail?

Er... quite a lot. Look it up.



BTW Passenger Air travel is much cheaper and more efficient than rail. The only reason it is cheaper in some countries is because it is subsidized by governments.

Efficient how? Certainly not in environmental terms. And long may it go on being subsidised by governments, because the quality of travel thus provided by state rail operators is excellent when the systems are well-run. This is called providing a public service.

[DexDexter]

A government mandated monopoly is hardly "free market."

I don't know what you guys are on, but anyway, I merely pointed out that in some sectors, government monopoly can actually work. The British privatized their railways which lead to for example terrible maintenance problems whereas here in Finland the state owned railway system works very well and when state controlled the railways in the UK things were better there as well. By the way, over here the state provides free education for all , no private schools etc. and that works well also, we are near the top in PISA scores in the whole world. Nothing is perfect and I'm not saying that things that work around here would work in the States, but the fact is that government-lead things are not always bad.

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

[BDunnell]

Yes something is wrong with the trains. They are run inefficiently, or too many regs, something. Why should the government subsidise that mess? If they can't compete with air travel, then perhaps it's time for the train to go the way of the horse and buggy.

Again, you are commenting on something about which you seem to know little, other than what your pre-conceived notions tell you that you ought to think. The British railways were far better run when they were run by the state. They have been ruined by privatisation, which has introduced competition where once there was co-operation. All it has done is allowed the government to get the railways off its books, even though they probably cost the taxpayer much more on an annual basis now, not something that any of the parties will admit. It is a classic example of how the private sector definitely does not enjoy any form of superiority.

I would suspect that the only reason you think rail travel should maybe be done away with is because those concerned with the environment see it as the way forward, and your own views do not tally with this; therefore, it must somehow be a backward step, and not to be supported. In fact, travelling between Paris and London, and indeed many other European city pairs, by train is quicker than doing so by aircraft, as well as being far more environmentally friendly and far less hassle. In these circumstances, it is air travel that should gradually be done away with — and I say this as an aviation journalist.



Not that I have anything against train travel. I just think that if someone can come up with a cheaper, more efficient, etc. means to do something (or sell a product) they should be allowed to. And the more expensive, less efficient, et. product or service needs to either addapt or go away.

Exactly. See above. And also see the many other 'less efficient' means of transport that one could name. How, exactly, have Ferrari or Porsche 'adapted' to changing circumstances? Their products are more expensive and less efficient than other cars. Should they be forced to 'go away'?

[BDunnell]

So the government needs to step in and prop up a less efficient, more costly system just so you can feel "green"?

Not 'feel green', but 'be green'. There is a significant difference.

[BDunnell]

Isn't that what being green is all about?
That smug, pretentious feeling one gets when one abandons logic and embraces group think.

Much as you have done in relation to right-wing political philosophies. There's precious little depth of thinking involved.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Railways are a 'natural monopoly'. Not a true free market.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Railways in Canada are privately run for frieght, and gov't run for passengers. It works if you are the CNR or CPR, but VIA rail hauling the passengers is a money pit. That said, railways don't work well in the age of the airplane in nations smaller than Canada at times, so I Know they are not a viable option for travellers in Canada.

What works in one country may not work in others. That can be healthcare and all the rest of it....Each nation has to find what works for them, and while I can see the merits of having universal healtcare because I live with it, I can also say the US isn't wrong to not have it, and they cant afford to make that change now in any case. The USA is broke. Like all Social Liberals who want it cant seem to grasp the economic truth of it cant understand this is NOT the time to even have this discussion. I would like a Ferrari, but I cant afford it.....but it would be better in theory than what I am driving. Realism.....what a concept.

[Mark in Oshawa]

BTW Passenger Air travel is much cheaper and more efficient than rail. The only reason it is cheaper in some countries is because it is subsidized by governments.

It isn't more efficient in a nation like the UK where you can take a train and be across it in 4 hours. When you factor in time getting to and from the airport and delays (something anyone on a plane now can relate to), only longer trips are more efficient on planes. Between larger cities in the UK, rail makes good sense. Just like the only money making lines AMTRAK has likely run between Washington and NYC and on to Boston. Get out of that corridor and time and distance favour aviation.

The only reason it is messed up in Britain likely is because the privatization was done with all sorts of conditions that made British rail a money loser that were likely put on the private operators. I don't know all the ins and outs, but if I were to guess, the private owners of lines are being obligated to provide money losing services that the government just absorbed the costs of. Just like Via Rail in Canada runs trains to communities that cant really justify a stop. The Gov't has people to answer to beyond a balance sheet.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Much as you have done in relation to right-wing political philosophies. There's precious little depth of thinking involved.

Wrong..but that is ok, you and I wont agree anyhow. Capitalism and right wing philosophy have done a lot to improve the world, despite your disagreement to the contrary. While you may think this green revolution is necessary, it has to be done in such a way that matters. What is being done now, whether it be the green revolution or pushing the Yank's into public healthcare is emotionally charged nonsense without any intellectual proof or scrutiny. The right may not always get things "right" in your books, but they base a lot of they believe in based on human experience. Look no further than capitalism itself. We saw what happened when you take away human nature for improving one's self economically. The USSR was a total basketcase economically and morally.....There is no soft socialism that works because it all comes back to ignoring human nature.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Wrong..but that is ok, you and I wont agree anyhow. Capitalism and right wing philosophy have done a lot to improve the world, despite your disagreement to the contrary. While you may think this green revolution is necessary, it has to be done in such a way that matters. What is being done now, whether it be the green revolution or pushing the Yank's into public healthcare is emotionally charged nonsense without any intellectual proof or scrutiny. The right may not always get things "right" in your books, but they base a lot of they believe in based on human experience. Look no further than capitalism itself. We saw what happened when you take away human nature for improving one's self economically. The USSR was a total basketcase economically and morally.....There is no soft socialism that works because it all comes back to ignoring human nature.

He wasn't saying there was precious little thinking involved in right wing philosophies, he was saying there was precious little thinking involved in Vop's adherence to right-wing philosophies.

[chuck34]

No, because of the environmental damage caused (fact, not something dreamed up to annoy the unthinking right) and the utter absurdity of the situation in question.

So you believe that CO2 is a pollutant? Even though there have been times in earth's past with FAR greater concentrations of CO2, and life THRIVED? Quick question, can man more easilly survive in warm climates or cold?

[chuck34]

Again, you are commenting on something about which you seem to know little, other than what your pre-conceived notions tell you that you ought to think. The British railways were far better run when they were run by the state. They have been ruined by privatisation, which has introduced competition where once there was co-operation. All it has done is allowed the government to get the railways off its books, even though they probably cost the taxpayer much more on an annual basis now, not something that any of the parties will admit. It is a classic example of how the private sector definitely does not enjoy any form of superiority.

Maybe, maybe not. You seem to just discount taxes payed. It's not a free lunch even if it's government run.


I would suspect that the only reason you think rail travel should maybe be done away with is because those concerned with the environment see it as the way forward, and your own views do not tally with this; therefore, it must somehow be a backward step, and not to be supported. In fact, travelling between Paris and London, and indeed many other European city pairs, by train is quicker than doing so by aircraft, as well as being far more environmentally friendly and far less hassle. In these circumstances, it is air travel that should gradually be done away with — and I say this as an aviation journalist.

I don't think it should "be done away with". I just think it's time has passed. I know that sometimes travelling by rail is better, and it should stay in those instances.

By your logic, shouldn't the horse and buggy have been subsidised by the government? I mean it is more "environmentally friendly". Except maybe all those horse farts?


Exactly. See above. And also see the many other 'less efficient' means of transport that one could name. How, exactly, have Ferrari or Porsche 'adapted' to changing circumstances? Their products are more expensive and less efficient than other cars. Should they be forced to 'go away'?

You apparently don't know about this new concept of market driven economies. You see, in some countries, economics drive the markets. In these so called "markets", consumers make decisions on what they would like to purchase. In your example, Porsche and Ferrari, have a product that enough consumers have decided to purchase that those companies can make enough profit (I know that's an evil word to some) to stay in business. The British Rail system apparently does not do a good enough job to turn much of a profit.

[chuck34]

Not 'feel green', but 'be green'. There is a significant difference.

Again, CO2 is not a pollutant. IT'S PLANT FOOD.

[anthonyvop]

He wasn't saying there was precious little thinking involved in right wing philosophies, he was saying there was precious little thinking involved in Vop's adherence to right-wing philosophies.
Right-Wing?
Hardly.

[Mark]

Last I heard the railways actually cost the government ten times as much now than when they were state owned. Just imagine what British Rail could have done with that money. At the moment it is going into the pockets of corporations along the way.

[chuck34]

Last I heard the railways actually cost the government ten times as much now than when they were state owned. Just imagine what British Rail could have done with that money. At the moment it is going into the pockets of corporations along the way.

Why would the government be paying for a privatly owned service? That just sounds dumb. Perhaps the gov. should cut ALL subsidies to a service once "privitised"?

[Rollo]

You apparently don't know about this new concept of market driven economies. You see, in some countries, economics drive the markets. In these so called "markets", consumers make decisions on what they would like to purchase.

Suppliers on the other hand, do not supply goods or services where profits can not be made, nor will they lower their prices to the point of affordability for consumers.
In such circumstances the consumers are either prices takers, because they do not have enough influence on the market to influence prices or alternatively if they simply can not afford it, those consumers do not get those goods and services. The concept is called "market failure".


So the government needs to step in and prop up a less efficient, more costly system just so you can feel "green"?

In the case of healthcare, the public is propping up private firms for a more costly system. And because those same firms have such a sway in Washington, the consumer will continue to have zero influence in determining prices.

[janvanvurpa]

Right-Wing?
Hardly.


So you admit you're a lefty engaged in a years long charade just parodying a central casting version of a raving lunatic brainless unthinking right winger cliché
and that talk about sipping wine with a mass murderer just a couple of weeks ago was just trolling for reaction.

Figured.

Nobody not in a padded cell could really believe the funny stuff you dream up.

Good laugh.

[chuck34]

Suppliers on the other hand, do not supply goods or services where profits can not be made, nor will they lower their prices to the point of affordability for consumers.
In such circumstances the consumers are either prices takers, because they do not have enough influence on the market to influence prices or alternatively if they simply can not afford it, those consumers do not get those goods and services. The concept is called "market failure".

What is wrong with profit? I don't understand why so many seem to think that companies making profits are evil. Government isn't much better. Although they don't make a profit, they do have to contain costs. Unless you're the US government and then apparently you can just keep spending until the whole thing blows up. How long until that happens?

If a company can not provide a good or service at a price the market can bear, then they go away. What's wrong with that? If a consumer truely needs a product they will have to pay what the company is charging. Or one of these consumers may come up with a better/cheaper way to provide that good or service. That's how we get new and improved products/inventions. There has to be a need to drive improvement. What's wrong with improvement?

Why is it better for the government to provide said service at a "lower" price? Rember, there is no free lunch. Somone is paying, through taxes. So maybe if the people didn't have to pay so much tax, they could afford the "expensive" product/service they couldn't afford in the first place.


In the case of healthcare, the public is propping up private firms for a more costly system. And because those same firms have such a sway in Washington, the consumer will continue to have zero influence in determining prices.

The consumers have no influence in the healthcare market because employers control the system. I can not choose the insurace provider that I feel fits my circumstances best (Well I could, but I loose the tax breaks. And as I am a relatively healthy young man, it doesn't effect me too much, yet. So it doesn't make economic sense for me right now.). I am stuck with what my employer feels is best for me. Also we can't buy insurance accross state lines.

So even though there are about 13,000 insurance providers in this country, there really isn't too much competition. So the thing I don't understand is, how is having no competition now going to change when we set up a "Public Option"? That doesn't drive any competition. In fact that will make my situation (and many other's) much worse. Because my employer has already told us that if there is a "Public Option" that they will drop our coverage. And why wouldn't they? That makes a lot of sense business wise. So now I really don't have much of an "Option" do I?

And none of this does anything to address the issue of how do we pay for a new system that is going to cost an additional $1,000,000,000,000 to the Public Debt? Anyone? Come on, how many times to I have to ask before either you guys admit that it can't be done, or come up with a plausable plan?

[Rollo]

What is wrong with profit? I don't understand why so many seem to think that companies making profits are evil.

Profits by themselves aren't evil, but who exactly is the system designed to benefit? Obviously not the people who need medical services.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2007/May/Mirror%20%20Mirror%20on%20the%20Wall%20%20An%20Int ernational%20Update%20on%20the%20Comparative%20Per formance%20of%20American%20Healt/1027_Davis_mirror_mirror_international_update_v2.p df
the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.
That's surely worth paying 7 grand a year for isn't it. :D


And none of this does anything to address the issue of how do we pay for a new system that is going to cost an additional $1,000,000,000,000 to the Public Debt? Anyone?

I conceed. The cost you're already paying is worth it.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/

A trillion dollars to fix a system which clearly works perfectly would be money wasted.

[chuck34]

Profits by themselves aren't evil, but who exactly is the system designed to benefit? Obviously not the people who need medical services.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2007/May/Mirror%20%20Mirror%20on%20the%20Wall%20%20An%20Int ernational%20Update%20on%20the%20Comparative%20Per formance%20of%20American%20Healt/1027_Davis_mirror_mirror_international_update_v2.p df
the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.
That's surely worth paying 7 grand a year for isn't it. :D

I have NEVER said the system doesn't need fixing.



I conceed. The cost you're already paying is worth it.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/

A trillion dollars to fix a system which clearly works perfectly would be money wasted.

That is $1,000,000,000,000 above and beyond what we are already paying. And don't kid yourself, there are horror stories in EVERY system. Do I need to go find those? Do you really believe that once the US government takes over the system that everything will be rosey? Come on this is the real world.

Again, NO ONE is saying that our current system is perfect. Far from it. It needs to be fixed. But why does that "fix" need to be taken care of by the government WHO CAN NOT AFFORD IT? Why can't INDIVIDUALS own their own healthcare? Wouldn't that drive competition, at NO, ZERO, ZILTCH, NADA cost to the government? Isn't that the very thing the Democrats are saying the "Government Option" will address? Shouldn't that be the plan, to actually boost competition?

[DexDexter]

I have NEVER said the system doesn't need fixing.




That is $1,000,000,000,000 above and beyond what we are already paying. And don't kid yourself, there are horror stories in EVERY system. Do I need to go find those? Do you really believe that once the US government takes over the system that everything will be rosey? Come on this is the real world.

Again, NO ONE is saying that our current system is perfect. Far from it. It needs to be fixed. But why does that "fix" need to be taken care of by the government WHO CAN NOT AFFORD IT? Why can't INDIVIDUALS own their own healthcare? Wouldn't that drive competition, at NO, ZERO, ZILTCH, NADA cost to the government? Isn't that the very thing the Democrats are saying the "Government Option" will address? Shouldn't that be the plan, to actually boost competition?

In my humble opinion individuals are too stupid to own/take care of their healthcare. We could see a pandemic spread because the uninsured think it's too expensive to see a doctor. That's a totally possible scenario.

[anthonyvop]

In my humble opinion individuals are too stupid to own/take care of their healthcare. We could see a pandemic spread because the uninsured think it's too expensive to see a doctor. That's a totally possible scenario.
There you go.

The exact reason I despise Liberals.

They actually believe they know how people should live their lives better than the individual.

[chuck34]

In my humble opinion individuals are too stupid to own/take care of their healthcare. We could see a pandemic spread because the uninsured think it's too expensive to see a doctor. That's a totally possible scenario.

Let's use Swine Flu as an example. If the CDC really thinks that this will be a pandemic, I wouldn't (and I don't know who would) have any problem with the gov. giving out free vaccinees(sp?) to anyone who wants them. That would be a heck of a lot cheaper than taking over the entire system. And actually accomplish something.

You still haven't address how to pay for the $1,000,000,000,000 in new government spending.

[BDunnell]

You apparently don't know about this new concept of market driven economies. You see, in some countries, economics drive the markets. In these so called "markets", consumers make decisions on what they would like to purchase. In your example, Porsche and Ferrari, have a product that enough consumers have decided to purchase that those companies can make enough profit (I know that's an evil word to some) to stay in business. The British Rail system apparently does not do a good enough job to turn much of a profit.

You clearly don't know much about the subject, given your present tense reference to British Rail for a start. And what exactly do you know, without looking it up on Wikipedia, about the financial status of British Rail when it was in existence?

The same could be said for your opinions on CO2 emissions. What makes you believe one set of scientists rather than the other? Self-interest, that's what.

[BDunnell]

Right-Wing?
Hardly.

If you don't consider yourself to be right-wing — in fact, a very long way to the right — then words absolutely fail me.

[chuck34]

You clearly don't know much about the subject, given your present tense reference to British Rail for a start. And what exactly do you know, without looking it up on Wikipedia, about the financial status of British Rail when it was in existence?

You are correct, I don't know much about British Rail. All I know is that you guys on here keep saying that it was gov. run. Then it went private, was poorly run, and cost the gov. 10x more than when it was gov. run. In my mind that is absolutly insane. If I have that wrong, please let me know.


The same could be said for your opinions on CO2 emissions. What makes you believe one set of scientists rather than the other? Self-interest, that's what.

I look at ALL the data. The data is very inconclusive on wether or not global warming is actually happening. It is even more inconclusive when it comes to a cause.

Do you not believe that CO2 is plant food?

How much of the CO2 emmisions per year are man made?

How much of that CO2 will be stoped, even with full emplimentation of Kyoto?

How much of an effect will that have on the environment?

Is CO2 a leading or lagging indicator of temperature?

At what temperature does man, plants, animals, etc. start to be adversly effected? How?

Let's take this to a new thread.

[BDunnell]

I look at ALL the data. The data is very inconclusive on wether or not global warming is actually happening. It is even more inconclusive when it comes to a cause.

You may look at the data, but how on earth can anyone who is not a scientist hope to interpret all its complexities? I suspect a proper scientist would laugh at attempts by any of us to do so.

[DexDexter]

There you go.

The exact reason I despise Liberals.

They actually believe they know how people should live their lives better than the individual.

Over here I'm conservative :) , that's how different our worlds are. But in any case, I do understand that the US being such a huge country, the challenges are enormous in everything. IMO you're doing a "pretty" good job compared to, let's say our neighbour, a certain "bear".

[donKey jote]

Again, CO2 is not a pollutant. IT'S PLANT FOOD.
absolutely RIGHT (http://www.internet-grocer.net/co2.htm)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdHjhJTf6RE
:dozey:

[Robinho]

the British Rail thing is not a good example - if it costs more now (which would be difficult to prove exactly what was spent in the BR days) is arguably because of years of under investment left us with an infrastructure that could not cope and we are now paying the price for having to renew and remodel massive amounts of railway as a result. the layout of the infrastructure is largely governed by the historical routes that came of the early rail industry and as such are often not suitable for long distance fast lines such are the "pinch" points in and around many intersection areas (see Rugby, Reading and many others)

we are often given the French and German rail systems to compare with, but these are largely new since WW2 and as such were laid to provide a more suitable modern service that the British Network struggles to do due to the aged layout of the existing infrastructure.

whilst British Rail has been privatised, for the benefit of the non-Brits its not a one stop privatisation - the Infrastructure is owned and maintained by Network Rail (the successor of Railtrack, which was a listed company that spectacularly collapsed and was partly absorbed by the Public service to become what it is now), a not for Profit private body, part funded by the office of the rail regulator (government).

Network rail let contracts for Renewal and enhancement projects to Private companies (i do work for one of these so please excuse my bias) which has resulted in some vastly more efficient projects, albeit it also could be argued that there is an expense attached to the use of Agency plant and labour, but this is the same as the wider construction industry)

there, IMO, is no way that a nationalised company could run these works successfully, and would have to engage the woder consrtuction and civils industries for actual construction works. after all you don't have a nationilsed body building schools, hospitals etc, why should you building railway?

the licences for the Train operating companies are privately let for fixed periods and i would argue have in some cases been very successful - certainly for the larger routes, some of the smaller/remoter areas perhaps would be dropped if left purely private, so some subsidies have to be offered to ensure a train service is continued.

it might be more expensive to the Taxpayer now (but the taxpayer still owns the infrastructure indirectly) but its a vastly different animal, and i think it would be difficult to actually prove a direct comparison.

i do believe that the state of the railway would be far worse if still entirely state run - i may be wrong, and from within the industry there are a number of people who do hold an opposing view to mine.

[Roamy]

The fact is the criminals running this country cannot get the lawyers and tort out of the system so we will fail. you can't cure a cocaine addict by injecting heroin.

[anthonyvop]

If you don't consider yourself to be right-wing — in fact, a very long way to the right — then words absolutely fail me.

Really? usually when words are hard to come by for liberal, euro-weenies they resort to insults.

Actually I consider myself very mainstream, middle of the road.

[Roamy]

Hey DudNell
Many of us are Middle of the road with capitalist ideas. That is what made us great and that is what we will return to as soon a we can get this misinformed baffoon out of office. You don't need to be right wing to support capitalism you just need to avoid being socialist.

[chuck34]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/The-convenient-fantasies-of-President-Obama-8215470-57862907.html

"There is an element of convenient fantasy as well in Obama's health care statements to date. We are going to save money by spending money. We are going to solve our fiscal problems with a program that will increase the national debt by $1,000,000,000,000 over a decade. We are going to guarantee you can keep your current insurance with a bill that encourages your employer to stop offering it."

[edv]

Looks like tonight's speech by Obama is gonna make or break this issue.

[schmenke]

A wealthy woman was being shown around the hospital. During her tour she passed a room where a male patient was masturbating furiously.

"Oh my GOD!" screamed the woman. "That's disgraceful! Why is he doing that?"

The doctor who was leading the tour calmly explained, "I'm very sorry that you were exposed to that. His name is anthonyvop and he has a serious condition where his testicles rapidly fill with semen, and if he doesn't do that at least five times a day, he'll be in extreme pain and his testicles could easily rupture."

''Oh, well in that case, I guess it's okay" said the woman.

As they passed by the very next room, they saw a male patient lying in bed while a nurse performed oral sex on him.

Again, the woman screamed, "Oh my GOD! Now tell me how that can be justified?"

The doctor spoke very calmly, "Oh, that's fousto... Same illness, better health plan."

[anthonyvop]

A wealthy woman was being shown around the hospital. During her tour she passed a room where a male patient was masturbating furiously.

"Oh my GOD!" screamed the woman. "That's disgraceful! Why is he doing that?"

The doctor who was leading the tour calmly explained, "I'm very sorry that you were exposed to that. His name is anthonyvop and he has a serious condition where his testicles rapidly fill with semen, and if he doesn't do that at least five times a day, he'll be in extreme pain and his testicles could easily rupture."

''Oh, well in that case, I guess it's okay" said the woman.

As they passed by the very next room, they saw a male patient lying in bed while a nurse performed oral sex on him.

Again, the woman screamed, "Oh my GOD! Now tell me how that can be justified?"

The doctor spoke very calmly, "Oh, that's fousto... Same illness, better health plan."

Funny stuff.

[edv]

Ha ha nice one Schmenke.

[Roamy]

Perfect - Tony get a better plan. :)

[anthonyvop]

Perfect - Tony get a better plan. :)
I do.

The nurse providing the service was Rosie O'Donnel.

[Roamy]

:D :D :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I better get on the South American Plan

[Malbec]

Last I heard the railways actually cost the government ten times as much now than when they were state owned. Just imagine what British Rail could have done with that money. At the moment it is going into the pockets of corporations along the way.

Thats because British Rail was starved of maintenance funds. With privatisation the government also committed itself to contributing to proper maintenance to attract bidders.

Still, I don't think rail systems are a good example of state vs private control, and I find the simplistic view that private organisations are inherently better than state run systems or visa versa rather childlike. The world is not black and white.

[Malbec]

There you go.

The exact reason I despise Liberals.

They actually believe they know how people should live their lives better than the individual.

In some cases people do need to be told what to do. Vaccination is a clear example, if over 10% of the population are left unimmunised then the population isn't covered endangering everyone. I have no problem with vaccinations being made compulsory, and if state power is used to enforce that, so much the better. Respect for individual rights should not extend to allowing people to endanger the lives of others for their beliefs.

[Malbec]

They wont say they want Canada's system in the bills before the Senate and Congress because they know they would lose half the "Blue Democrats" and not get the bill passed. They want to enter the free market with their version of health insurance, and use the private insurers to subsidize their scheme. When the private insurers find out they cannot compete because of this, they will mostly bail on the whole idea of providing health insurance and over time, you end up with a mainly private system. This is the theory I have heard, and it I do think there is some merit to it.

I have no problem with private insurers existing with public system, but the government in question here is losing money hand over fist with the medicare/medicaid systems in existence now. Why should they regulate the game and participate in it ? I have no love for profiteering and HMO's not doing right by their patients, but a more unrestricted competitive enviroment would punish bad insurers. What the government of the US wants to do is play in the game and regulate it further. Right now, health insurers have to go state by state, which is a LOT more inefficient......

Mark I'm afraid your post shows how little you understand about the difference between the Canadian system and the US, or the free market and how it coexists with state provided services.

You don't turn left to go right, and it should be pretty darn clear that Obama's proposals are shoring up the current US system rather than destroying it and starting again which is what would be required to copy the Canadian (or anyone else's) model.

You and others keep talking about how private healthcare companies will be priced out of the market and quit. You really think companies will leave a lucrative market because there's some hard competition out there, state or private funded? You think there'll be widespread longterm political support for state provided healthcare insurance 'flooding' the insurance market and undercutting private insurers at great expense to the taxpayer? You think they won't lobby to protect their existence let alone their profits? Private insurers do and will continue to channel funds for the majority of US citizens to provide for their healthcare.

If Obama is going to 'nationalise' the US health system he wouldn't be proposing what he's proposing now. With his large political capital (at least he had at the start of this proposal) he would have scrapped the entire current system and started from scratch. He'd have to. You can't nationalise in any other way.

[Malbec]

That, I'm convinced, will lead to shortages of doctors and services because of less incentive for the doctors to perform their jobs. As far as I can tell, the premise of all this seems to be that doctors and insurance companies are evil and greedy. Why is it that if you start telling doctors and insurance companies what they can make (and that is less than what they currently make) that they all of a sudden become compassionate individuals that will do all this "good" out of the kindness of their hearts?

I wouldn't worry about a shortage of doctors, in any country the biggest limiting factor in doctor numbers is the ability to train them in the first place. Even in countries where doctors are paid little there is no shortage of recruits, Cuba is a good example of this. There are motivating factors other than money that push people into medicine. In fact I think there is a good argument for making medicine in the US less lucrative for doctors, it may well lead to fewer moneymaking types entering the field and result in people who are more interested in the job itself joining.

[airshifter]

In some cases people do need to be told what to do. Vaccination is a clear example, if over 10% of the population are left unimmunised then the population isn't covered endangering everyone. I have no problem with vaccinations being made compulsory, and if state power is used to enforce that, so much the better. Respect for individual rights should not extend to allowing people to endanger the lives of others for their beliefs.

Based on that belief, some immunizations probably shouldn't take place. Should a parent be forced to imminize a child, with a chance that such immunization might cause health problems or death, to prevent them getting an illness they might never be exposed to?

[anthonyvop]

In some cases people do need to be told what to do. Vaccination is a clear example, if over 10% of the population are left unimmunised then the population isn't covered endangering everyone. I have no problem with vaccinations being made compulsory, and if state power is used to enforce that, so much the better. Respect for individual rights should not extend to allowing people to endanger the lives of others for their beliefs.

I don't know where you live but immunization is not required by law in the US. It is only required for a child to attend school. It isn't easy but there is a way for a parent to opt out their children. Of course I consider it foolish not to vaccinate your child

[Malbec]

Based on that belief, some immunizations probably shouldn't take place. Should a parent be forced to imminize a child, with a chance that such immunization might cause health problems or death, to prevent them getting an illness they might never be exposed to?

The risk of an immunisation causing health problems is always less than the risk of the same being caused by the disease itself, otherwise immunisation isn't carried out. The public perception though is different, especially after several generations of immunisations when the public forget how nasty the diseases were in the first place.

Your question should read - should a parent have the right to not immunise a child and therefore risk the health of other children who have been immunised by their parents by lowering herd immunity?

[airshifter]

The risk of an immunisation causing health problems is always less than the risk of the same being caused by the disease itself, otherwise immunisation isn't carried out. The public perception though is different, especially after several generations of immunisations when the public forget how nasty the diseases were in the first place.

Your question should read - should a parent have the right to not immunise a child and therefore risk the health of other children who have been immunised by their parents by lowering herd immunity?

There are quite a few people these days who chose not to immunize for certain things as such immunizations have been proven to cause higher percentages of medical problems, and treatment for the actual disease is simple.

The herd immunity issue is really out the window if you consider that the immunizations work. Only those not immunized would be affected, so those chosing not to do so would not endanger anyone but themselves.

[Malbec]

There are quite a few people these days who chose not to immunize for certain things as such immunizations have been proven to cause higher percentages of medical problems, and treatment for the actual disease is simple.

The herd immunity issue is really out the window if you consider that the immunizations work. Only those not immunized would be affected, so those chosing not to do so would not endanger anyone but themselves.

Do you mind presenting the evidence that immunisations cause higher percentages of medical problems? Are you talking about MMR? If so you'll find the evidence against immunisation is so weak its funny, while the medical complications of the disease protected against are far more severe than the problems caused by the vaccine.

Immunisations aren't 100% effective. Only 90% of those immunised will end up immune against whatever disease they're immunised against. By happy coincidence, viral disease can't take a grip on a population unless well over 10% are susceptible. Therefore if 100% are immunised and 90% end up
actually immune then the population as a whole is protected even if all individuals are not. That is what is meant by herd immunity.

If the immunisation take up rate drops below about 95 % then only about 88% or so of the population are actually immune to the disease and this lets the disease spread again. Therefore only a small proportion of people have to refuse immunisations in order to allow the disease to take hold again. And because the vaccine is only 90% effective 1 in 10 of those who were immunised will still get the disease.

In the UK the MMR take up rate dropped in some places by 10 % to 90% or so. That was enough to allow measles and mumps to reappear again, and we've had the first measles death for decades in London last year in someone who was immunised. I'm sure we'll see a good few kids crippled with serious neurological damage too (another measles complication) or made sterile (mumps).

Thats why your assertion that people who aren't immunised are only endangering themselves is false, they endanger everyone.

[Dave B]

Do you mind presenting the evidence that immunisations cause higher percentages of medical problems? Are you talking about MMR? If so you'll find the evidence against immunisation is so weak its funny, while the medical complications of the disease protected against are far more severe than the problems caused by the vaccine.
Indeed, and there are certain parts of the media who should be facing serious sanctions for their scaremongering over MMR, which flew in the face of the overwhelming evidence from hundreds of seperate studies the world over. It's a pretty sorry state of affairs when one rogue doctor with a vested interest can have his flawed report disseminated so widely that it puts lives at risk. :s

[BDunnell]

Indeed, and there are certain parts of the media who should be facing serious sanctions for their scaremongering over MMR, which flew in the face of the overwhelming evidence from hundreds of seperate studies the world over. It's a pretty sorry state of affairs when one rogue doctor with a vested interest can have his flawed report disseminated so widely that it puts lives at risk. :s

Precisely — yet despite this, large sections of the public still think that there 'must be something wrong with it'. As you say, this is complete and utter rubbish. It's not helped by the fact that, in situations such as the fears about MMR, most politicians are now so afraid to be seen to be arrogant or out-of-touch that they don't tell the public 'Stop being so stupid', which is what they should have done all along.

[chuck34]

So we've had a good little while to think about this, lots of speaches, press conferences and the like.

Anyone got any idea how we pay for all this yet?

[GridGirl]

Chuck34, I dont want to appear mean but you've asked the question as to how the US will pay for nationalised healthcare a million times on this thread. Well OK that was a slight exaggeration but maybe no one is answering you repeated question because firstly they just dont care or secondly because even though the US government probably cant afford it, it doesn't mean they wont just go ahead and do it anyway.

[chuck34]

Chuck34, I dont want to appear mean but you've asked the question as to how the US will pay for nationalised healthcare a million times on this thread. Well OK that was a slight exaggeration but maybe no one is answering you repeated question because firstly they just dont care or secondly because even though the US government probably cant afford it, it doesn't mean they wont just go ahead and do it anyway.

So no one cares about adding a trillion dollars (that's $1,000,000,000,000) to our National Debt? Don't you think that is something that should be considered in this debate? Is it not a valid question?

And do you think that just because the Congress will "just go ahead and do it anyway" makes it ok? That we shouldn't ask these questions?

Why give them a free pass on this question?

[GridGirl]

I'm not from the US and it wont affect me so I really couldnt care whether the US adds to their debt or not. I'd be willing to debate the actually system and how it will work but the cost I really couldn't care about personally.

Your asking these questions repeatedly and no one including your fellow Americans are answering them. Maybe right now no one actually has the answer.

[chuck34]

I'm not from the US and it wont affect me so I really couldnt care whether the US adds to their debt or not. I'd be willing to debate the actually system and how it will work but the cost I really couldn't care about personally.

Well I am from the US, and I care deeply about the burdon being placed on me, my future children, and my future grandchildren. So forgive me for caring.


Your asking these questions repeatedly and no one including your fellow Americans are answering them. Maybe right now no one actually has the answer.

Ah, so no one actually has the answer. That's pretty much my point. The Pres., Pelosi, and Ried keep going on and on about how this will be "deficit neutral", and "won't raise taxes on the middle class". But NO ONE knows how that is possible.

Isn't that a question that needs to be answered? Isn't that a pretty important issue? If the question of how to pay for such a program doesn't matter, then why not just put in place all the programs we want? Money doesn't seem to be an issue? We can all just print as much money as we want to pay for all the programs we want with no consequences down the road, right? That's a cool world you live in.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I'm not from the US and it wont affect me so I really couldnt care whether the US adds to their debt or not. I'd be willing to debate the actually system and how it will work but the cost I really couldn't care about personally.

Your asking these questions repeatedly and no one including your fellow Americans are answering them. Maybe right now no one actually has the answer.

This is the really comical part. Those from the UK, Finland and Canada are trying to tell the Yanks it will work, and the Americans on the board say it wont. I think they know their country.....

THey are not getting a plan like Canada or the UK, they are getting...well that is the problem, there are 5 different plans on the table, all expensive and a mish mash of stuff. A horse designed by a committtee....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mark I'm afraid your post shows how little you understand about the difference between the Canadian system and the US, or the free market and how it coexists with state provided services..

I understand from talking to Americans ( I am in the US as much as I am in Canada)their health plans and they always ask me about mine.


You don't turn left to go right, and it should be pretty darn clear that Obama's proposals are shoring up the current US system rather than destroying it and starting again which is what would be required to copy the Canadian (or anyone else's) model..
It isn't going to shore it up if he taxes employers on top to pay for the new premium and gives them a tax break if they send their employees into the state run system. THAT is one of the proposals that was floating

If he had a cogent plan that was well spelled out WITHOUT a state run alternative, and HAD Tort reform, it would likely pass....Obama hasn't really put a plan out, his party has about 3 proposals on the go...all with a public option that is creating the backlash.


You and others keep talking about how private healthcare companies will be priced out of the market and quit. You really think companies will leave a lucrative market because there's some hard competition out there, state or private funded? You think there'll be widespread longterm political support for state provided healthcare insurance 'flooding' the insurance market and undercutting private insurers at great expense to the taxpayer? You think they won't lobby to protect their existence let alone their profits? Private insurers do and will continue to channel funds for the majority of US citizens to provide for their healthcare.. The problem is Dylan is many of the proposed reforms are going to make the playing field unequal. When the regulator of the system is now playing in the game, it is like having the referee on the other team. The Gov't will make sure they will get people to their plan, even if they have to change the rules to make going anywhere else more expensive.

I think the insurance co's need a boot in the @ss in the US, but I don't think the Gov't should be competing with them AND regulating their industry at the same time. THAT is a conflict of interest, and sorry, like Americans, I don't trust the gov't motives on this one...


If Obama is going to 'nationalise' the US health system he wouldn't be proposing what he's proposing now. With his large political capital (at least he had at the start of this proposal) he would have scrapped the entire current system and started from scratch. He'd have to. You can't nationalise in any other way.

He has blown this political capital because Pelosi, Reid and the loons in Congress have written a bill with the public option right up front. Most Americans have seen how the gov't has screwed up medicare and medicaid and how they are broke. They don't trust them.

You can have the best idea in the world, but the way these idiots are selling it, it wont fly. This is NOT the best idea in the world.

[GridGirl]

Well I am from the US, and I care deeply about the burdon being placed on me, my future children, and my future grandchildren. So forgive me for caring.



Ah, so no one actually has the answer. That's pretty much my point. The Pres., Pelosi, and Ried keep going on and on about how this will be "deficit neutral", and "won't raise taxes on the middle class". But NO ONE knows how that is possible.

Isn't that a question that needs to be answered? Isn't that a pretty important issue? If the question of how to pay for such a program doesn't matter, then why not just put in place all the programs we want? Money doesn't seem to be an issue? We can all just print as much money as we want to pay for all the programs we want with no consequences down the road, right? That's a
cool world you live in.

If you acknowledge that no one has the answer stop asking the question on
this thread over and over again. Your time would actually be better spent talking to your local or state representitives. Surely they would actually be interested in your opinions, what you want and would be able to provide you with more detailed information, after all they represent you in government.
The average forumer just doesn't know the intimate details of the US governments spending, debt or how it manages to finance anything. We definately can't tell you how you can or can't afford such programmes and what you need to do about it.

[GridGirl]

This is the really comical part. Those from the UK, Finland and Canada are trying to tell the Yanks it will work, and the Americans on the board say it wont. I think they know their country.....

THey are not getting a plan like Canada or the UK, they are getting...well that is the problem, there are 5 different plans on the table, all expensive and a mish mash of stuff. A horse designed by a committtee....

People from the UK, Finland and Canada are not trying to tell the Yanks it will work but are saying our systems aren't that bad for us. A debate on the system proposed would be interesting. The comical part is thinking we are selling you our systems, the US governent is trying to sell you a mish mash of our systems. Don't blame us.

[chuck34]

If you acknowledge that no one has the answer stop asking the question on
this thread over and over again. Your time would actually be better spent talking to your local or state representitives. Surely they would actually be interested in your opinions, what you want and would be able to provide you with more detailed information, after all they represent you in government.
The average forumer just doesn't know the intimate details of the US governments spending, debt or how it manages to finance anything. We definately can't tell you how you can or can't afford such programmes and what you need to do about it.

So you don't have the economic details, but you do have all the medical and beurocratic details to tell us it will all be good? Interesting. And besides it's not me that says this can all be done "deficit neutral", that's Obama, and his gang. I'm asking the question how can that be?

You are going to add 30 million (using Obama's number) people to the system, increase quality of care, not add any taxes to the middle class, and do it all without adding a dime to the national debt. That doesn't pass the smell test. So aren't I asking legitimate questions?

This is a discussion forum. We all ask questions and discuss things we don't know the details on. I'm not even asking for something very detailed, just a general outline would be nice. But if you're going to be all for a program then shouldn't you have some sort of clue about how to pay for it. Especially when it is as massive as this program?

And I have talked to my reps. My Representative says that he's waiting on the final bill, but he is inclined to vote it down. One Senator is against it, and the other is fairly non-committal.

[chuck34]

People from the UK, Finland and Canada are not trying to tell the Yanks it will work but are saying our systems aren't that bad for us. A debate on the system proposed would be interesting. The comical part is thinking we are selling you our systems, the US governent is trying to sell you a mish mash of our systems. Don't blame us.

But that's just it. The overwhelming majority of Americans are at least somewhat satisfied with their current coverage. Why are we going to do this massive take over? And don't give me the tired line of "it's a Public Option, they won't be taking away your insurance". Even Obama has had to back off that now. Now he is saying "There won't be anything to REQUIRE you to change" instead of what he's been saying for at least a year "If you like your doctor you can keep him. If you like your coverage you can keep it." You see he is being forced to recognize that many employers will drop health coverage if there is a "Public Option".

If the Dems were smart they would drop the "Public Option", add in some tort reforms, add some competition by allowing Insurance Companies to compete accross State lines, and a few other things. And I bet they get their bill because MOST people can agree to those type of things.

[Roamy]

we need tort reform and allow for cross state selling and that is about all.
But all the politicians are lawyers so they are paralyzed when it comes to tort reform. Plus also we can eliminate all Foreign aid until our house is in order.

[chuck34]

So it is a tax hike then.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27384.html

[Rollo]

So no one cares about adding a trillion dollars (that's $1,000,000,000,000) to our National Debt? Don't you think that is something that should be considered in this debate? Is it not a valid question?


The US National Debt was created in 1790 when the US Treasury took over the responsibility of $75million from the states, which was effectively the costs of the revolutionary war.

The Civil War (or the "War Between the States" is you believed Rocky & Bullwinkle) added in 1865 terms another $3 billion to it, which as William Gibbs McAdoo (McAdoo-doo-doo push pineapple, shake a tree, McAdoo-doo-doo push pineapple, grind coffee) reported in the 1914 budgetary papers still wasn't effectively paid off until World War One.

Heaven only knows if you've paid off World War Two, Korea, Vietnam, The Cold War, Gulf War I, Gulf War II or Afghanistan, but I'd more than likely say probably not.

The simple fact of the matter is that the American People have never been able to pay for the effects of constantly being at war and either that means that Americans have never been taxed enough or that every single Government since 1789 has never had any intention of paying the debt off.

[chuck34]

The US National Debt was created in 1790 when the US Treasury took over the responsibility of $75million from the states, which was effectively the costs of the revolutionary war.

The Civil War (or the "War Between the States" is you believed Rocky & Bullwinkle) added in 1865 terms another $3 billion to it, which as William Gibbs McAdoo (McAdoo-doo-doo push pineapple, shake a tree, McAdoo-doo-doo push pineapple, grind coffee) reported in the 1914 budgetary papers still wasn't effectively paid off until World War One.

Heaven only knows if you've paid off World War Two, Korea, Vietnam, The Cold War, Gulf War I, Gulf War II or Afghanistan, but I'd more than likely say probably not.

I don't know what type of economics you subscrbe to, but can you really think that having more than 100% of your GDP in debt is a good thing? And that is BEFORE the healthcare stuff.
The simple fact of the matter is that the American People have never been able to pay for the effects of constantly being at war and either that means that Americans have never been taxed enough or that every single Government since 1789 has never had any intention of paying the debt off.

So your position is, run up the debt as much as we can?

A small amount of national debt is actually desirable as it spurs bond sales, and a few other things that keep the economy chugging along. However, too much has the oposite effect as countires start to wonder if we'll ever pay off the bonds they have bought. See China's current reluctance to buy more of our debt.

[Rollo]

So your position is, run up the debt as much as we can?

It's been US National Policy without cease now for 220 years. Why should it suddenly change? Besides which, in the current economic client where "stimulus" seems to be the buzz word, wouldn't it be more useful to actually set up a system for the betterment of the people than continually going to war?

[chuck34]

It's been US National Policy without cease now for 220 years. Why should it suddenly change? Besides which, in the current economic client where "stimulus" seems to be the buzz word, wouldn't it be more useful to actually set up a system for the betterment of the people than continually going to war?

You honestly think that it has gone up without cease?

You honestly think that's a good idea?

You honestly think that whatever system they come up with will only be for the betterment of the people?

I have a feeling that you are trying to make some sort of statement about our foreign policy, but you've for some reason decided to do it in a healthcare debate. If you want to discuss our foreign policy stances, fine, but go start another thread.

Oh yeah, and stimulus may be a buzz word, but it ain't my word.

[Roamy]

What I don't get is why you are worrying about it. We can't stop meth, we can't stop crack, we can't protect our borders, we can't stop the influx of H1 visas because none of our people want to get educated. So health care you say. Just print the money and move on. We are fu____ed and fu____ed good because our young don't want to get off their asses because everything has been handed to them. You Euro's are just on one permanent Holiday selling us sh!t because we are too dumb to buy our own products.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It's been US National Policy without cease now for 220 years. Why should it suddenly change? Besides which, in the current economic client where "stimulus" seems to be the buzz word, wouldn't it be more useful to actually set up a system for the betterment of the people than continually going to war?

ummm Revolutionary War? Valid because George III was a loon and the USA came out of it. They would pay for it again I am sure.

Civil war? Necessary I suppose.

WW1? Ummm didn't they save the world from another 4 years of stalemated warfare? Didn't the Allies practically BEG Wilson to bring the USA in? After, the USA went back to ignoring the world

WW2? Again, don't want to blow their horn, but I suspect you would be speaking German today Rollo if the Yank's stayed home. Or Russian...

The Cold War? Maybe spent to much there but you don't play around in a competition you must win like a war.

So they are paying debts off from their miltary? Great...they also financed the rebuilding of Europe after WW2. Marshall Plan was not cheap man...

So the Americans have a great capacity to absorb debt, create wealth and generate money. So much so, that you think they shouldn't sweat the debt of a national health plan. What you conveniently forget is the USA's economics are NOT what they were in 1946. They have a lot more debt already, they have way more gov't meddling in the system, which has actually hurt the growth of economic activity. They are also paying more tax than they liked before, and most Americans have much more personal debt AND are more scared of losing their jobs than ever, mainly because the world has changed and it doesn't pay to make household products in the USA with workers making 20 bucks an hour when they can find Chinese or Indians to do it for a buck an hour.

The USA cannot afford to have a national health plan like the NHS or Canada's provincial plans. It has too many people who would need to be compensated or absorbed into the system, it would require massive tort reform and it would need to address the needs of the 80% of the population who have a health plan and are happy with it.

This is like putting your dog down because you don't like the fact he pants.....extreme measure for a system that needs tinkering...

Obama isn't a tinkerer apparently...

[chuck34]

Sorry to dig up this old thread. But I thought this was interesting.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D6O1.html

"Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two"
"Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure"
"HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers."

So the big argument I keep hearing is all about how if we cut out these "obsene/immoral profits" by going to a government run system (after all the government doesn't need to make a profit) that the costs of healthcare will fall dramatically. Is 2-6% really a dramatic cut? And do you really think that costs will fall that much in a government run system?

[janvanvurpa]

ummm Revolutionary War? Valid because George III was a loon and the USA came out of it. They would pay for it again I am sure.

The official excuse was outrage over a few piddling taxes which had been levied by Parliament which were set to expire but were made to seem an outrage because they were levied in London without the Colonists voting for them.
So rather than everybody pay a farthing or a penny on a stamp on a document, and a bit less profit for Boston merchants, they whole of th 13 colonies aqquire millions in debt to fight the War---and of course would have never succeeded without millions more in grants, 20-40,000 troops, dozens of ships and the intervention just in the nick of time of the entire French fleet.

"because Geo III was a loon" a tiny bit simplistic...


Civil war? Necessary I suppose.

Impossible to say if it would have been better to get rid of the feudal savages who still abosrd the greatest portion of direct government money, and is such a cesspool of out of wedlock births, teen pregnancies, drug use, murder, welfare, corporate and political criminality all crowned by endless loud hilarious screaming about morals and GAWD!


WW1? Ummm didn't they save the world from another 4 years of stalemated warfare?

No. Germany was on edge of political collapse, Austria-Hungary worse, Turkey was collapsing.


Didn't the Allies practically BEG Wilson to bring the USA in?
After, the USA went back to ignoring the world.

Germany collapsed politically---do you never read?
The country was bled white and starving and that was intolerable.
The Government collapsed, the new Government immediately opened negotiations for an ARMISTICE.
Post war archives showed that Germany, France and Britain ALL wanted desparately to have decision in 1918 as they ALL said "before the numbers of American troops become a significant enough factor they equal place at Treat negotiation would have to be granted to the Americans".

READ!


WW2? Again, don't want to blow their horn, but I suspect you would be speaking German today Rollo if the Yank's stayed home. Or Russian...

Poles right next door spoke and still speak Polish, Hungarians spoke and still speak Hungarian, Bulgarians, Czechs, Slovaks, even the Germans spoke the same language....shall we list the languages spoken all along within the old Soviet Union's borders.

American production, especially in shipping and aircraft was amazing but don't exaggerate the significance especially to Soviet Union which had essentially single-handedly stopped the Germans by Dec 41, and in the end, killed about 88% of all those horrible Germans killed in the whole war.

Silly groundless exaggeration disrespects the memory of all who fought side by side and is particularly shameful for one who was never NEAR the action to be lying for other people's benefit.


The Cold War? Maybe spent to much there but you don't play around in a competition you must win like a war.

Corporate welfare for "Defense" contractors and it was so obvious to anybody around back then that a sitting US President and former 5 star general made a point to WARN the American people of the out of control threat to their lives and World Peace. It only got worse after Eisenhower's Farewell speech.



So they are paying debts off from their miltary? Great...they also financed the rebuilding of half of Europe that wasn't nearly blow to dust and gravel as the other half after WW2. Marshall Plan was not cheap man...

GASP!!! Government intervention!!!! No wonder all of Eurpoe went Socialist!!


They have a lot more debt already, they have way more gov't meddling in the system,

Wrong, less.
Read history, turn off Rush and his buddies.



which has actually hurt the growth of economic activity.

False


They are also paying more tax than they liked before,

Some are paying mere fractions of what was ON PAPER before, the middle end of the middle class and lower pay more.



and most Americans have much more personal debt

Dare you suggest that people shouild just do whatever they want with their money or credit cards?
You dare suggest that everybody doesn't need 64" TVs, cell phone/twitter/Blackberry/NEW 380 bhp 3 ton SUVs and 1000 sq meter houses?

I always knew you Canadians were Communist Nazis......





The USA cannot afford to have a national health plan like the NHS or Canada's provincial plans.

Everybody else can, countries not nearly as wealthy but American CAN'T.
Lower total tax burden, lower housing and fuel costs, lower food costs, lower car costs, higher wages, total health car costs TWICE the average of the rest of the civilised world for less people cover, but you're RIGHT!!!!

America can't afford to pay less!!!!

What a bizarre world view....

[Roamy]

Ok JanVan we are here on the eve of the pelosi program.

So lets nationalize petroleum and electricity to pay for this.
What is your take

And I really don't give a F___ what hitler paid for gas

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fousto...Javvan is the expert on lots..just ask him.

[janvanvurpa]

Fousto...Javvan is the expert on lots..just ask him.

On the things I bother to take issue with, yes.
It IS within the realm of human experience that a great many people my be significantly better read than you, and possibly have a BROADER viewpoint than your patently rah! Rah! America's No.1 line that you tirelessly and constantly push.
I have, after all, been listening to people tell a similar simplistic stories about US History for 50+ years, and oddly, the stories keep getting simpler and simpler and simpler which is odd now that we speak to a world wide readership now and info is so much easier to find. It would seem that one may have re-thought some of the simple " 'merica best, everybody else sucks" stories which are now the essential story behind all stories here.

You lot NEVER respond to a single point EVER, never engage in any give and take and you 'turn around' things and act as if you are the victims of some unprovoked 'attack' when all you are getting is exactly what you give.

Why are you surprised when somebody presents a strong opinion----and backs it up with references to things well known?

By the way, you and Footsie and Chuckies totally disregarding and brushing aside any and all opinions differing from your truly odd and slanted views is one is the reasons why the public became fed up with the previous Administration and the corrupt gang of crooks infesting the Republican Party.

Notice the last election results?
That's what happens when people think of clowns who dismiss all discourse and only fire dud broadsides.

That's why I asked the delicate Foutinitio who he was presuming to speak for when he said "WE"..
Simple question really, too bad he can't answer it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

On the things I bother to take issue with, yes.
It IS within the realm of human experience that a great many people my be significantly better read than you, and possibly have a BROADER viewpoint than your patently rah! Rah! America's No.1 line that you tirelessly and constantly push.
I have, after all, been listening to people tell a similar simplistic stories about US History for 50+ years, and oddly, the stories keep getting simpler and simpler and simpler which is odd now that we speak to a world wide readership now and info is so much easier to find. It would seem that one may have re-thought some of the simple " 'merica best, everybody else sucks" stories which are now the essential story behind all stories here.

You lot NEVER respond to a single point EVER, never engage in any give and take and you 'turn around' things and act as if you are the victims of some unprovoked 'attack' when all you are getting is exactly what you give.

Why are you surprised when somebody presents a strong opinion----and backs it up with references to things well known?

By the way, you and Footsie and Chuckies totally disregarding and brushing aside any and all opinions differing from your truly odd and slanted views is one is the reasons why the public became fed up with the previous Administration and the corrupt gang of crooks infesting the Republican Party.

Notice the last election results?
That's what happens when people think of clowns who dismiss all discourse and only fire dud broadsides.

That's why I asked the delicate Foutinitio who he was presuming to speak for when he said "WE"..
Simple question really, too bad he can't answer it.


First off your rambling discourses often require about 3 readings for me to discover a point of argument I can identify and respond to.

Secondly, you keep advocating public healthcare options to someone who HAS PUBLIC HEALTHCARE, who has 4 nurses in the family (Mother, aunt, 2 cousins) who have dealt with public healthcare and live in a country where the nationalized public healthcare system is either a source of pride or concern. I have pointed out more than once that the system does have its advantages, But I think it is the wrong time and choice for Americans. For you to try to stand there on your ivory tower and lecture me how superior my system is ludricious. I know the cost I pay in every pay check where there is a large sum of my money going to the Provincial government to fund it. I know there is a waiting list for procedures any schmuck in Buffalo could get by Tuesday for stuff like knee replacements, Isotopic Cancer treatments. Hell, we used to have to wait months for MRI's. Don't tell me how public healthcare is going to make things better in the US. I know that many politicians of all stripes in this country have tried to improve and truly make out system work and they have all failed to a degree. The US economy is teetering on the edge and you have idiots like Nancy Pelosi promising public healthcare for all at no extra cost. Only a naive fool would believe that, no matter how much he wants public healthcare.

Furthermore, you continue to insult where you think my opinions come from without knowing who I am, or where I put this opinion to gether. That's fine. Do what you want, I am not going to cry over it, but you do realize of course what a pompous argument you are giving at times.

As for the last US Administration, well they certainly wet the bed for John McCain, I wont quibble that. Perception of the public will turn or approve of any politician, but it is usually historians 100 years hence that are able to accurately judge the actions of any leader. Dubya isn't going to make any list of best Presidents, but he isn't the boob many think he is either. As for the current man in the White House, the jury is out, but this maddening rush to provide public healthcare for all in the US that Obama keeps trying to sneak in is proof positive the man is on his way to be a one term President. A majority of Americans when shown the truth about public healthcare are saying no.

[Hondo]

Musings.

The biggest problem with healthcare is the cost of the stuff. I can see no reason why healthcare goods and services should carry the price tag that they do. I'm sure we are all familiar with the aspirin tablet that, after being sent through the hospital system, shows up on the bill at anything from $1 to $10.00 per tablet. Thats hard to justify but not much different from the way large businesses do business. I worked for a company that expanded our amount of personal desks in the shop. Because of their ordering procedures, the chairs came in last, behind the desks by 3 weeks. We figured, after everything, that the company had paid $500.00 each for 6 chairs that we could have bought at Wal Mart for 69.95 at any time.

The healthcare battle is also being obscured and muddied by the terminology being used. Although the term healthcare insurance is being used, healthcare assurance is what is wanted. Healthcare insurance does not address the fact that basic healthcare itself is too expensive. I think a lot of services and minor surgeries should be priced where people can afford them out of pocket or spread out over 1-2 years. What many have in mind, but are not saying out loud, is a program of health assurance where anybody can walk in and expect at no cost to themselves anything from a band-aid to a liver transplant. Thats going to cost a lot of money. Tax money. Therein lies the rub. People that pay taxes now and provide their own health insurance, do not want to pay the medical bills of the worthless also.

What many folks from out of town don't understand is how many people in this country actually little or no income taxes. Because of our progressive tax system, many people get the taxes back at the end of the year that they paid in during the year. In addition, there is a boatload of exemptions, credits, and deductions on all manner of taxes that reduce taxes across the spectrum. In general, the poorer you are, the less likely you are to pay taxes.

The solution is simple. An across the board, no exemptions, no deductions, 25 percent Federal income tax on any and all income. Interest income, dividend income, employment income, government benefit income, Social Securitity income. If you find a dollar on the street, you owe the feds a quarter of it. Got a winning lottery ticket or have a good night at the casino?...The feds get 25 percent of it at the time of payout. Getting food stamps?...you either pay the feds 25 percent of the cash value of the card or have 25 percent of the card's cash value deducted from it.

Item #2, a 20 percent federal sales tax on everything bought, sold, or traded.

Once you get everybody, rich and poor, proportionally jacked by the government, they won't mind socialized healthcare.

[chuck34]

By the way, you and Footsie and Chuckies totally disregarding and brushing aside any and all opinions differing from your truly odd and slanted views is one is the reasons why the public became fed up with the previous Administration and the corrupt gang of crooks infesting the Republican Party.


You do a lot, and I mean a LOT of brushing others opinions aside. So look in a mirror first my friend.

You want to talk about crooks and corruption now. We're only a few months into the new admin, and there sure seems to be a bunch of corruption and collusion going on. But that's just the "Chicago Way" right? I don't understand it, right? I'm too stupid, right? I'm not well read enough, right? I haven't lived enough places, right? Therefore my opinion doesn't count, right?

Mirror, mirror on the wall ....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Musings.

The biggest problem with healthcare is the cost of the stuff. I can see no reason why healthcare goods and services should carry the price tag that they do. I'm sure we are all familiar with the aspirin tablet that, after being sent through the hospital system, shows up on the bill at anything from $1 to $10.00 per tablet. Thats hard to justify but not much different from the way large businesses do business. I worked for a company that expanded our amount of personal desks in the shop. Because of their ordering procedures, the chairs came in last, behind the desks by 3 weeks. We figured, after everything, that the company had paid $500.00 each for 6 chairs that we could have bought at Wal Mart for 69.95 at any time.

The healthcare battle is also being obscured and muddied by the terminology being used. Although the term healthcare insurance is being used, healthcare assurance is what is wanted. Healthcare insurance does not address the fact that basic healthcare itself is too expensive. I think a lot of services and minor surgeries should be priced where people can afford them out of pocket or spread out over 1-2 years. What many have in mind, but are not saying out loud, is a program of health assurance where anybody can walk in and expect at no cost to themselves anything from a band-aid to a liver transplant. Thats going to cost a lot of money. Tax money. Therein lies the rub. People that pay taxes now and provide their own health insurance, do not want to pay the medical bills of the worthless also.

What many folks from out of town don't understand is how many people in this country actually little or no income taxes. Because of our progressive tax system, many people get the taxes back at the end of the year that they paid in during the year. In addition, there is a boatload of exemptions, credits, and deductions on all manner of taxes that reduce taxes across the spectrum. In general, the poorer you are, the less likely you are to pay taxes.

The solution is simple. An across the board, no exemptions, no deductions, 25 percent Federal income tax on any and all income. Interest income, dividend income, employment income, government benefit income, Social Securitity income. If you find a dollar on the street, you owe the feds a quarter of it. Got a winning lottery ticket or have a good night at the casino?...The feds get 25 percent of it at the time of payout. Getting food stamps?...you either pay the feds 25 percent of the cash value of the card or have 25 percent of the card's cash value deducted from it.

Item #2, a 20 percent federal sales tax on everything bought, sold, or traded.

Once you get everybody, rich and poor, proportionally jacked by the government, they won't mind socialized healthcare.

Flat tax system works for me. Other than the lottery and casino winning tax I am all for it.

I pay 33 % of every pay to various taxes and pensions, and I am not wealthy by any stretch. I may get back maybe 4% of that in a rebate. So a 25% flat tax for me would be a 4% cut in taxes for me.....bring it on...oh wait a minute...I am in Canada..lol..someone would mess THAT up.

[airshifter]

What many folks from out of town don't understand is how many people in this country actually little or no income taxes. Because of our progressive tax system, many people get the taxes back at the end of the year that they paid in during the year. In addition, there is a boatload of exemptions, credits, and deductions on all manner of taxes that reduce taxes across the spectrum. In general, the poorer you are, the less likely you are to pay taxes.

The solution is simple. An across the board, no exemptions, no deductions, 25 percent Federal income tax on any and all income. Interest income, dividend income, employment income, government benefit income, Social Securitity income. If you find a dollar on the street, you owe the feds a quarter of it. Got a winning lottery ticket or have a good night at the casino?...The feds get 25 percent of it at the time of payout. Getting food stamps?...you either pay the feds 25 percent of the cash value of the card or have 25 percent of the card's cash value deducted from it.

Item #2, a 20 percent federal sales tax on everything bought, sold, or traded.

Once you get everybody, rich and poor, proportionally jacked by the government, they won't mind socialized healthcare.

It's worse than that really. Quite a few people get back taxes they never paid. In reality it's welfare by means of "taxation".

If we used a flat tax, or consumption rather than income taxes, I'd bet we could get the rate even lower than 25%. Personally I'd prefer all taxes be based on consumption taxes because nobody can cheat. Even the illegal money gets spent. ;)


And to me, the tax system in this country is enough evidence that they would completely screw up health care. No thanks, I'll get my own insurance or pay my own bill. I'd rather not pay an additional $2500 in taxes to get $1000 worth or coverage and provide another $1500 in coverage for those that sit on their butts.



And all of you should know by now to ignore Janvan. His tin foil hat often wears thin at months end.

[Rollo]

The "Medicare Levy" in Australia is a 1.5% tax payable by everyone except the poorest and most vulnerable in society (ie the unemployed, pensioner and war widows and veterans).

For all visits to a GP and most non-elective hospital stays the Medicare system in Australia more than pays for all of this.

[Rollo]

If we used a flat tax, or consumption rather than income taxes, I'd bet we could get the rate even lower than 25%. Personally I'd prefer all taxes be based on consumption taxes because nobody can cheat. Even the illegal money gets spent. ;)

I really hate consumption taxes in principle, because the burden of the tax invariably falls on poorer people, who aren't able to command higher wages or save money in the first place.

Assume for me if you will that we have 4 people, all earning Ÿ30,000, Ÿ40,000, Ÿ60,000 & Ÿ100,000. What's a Ÿ? Well, in economic theory books, I is usually reserved for Interest so Y is the symbol for Income, or in this case Yncome.

If a weekly budget includes Ÿ250 in rent, Ÿ50 in petrol, Ÿ30 in electric bills, Ÿ10 in water bills, Ÿ10 in services rates and Ÿ100 in groceries then all up that would be Ÿ450/week or Ÿ23,400 a year. At a 10% Consumption Tax that works out to be Ÿ2340 in tax.

But we'd also have to assume that as people's income increases, then obviously they can spend more right? Well almost, but not quite. For as people's income does go up, although they might buy nicer things, their absolute capability of buying stuff stops at some point. No-one for instance can fill their car with petrol anymore than full (of course they can obviously buy a bigger car with a bigger fuel tank etc etc etc). No-one can buy more groceries than they can fit in their house.

So instead of Ÿ23,400 being spent for each of our four consumers, they might in fact be only able to spend Ÿ23,400, Ÿ24,440, Ÿ24,960, Ÿ26,000 and therefore pay Ÿ2340, Ÿ2440, Ÿ2496 and Ÿ2600 in GST respectively. Or if you will...

Ÿ30,000 = tax Ÿ2340 = 7.8%
Ÿ40,000 = tax Ÿ2440 = 6.1%
Ÿ60,000 = tax Ÿ2496 = 4.1%
Ÿ100,000 = tax Ÿ2600 = 2.6%

Obviously I'm making assumptions all over the place here but as an illustration it works well enough.

The question is "Is this equitable?" "Is it fair?". Quite frankly, I don't think that it is. Especially considering that in the majority of cases, people's wages are not determined by them; in fact the poorer a person is, the less power that they have to determine their wage. The inverse of this is also true, in that if you give poorer people extra cash in the form of a stimulus payment, the more likely they are to spend it, simply because they need to survive (hence the reason why poor people around the world got given StimPak, Rudd Cash etc)

In essence, to increase a consumption tax from 10% to 25% as possibly suggested means that the tax becomes more regressive and therefore falls even harder on poor people:

@10% Consumption Tax

Ÿ30,000 = tax Ÿ2340 = 7.8%
Ÿ40,000 = tax Ÿ2440 = 6.1%
Ÿ60,000 = tax Ÿ2496 = 4.1%
Ÿ100,000 = tax Ÿ2600 = 2.6%

@25% Consumption Tax

Ÿ30,000 = tax Ÿ5850 = 19.5%
Ÿ40,000 = tax Ÿ6100 = 15.25%
Ÿ60,000 = tax Ÿ6240 = 10.4%
Ÿ100,000 = tax Ÿ6500 = 6.5%

The burden is still three times harder on poor people than on the rich at a rate of 25% than at 10% but what this doesn't tell you is that the total amount of money that they have at the end of the year is even tighter than it was before. It decreases from Ÿ4260 to only Ÿ750, and the poorer you are the more hurtful that is.

A Consumption Tax also taxes people in retirement who have been diligent in saving their money their whole life. Such people in a lot of cases aren't saving anymore but dissaving and therefore the actual effective taxation rate could be infinite because they're still paying tax despite not having an income.

[airshifter]

Rollo,

Though I've seen such examples and agree, I didn't give any details of consumption taxes as I would like to see them.

Such taxes could easily be set up with varying levels of taxation based on needs vs wants vs luxuries. Though it sounds difficult my state already does this to a lesser level with state taxes, with certain basic food items taxed at a lower rate. The same could be done with real estate, vehicles and just about anything they wanted.

I agree it's next to impossible to figure out any system that is always fair and equitable, but that's also the case when you base taxes solely on income. And personally I think once you help people above a certain point, you must give them incentive to do better or many will chose not to.

[steve_spackman]

On the things I bother to take issue with, yes.
It IS within the realm of human experience that a great many people my be significantly better read than you, and possibly have a BROADER viewpoint than your patently rah! Rah! America's No.1 line that you tirelessly and constantly push.
I have, after all, been listening to people tell a similar simplistic stories about US History for 50+ years, and oddly, the stories keep getting simpler and simpler and simpler which is odd now that we speak to a world wide readership now and info is so much easier to find. It would seem that one may have re-thought some of the simple " 'merica best, everybody else sucks" stories which are now the essential story behind all stories here.

You lot NEVER respond to a single point EVER, never engage in any give and take and you 'turn around' things and act as if you are the victims of some unprovoked 'attack' when all you are getting is exactly what you give.

Why are you surprised when somebody presents a strong opinion----and backs it up with references to things well known?

By the way, you and Footsie and Chuckies totally disregarding and brushing aside any and all opinions differing from your truly odd and slanted views is one is the reasons why the public became fed up with the previous Administration and the corrupt gang of crooks infesting the Republican Party.

Notice the last election results?
That's what happens when people think of clowns who dismiss all discourse and only fire dud broadsides.

That's why I asked the delicate Foutinitio who he was presuming to speak for when he said "WE"..
Simple question really, too bad he can't answer it.

interesting read.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I really hate consumption taxes in principle, because the burden of the tax invariably falls on poorer people, who aren't able to command higher wages or save money in the first place.

Assume for me if you will that we have 4 people, all earning Ÿ30,000, Ÿ40,000, Ÿ60,000 & Ÿ100,000. What's a Ÿ? Well, in economic theory books, I is usually reserved for Interest so Y is the symbol for Income, or in this case Yncome.

If a weekly budget includes Ÿ250 in rent, Ÿ50 in petrol, Ÿ30 in electric bills, Ÿ10 in water bills, Ÿ10 in services rates and Ÿ100 in groceries then all up that would be Ÿ450/week or Ÿ23,400 a year. At a 10% Consumption Tax that works out to be Ÿ2340 in tax.

But we'd also have to assume that as people's income increases, then obviously they can spend more right? Well almost, but not quite. For as people's income does go up, although they might buy nicer things, their absolute capability of buying stuff stops at some point. No-one for instance can fill their car with petrol anymore than full (of course they can obviously buy a bigger car with a bigger fuel tank etc etc etc). No-one can buy more groceries than they can fit in their house.

So instead of Ÿ23,400 being spent for each of our four consumers, they might in fact be only able to spend Ÿ23,400, Ÿ24,440, Ÿ24,960, Ÿ26,000 and therefore pay Ÿ2340, Ÿ2440, Ÿ2496 and Ÿ2600 in GST respectively. Or if you will...

Ÿ30,000 = tax Ÿ2340 = 7.8%
Ÿ40,000 = tax Ÿ2440 = 6.1%
Ÿ60,000 = tax Ÿ2496 = 4.1%
Ÿ100,000 = tax Ÿ2600 = 2.6%

Obviously I'm making assumptions all over the place here but as an illustration it works well enough.

The question is "Is this equitable?" "Is it fair?". Quite frankly, I don't think that it is. Especially considering that in the majority of cases, people's wages are not determined by them; in fact the poorer a person is, the less power that they have to determine their wage. The inverse of this is also true, in that if you give poorer people extra cash in the form of a stimulus payment, the more likely they are to spend it, simply because they need to survive (hence the reason why poor people around the world got given StimPak, Rudd Cash etc)

In essence, to increase a consumption tax from 10% to 25% as possibly suggested means that the tax becomes more regressive and therefore falls even harder on poor people:

@10% Consumption Tax

Ÿ30,000 = tax Ÿ2340 = 7.8%
Ÿ40,000 = tax Ÿ2440 = 6.1%
Ÿ60,000 = tax Ÿ2496 = 4.1%
Ÿ100,000 = tax Ÿ2600 = 2.6%

@25% Consumption Tax

Ÿ30,000 = tax Ÿ5850 = 19.5%
Ÿ40,000 = tax Ÿ6100 = 15.25%
Ÿ60,000 = tax Ÿ6240 = 10.4%
Ÿ100,000 = tax Ÿ6500 = 6.5%

The burden is still three times harder on poor people than on the rich at a rate of 25% than at 10% but what this doesn't tell you is that the total amount of money that they have at the end of the year is even tighter than it was before. It decreases from Ÿ4260 to only Ÿ750, and the poorer you are the more hurtful that is.

A Consumption Tax also taxes people in retirement who have been diligent in saving their money their whole life. Such people in a lot of cases aren't saving anymore but dissaving and therefore the actual effective taxation rate could be infinite because they're still paying tax despite not having an income.

Good points all. I just know what you are prescribing is a graduated scale where the poor would pay less proportionatly. The issue becomes tho politicians messing with it to the point where half the US population is paying no income tax and the upper 5% is paying over 30%. What is more, if the rich decide they don't like being the golden egg and take their money offshore or themselves offshore with it, it really hurts in general revenue.

The flat tax IS unfair in the sense that under current payments and wages, the poor would be in a pickle. Where it of course would have to change is if everyone was paying a 20% flat tax, the lower wage scales would have to come up. However, since employers would likely be paying LESS tax over all, they likely could afford to raise wages. What is more, people wont work for wages they cannot justify. No one will work for minimum wage if they can get unemployment benefits or welfare paying more. This alone drives the businesses not paying enough to raise their rates to get people. What is more, to get quality people, you cannot pay minimum wage and expect to keep them.

The flat tax has many people NOT likeing it from the proponents for the poor like Rollo, or some of the rich but I think in the end, once society adapted to a form of this, revenue from the population at large in the form of income tax would be far more reliable. What is more, it would eliminate the costly and stupid exercise of doging the tax man in the tax forms every year, not mention the tax prep firms. THEY are against this to be sure.

Of course tho, it wont happen for that reason......

That, and the poltiticians would still find a way to mess it up. It is the reason I suppose we are having this thread. Should gov't be trusted to look after your healthcare needs when it messes up so many other tasks that it could do much easier?

[gloomyDAY]

http://s2.buzzfeed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2009/11/3/17/obamas-secret-message-for-fox-news-11757-1257287938-27.jpg

[anthonyvop]

http://s2.buzzfeed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2009/11/3/17/obamas-secret-message-for-fox-news-11757-1257287938-27.jpg

yea. But every day more and more people are answering "YES" to this this question.


http://blabbable.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/george-bush-miss-me-yet.jpg