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.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
absolutely RIGHTQuote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdHjhJTf6RE
:dozey:
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.
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.
Really? usually when words are hard to come by for liberal, euro-weenies they resort to insults.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Actually I consider myself very mainstream, middle of the road.
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.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/po...-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."
Looks like tonight's speech by Obama is gonna make or break this issue.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
Ha ha nice one Schmenke.
Perfect - Tony get a better plan. :)
I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by fousto
The nurse providing the service was Rosie O'Donnel.
:D :D :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I better get on the South American Plan
Thats because British Rail was starved of maintenance funds. With privatisation the government also committed itself to contributing to proper maintenance to attract bidders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
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 childQuote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
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.
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. :sQuote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
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?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
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?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
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.
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.....Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
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....
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
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 floatingQuote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
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.
If you acknowledge that no one has the answer stop asking the question onQuote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
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.
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
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.
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.
So it is a tax hike then.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27384.html
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
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.