NationStates Jolt Archive

I 'attacked you' by 'lying'? How does that even work? Post me a link.
Yes, you lied about me. You said I didn't answer your question, when I did. That's attacking my integrity.

You are completely missing the point.

There are two questions here- OK.

Question 1. Should there be a national health service?

Question 2. If there should be an NHS - how should it be run?

Before you can address question 2, you have to answer question 1 - in the affirmative. Politically my answer to question 1 is no - so question 2 never arises.

Simply because I allowed that question 1 be presumed to be answered affirmatively when I addressed the nature of the HS here, does not mean that there is no political question to be addressed in reality. Question 1 does have to be included, and you are trying to exclude it.

The reality is that national healthcare can work - true. I have never denied that and in my original post here I stated that a system that does not work should be scrapped and replaced with something that does work. The political question is whether it the government should provide any such service at all - which is a question that you are not addressing.

The flaw in the concept is a political flaw. It is one that presumes that one has a responsibility to provide healthcare for others. That presumption is flat wrong. There is no such responsibility - there is only a choice - a political one.

No - it's not that I don't understand... you just ask a question that is irrelevent to what I was saying.

You said the nationalised healthcare doesn't work, where you are.

It does work elsewhere, so I pointed out the flaw is in execution, not concept.

That's it - that's all that matters. It doesn't matter if it 'should exist'... the issue was whether the concept was broken, or the execution. The evidence says 'execution'.

Ah, so you're one of the idiots who hates the rich. I see. Jealous much?
How did you (logically) ascertain that.

Non sequitur.
How so? If taxes were slavery, and slavery were abolished, thus taxes would be abolished.

Pot. Kettle. Black.
But I'm making points. You're just demanding that other posters explain your points.

I've already explained my point. The other person did not.
No, you didn't. You just stated it.

Then demonstrate how it is.
OK. Suppose a sick person gets cured on your dollar. Then they are able to work, and support the health service. If you get sick, you have the right to be cured on their dollar. That's recompense.

Which is that there is no right to health service.
If there's an 'NHS' but not all citizens have a right to access it, then it's not an NHS.

Jealous much?
No.

Hate the rich much?
No, I just realise their money is required to pay for essential services. Hate has nothing to do with it.

Why is it that you silly leftists think that theft of the property of the rich is just fine?
If it is used to preserve life then of course it's just fine. Clam down.

So what? That means absolutely nothing.
It's a representation of slavery, which is nothing like taxes.

There is no distinction, and there never is a conflict.
If there was no distinction, then nobody would ever die due to lack of ability to afford healthcare.

There is only a distinction if you decide to toss out the praxeological laws and morality. Which, of course, leftists do.
Keep your theories. I don't give a shit about "praxeological laws". I prefer to live in reality.

No - it's not that I don't understand... you just ask a question that is irrelevent to what I was saying.

You said the nationalised healthcare doesn't work, where you are.

It does work elsewhere, so I pointed out the flaw is in execution, not concept.

That's it - that's all that matters. It doesn't matter if it 'should exist'... the issue was whether the concept was broken, or the execution. The evidence says 'execution'.

Thew question is why does the USA not have an NHS? How has this become a question as to whether the concept is broken?

The concept is political - and amongst the principal reasons why the USA does not have a universal healthcare system is that there is no political will to have one.

A second point though:

That the NHS here does not work also may be more than a question of execution. The places where a universal health scheme works are places that are relatively small - or with a relatively small population. There is no country I know of with a population over 200 million where there is an effective NHS.

Where there are large populations to be handled the size of the organization required to centralize healthcare MAY be too great for it to work with the required efficiency. The administrative overhead becomes prohibitively expensive and the system becomes locked up in bureaucracy.

My view on how to make the health care work here (if you are going to have one at all) is to devolve it to state or municipal level. Local taxation - local services. This would also introduce an element of competition and of choice as people can always move to another region if this is important to them, whereas moving to another country is not always a practical proposition.

This would bring the size of the organization down to comparable with those of functioning or pseudo-functioning systems. (The system in the UK is broken financially- but is continuing on momentum for now.)

Thew question is why does the USA not have an NHS? How has this become a question as to whether the concept is broken?


Your illustration was the non-working system where you are - which I suggest is fatally flawed in execution, not concept.

Your illustration was the non-working system where you are - which I suggest is fatally flawed in execution, not concept.

How many times do I have to repeat this?

I allowed a presumption that I disagree with in my initial post. I allowed the presumption that a universal health care system was desirable.

France doesn't have UHS? That's news to the French.

http://www.france-property-and-information.com/insurance.htm



So....you were saying something about you having experience in a non-UHS country? But clearly, France does have UHS.

Google. It's your best friend.
It's not really free for anyone, and especially not for foreigners like me. Actually.
(UHS is) not a contract; that's just the same as the mafia saying "pay us to protect you or sumthin' bad's gunna happin'."
That sounds like a lot like a contract to me...

"You pay us... we give you a service..."

That's exactly what a contract is...
Fair would be that you actually ask for it, rather than having it foisted upon you. Would you like it if you went to a restaurant and they charged you for food you did not order? Of course not. And did you order all the services your government provides? No, of course not. Ergo....

Hint: if you think there's a difference, you're a hypocrite.
I often go to a restaurant and pay for my mates' food as well as my own if they forget their money or whatever...

I don't mind at all...
So's being protected by the mafia from the mafia.
Yes...
And the poor keep getting richer.
Doesn't look much like it...


The official poverty rate in the U.S. has increased for four consecutive years, from a 26-year low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004. This means that 37.0 million people were below the official poverty thresholds in 2004. This is 5.4 million more than in 2000. The poverty rate for children under 18 years old increased from 16.2% to 17.8% over that period.

Nice...
Ah yes--fuck the rich. Gotta love that attitude.
It's not "fuck the rich", it's "have the rich give back to the society which has let them make a lot of money".
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
There's nothing great about that kind of attitude. Selfishness is a character flaw, not something to be proud of.
But not everything, hypocrite.
Since it was actually all that I had - yes it was everything.

How did you (logically) ascertain that.
If having under half of my $250,000 dollar a year pay cheque taken away is slavery, sign me up for all the servitude you've got!
With that.


How so? If taxes were slavery, and slavery were abolished, thus taxes would be abolished.
Non sequitur, given that, for some odd reason, many people haven't come around to the correct notion that taxation makes slaves of people.


But I'm making points.
You are?


You're just demanding that other posters explain your points.
No, I'm demanding that they explicitly state what the problem is that they have with my points.


No, you didn't. You just stated it.
False.


OK. Suppose a sick person gets cured on your dollar. Then they are able to work, and support the health service. If you get sick, you have the right to be cured on their dollar. That's recompense.
What if I don't get sick? I'm not recompensed. QED.


If there's an 'NHS' but not all citizens have a right to access it, then it's not an NHS.
I was making the correct observation that health care isn't a right.


No.
Then why do you hate the rich?


No, I just realise their money is required to pay for essential services.
Essential according to whom? By what standard? And who made you the dictator?


If it is used to preserve life then of course it's just fine.
Theft is fine? Sheesh--and you claim to be moral.


It's a representation of slavery, which is nothing like taxes.
It's everything like taxes.


If there was no distinction, then nobody would ever die due to lack of ability to afford healthcare.
Non sequitur.


Keep your theories. I don't give a shit about "praxeological laws". I prefer to live in reality.
Praxeology is reality. You do act, right? You would prefer more of a good to less of a good, right? Those are praxeological laws. Looks like you live in reality and with praxeology.

It's not really free for anyone, and especially not for foreigners like me.
Nor is the NHS. Remember that whole taxation thing?


That sounds like a lot like a contract to me...
Doesn't sound like it to me. Doesn't sound like it to any court, really.

Tell you what: why don't you try to make someone pay you to protect him or herself from you. Then see if your "contract" holds up in court, m'kay.


I often go to a restaurant and pay for my mates' food as well as my own if they forget their money or whatever...
How nice. But that's utterly irrelevant to what I said.

Here's what I said, just so you can respond to what I actually said, rather than something I didn't say:

Would you like it if you went to a restaurant and they charged you for food you did not order? Of course not.

In your example, the restaurant is charging your friend, and you're choosing to pay for it. The restaurant isn't charging you. If you order a salad and they charge you for surf-n-turf and a bottle of Dom, that's what I'm talking about. Think you can address that point?


Yes...
You have a very strange view of what a contract is.


Doesn't look much like it...
But it does.




It's not "fuck the rich", it's "have the rich give back to the society
Society is a collection of individuals. "Society" doesn't "let" anyone do anything.

Silly collectivist.


There's nothing great about that kind of attitude. Selfishness is a character flaw, not something to be proud of.
Prove it.


Since it was actually all that I had - yes it was everything.
You gave away all of your clothes? All your food?

Didn't think so, hypocrite.

The concept is political - and amongst the principal reasons why the USA does not have a universal healthcare system is that there is no political will to have one.
Apparently there is a "political will" to have a "universal healthcare system".

Majority of Americans Want Massachusetts-Style Health Law (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PollVault/story?id=1834807)

April 12, 2006 — With Gov. Mitt Romney set to sign Massachusetts' new universal health care coverage law today, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds the idea a popular one: Fifty-five percent of Americans say they'd support similar legislation in their own states.

The law, described by its supporters as a national model, requires all residents of the state to have health insurance. It includes a tax penalty for people who don't buy insurance, a $295 per-worker fee for businesses that don't provide it, and subsidies to help poor and low-income residents pay premiums.
It is just a start, but there is a will.

Edit: another good article.

Health Care: It's What Ails Us (http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1498)

Here's an idea: let's subsidize everything. Televisions. Gambling. Cars. Everything.

After all, entertainment is a right.

You can't easily get to work without transportation, and some people live so far from their work that it's difficult to get a bus or train there. So we must subsidize a car for them, since transportation is a right, given that they need to work so they can live.

Gambing--that's entertainment. It's a right.

Everything's a right. No matter what it is.

Apparently there is a "political will" to have a "universal healthcare system".

Majority of Americans Want Massachusetts-Style Health Law (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PollVault/story?id=1834807)

We're working on something similar here in Michigan, but with the recession the state is in we're having trouble finding the money. It's not the best plan, but it's all we can afford at the moment.

The Michigan First Health Care Plan will provide access to affordable insurance products for individuals and small businesses, and strengthen and support employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) while building upon the steps already taken to expand coverage and reduce costs.

This plan will extend affordable health care to all Michigan citizens by:

• creating an affordable private market health care product for individuals and businesses;
• subsidizing care for those who can least afford it;
• creating incentives for businesses to offer coverage to their employees;
• reducing the overall cost of health care delivery by expanding technology and promoting healthy lifestyles.

http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-39899_39903-143157--,00.html

Apparently there is a "political will" to have a "universal healthcare system".

Majority of Americans Want Massachusetts-Style Health Law (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PollVault/story?id=1834807)



That law is despicable. If I didn't want to waste my money on healthcare insurance, which I don't exactly need right now, I'd be punished for it. The government would require me to pay them because I don't have it. That's bullshit.

With that.
Since I didn't use the word "hate" or the phrase "I hate rich people", you're going to have to explain your assertion. I assure you, hate has nothing to do with my opinion.

Non sequitur, given that, for some odd reason, many people haven't come around to the correct notion that taxation makes slaves of people.
Because most people can see that it's not true.

You are?
You don't have to agree with a point for it to be a real point.

No, I'm demanding that they explicitly state what the problem is that they have with my points.
"PROVE IT!!!" isn't a point.

What if I don't get sick? I'm not recompensed. QED.
Most people get sick in their lives. It's logical to make provisions according to that fact.

I was making the correct observation that health care isn't a right.
We were talking about a hypothetical system in which health care is considered a right.

Then why do you hate the rich?
I don't.

Essential according to whom? By what standard?
By the obvious fact that sick people need medical treatement to restore their health.

And who made you the dictator?
I'm a voter. I suppose you think everyone who votes for more government services is a "dictator"? If the majority of voters disagree with me and vote against my wishes, then tough cheese, I have to accept that. And if the majority disagree with you, then you must also accept it.

Theft is fine? Sheesh--and you claim to be moral.
Killing is fine then?

It's everything like taxes.
Stop spouting this disproven lie.

Non sequitur.
So you're saying that nobody has ever died due to lack of medical treatement?

Praxeology is reality. You do act, right? You would prefer more of a good to less of a good, right? Those are praxeological laws. Looks like you live in reality and with praxeology.
If your idea of "reality" is a place where the sick never die and always recover without aid, then sure, whatever.

Well, here I am a guy from across the pond who is wondering why the USA doesn't have a National Health Service. IS it because of taxes or government interference? I'm curious to know. And you citizens of the USA and other nations without one, would you like a NHS or not? And to the nations who do have an NHS do you want to keep it or get rid of it?

Poll Coming

Mainly because of the taxes. Many people in the USA are unwilling to pay taxes. They're convinced that it would be a drag on the economy even though it would remove the burden from private companies to provide health insurance to their employees and it would contribute to people going to the doctor early and getting preventative care, which is cheaper than the alternative of going to the doctor when you're already pretty damn sick.

Poor you. Poor cowardly you. Or did my question reveal your utter hatred and jealousy of the rich such that it made you ashamed.Ah, so you're one of the idiots who hates the rich. I see. Jealous much?
That's quite enough of your flames.


Except that it's not.
No, it is.
You're the one who whined about it. Looks like you're the one hijacking the thread.

Now please--debate the points.
Take your own advice, BAAWAKnights, but not in this thread. You're done here.


~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

i'm from the UK and i say there's no question that the NHS should be kept here.

as for the US, the usual arguement i've seen is that it'd be impossible to organise in a country of that scale. however, there'd be nothing stopping the control being local state/county level and funding still coming from central govt, i say.

Because 80% of us think we're "above average" drivers. 20% of us think we are, or are going to be, in the top 1% of wealth earners.

Add to that the myth of self-sufficiency we've been told the US is based on, we're of the opinion that an NHS is just a way for poor people to steal our money. Or at least enough of us are that we keep voting republican. I'm including in that, DINO's like Biden and Lieberman. Though, thankfully Lieberman is no longer a dem even in name.

The British NHS is a gargantuan mistake. It eats public money to a hideous extent, yet fails to even approach the point at which it would repay such investment. Privatisation is the only route towards true efficiency.

My wife is from Northern Ireland, so her family uses the National Health Service. Here are some gems of their experience:

Her aunt, age 68, was told that they would not run diagnostic tests on her because she "was no longer a productive member of society" and they needed to save the money for people that were. Two weeks later, she died an agonizing death from a kidney infection that could have been detected by a simple urine test and treated with antibiotics.

Her grandmother was sent home from the hospital less than a week before she died. She had been told that her chest pains were just a chest cold. This in a family where 80% of deaths are from heart attack.

My brother in law has suffered for the past ten years with a condition of the gall bladder that would have been treated in one week here. It prevents him from working about 3 days per month. The NHS advise to him was that, if his gall bladder burst, they'd be able to treat him then.

My father in law can't go upstairs without panting. He used to work in Saudi Arabia. Once, while spending holidays in the UK, he had chest pains, so went to the hospital. They told hiom he had eaten too much and to go home. When he returned to Saudi Arabia, he visited his friend, a doctor at a hospital there, who ran tests. They determined that he had suffered a heart attack and put stints into three of his cardiac arteries. That was ten years ago. Now the doctors tell him that he can't go upstars without panting because he's just old (about 70). Every doctor in America knows that cardiac stints are good for about 10 years. Further, he has abvious signs of diabetes that his doctors have never even asked him about.

Only two of the above live in the same town. They don't go to the same doctors.

Do I want NHS? Hell no. I'd like to live, thanks.

We pay a lot of money in America, but we have the best health system in the world. We don't wait for life-saving surgery. We don't put off tests until the conditions they would have detected become emergencies. We don't tell people that they are not worth saving.

If you think you want an NHS here, please, please, please ask about the experiences of people over the age of 50 in Britain. Then ask yourself what would have happened to those people in the US.

That law is despicable. If I didn't want to waste my money on healthcare insurance, which I don't exactly need right now, I'd be punished for it. The government would require me to pay them because I don't have it. That's bullshit.
Perhaps you didn't read what I posted earlier? Currently your Government is wasting Billions of dollars due to inefficiencies in healthcare delivery. Quality healthcare in the US is declining. Healthcare costs are soaring. Employer supplied healthcare plans are being squeezed to the point that it affects the competiveness of these businesses.

You are young yet. What happens when you have a family? Are you prepared to pay more for a healthcare system that provides less?

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11930025&postcount=159

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11931265&postcount=190

What happens if you really get sick or end up in the hospital for an extended stay? Are you prepared to incur a debt that you may never be able to repay?

Naughty Hot Sluts what do you preffer to have Naughty Hot Sluts or a National Helath thing ?

:D

We pay a lot of money in America, but we have the best health system in the world.
You certainly do pay a lot of money, and about 25% is wasted in inefficienies. Now I await your proof that the US has the "best health system in the world".

Will that proof include the 46 million people who don't have healthcare insurance in the US?

BTW, according to the poll, 92% of the people who enjoy a universal healthcare system want to keep it.

You certainly do pay a lot of money, and about 25% is wasted in inefficienies. Now I await your proof that the US has the "best health system in the world".

Will that proof include the 46 million people who don't have healthcare insurance in the US?

BTW, according to the poll, 92% of the people who enjoy a universal healthcare system want to keep it.

Sure. Look at the wait time for any medical test, procedure, or operation. Compare the US to any other jurisdiction in the world. The US wins.

The 46 million number (way overblown, though it is still in 8 digits) is mainly about the way we fund not deliver medical care. If we really wanted to supply universal health insurance, we could with the same amount of money being spent now on government programs and subsidies to private insurance. That, however, was not the question.

The question was whether to have a national health service, where the government provides the medical care. When you turn health care professionals into government employees, you make doctors into bureaucrats. Then they start acting like bureaucrats, with the kinds of decisions I cited in my original post.

If you are subject to a National Health System, you don't know what you are missing. My family is in the US; my wife's is in the UK. Her relatives are dying soon after retirement. Mine live into their nineties. It's not genetics (cuz we all get cancer): its better healthcare.

Why?

What makes you so unique and special? Why shouldn't we ALL pitch in, a little, to take care of those who need help most?

Why shouldn't we ALL pitch in? Well its very simple because we do not live in a socialist nation. I'm sure the majority of American's share my view on this. It is MY money and I shall do what I wish with it, that does NOT include giving it away to provide health care to someone I do not know.

Sure. Look at the wait time for any medical test, procedure, or operation. Compare the US to any other jurisdiction in the world. The US wins.
Where did you find this comparative study? Got a link?

U.S. Health Care Most Expensive & Most Error Prone (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/medical_errors.html)

The U.S. Health Care System: Best in the World, or Just the Most Expensive? (http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf)

Consumer unease with U.S. health care grows (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-10-15-health-concern-usat_x.htm)

The 46 million number (way overblown, though it is still in 8 digits) is mainly about the way we fund not deliver medical care. If we really wanted to supply universal health insurance, we could with the same amount of money being spent now on government programs and subsidies to private insurance. That, however, was not the question.
If you could do it, then why wouldn't you?

46 million uninsured focus of meeting (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/september/46_million_uninsured.php)

Approximately 46 million Americans, or 15.7 percent of the population, were without health insurance in 2004 (the latest government data available). (http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml)

46 Million Lack Health Insurance (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/30/health/webmd/main806291.shtml)


The question was whether to have a national health service, where the government provides the medical care. When you turn health care professionals into government employees, you make doctors into bureaucrats. Then they start acting like bureaucrats, with the kinds of decisions I cited in my original post.
Perhaps it is different in the UK then Canada? My mom broke her hip when she was 85. They repaired the damage and with physio, my mom was up and walking in relatively short time. She passed away in her 91st year of natural causes. Twice before, in her 88th year and her 90th year, she spent a few nights in ICU where she received outstanding care.

If you are subject to a National Health System, you don't know what you are missing. My family is in the US; my wife's is in the UK. Her relatives are dying soon after retirement. Mine live into their nineties. It's not genetics (cuz we all get cancer): its better healthcare.
On the whole, Americans do not live as long as the Brits or Canadians. Infant mortality is higher in the US than either Canada or the UK.

Comparing your family to hers does not a case make.

A society that thinks the means for the preservation of life should be allocated based on class is a sick, disgusting, depraved society that needs serious reform.

That is all.

If you are subject to a National Health System, you don't know what you are missing. My family is in the US; my wife's is in the UK. Her relatives are dying soon after retirement. Mine live into their nineties. It's not genetics (cuz we all get cancer): its better healthcare.

Thanks for your anectodal evidence.

US life expectancy: 77.85
UK life expectancy: 78.54

Try again.

Since I didn't use the word "hate" or the phrase "I hate rich people", you're going to have to explain your assertion.
Your utter disregard for their property necessitates that you either are a sociopath or you hate them. Which is it?


I assure you, hate has nothing to do with my opinion.
Then you're a sociopath.


Because most people can see that it's not true.
No, most people have simply been brainwashed by whatever government they reside under.


You don't have to agree with a point for it to be a real point.
But you do have to have a real point for it to be a real point.


"PROVE IT!!!" isn't a point.
And that's not what I said, was it?


Most people get sick in their lives. It's logical to make provisions according to that fact.
Logical for each individual to do so. But it's neither moral, economical, or rational to force people to contribute to a giant pool that anyone can take from. Tragedy of the commons, anyone?


We were talking about a hypothetical system in which health care is considered a right.
Isn't it considered a right in places where a UHS is? Since it is, how could it be hypothetical?


I don't.
Ok then. How did you become a sociopath?


By the obvious fact that sick people need medical treatement to restore their health.
Ok. Now how does that necessitate forcing everyone to contribute to a giant pool?


I'm a voter. I suppose you think everyone who votes for more government services is a "dictator"?
AAMOF, I do.


If the majority of voters disagree with me and vote against my wishes, then tough cheese, I have to accept that. And if the majority disagree with you, then you must also accept it.
And the blacks in the southern US just had to accept Jim Crow. And the jews just had to accept the Nurmberg laws.


Killing is fine then?
You believe it is.


Stop spouting this disproven lie.
Disproven by whom? I want names.


So you're saying that nobody has ever died due to lack of medical treatement?
No, I'm not saying that at all. But that's irrelevant.


If your idea of "reality" is a place where the sick never die and always recover without aid, then sure, whatever.
No, that's the fantasy land of the socialists.

Your utter disregard for their property necessitates that you either are a sociopath or you hate them. Which is it?

Then you're a sociopath.

No, most people have simply been brainwashed by whatever government they reside under.

But you do have to have a real point for it to be a real point.

Ok then. How did you become a sociopath?
Where do you get off calling someone a psychopath just because they support a NHS, especially after being warned in moderation for flaming and flamebait? First it was GNI and now it is Ardee Street.

I don't see how you are contributing to this thread with this continued behaviour. We get your point, you don't want to pay for a national healthcare system. Perhaps instead of attacking posters, you could explain how ANY healthcare system would work under a libertarian regime?

You clearly missed the point entirely. On an ethical basis, I am neither more nor less important than anyone else, but my skills will determine how valuable I am to my fellow human beings.
This is a blatant misconception. There are muscians more skilled than Britney Spears who earn a fuck-load less dosh, quite what Paris Hilton's skills are I dont know, but plenty of very skilled folk earn lots less.
.
The government is not concerned with the fact that you are a person, full of emotions and morals; to the government, you are a number that just happens to provide something of some worth. The more worthy your product, the more valuable you are to government and to society as a whole. Again, governments deal in money and product, not in ethics and souls.
If worthiness of product determined the product's monetary value the teaching of teachers would have a greater dollar value than the car-humping gyrations of Jessica Simpson.

I never said we don't NEED ditchdiggers. I simply said that society can do without one fewer ditchdigger much more easily than it can without one fewer brain surgeon.
I think the nation could do with one fewer Britney Spears than it can do with one fewer brain surgeon, which earns more?

This is clearly true for a variety of reasons--there are more ditchdiggers than brain surgeons, one ditchdigger's workload can be easily transferred, it's a lot easier to train a ditchdigger than a brain surgeon, etc.
And there are plenty of mediocre female singers, with nice figures, ok dancing and okish looks, who wouldnt need a great deal of training to take Britney's place, note that Britney still earns bucket loads.

If you cannot accept that an individual ditchdigger is less economically important to society than an individual brain surgeon or engineer, I honestly don't know how to reason with you.
If you think that the premise you are working on is actually true then what can be said to someone who thinks Paris Hilton is of greater value to society than a firefighter? Your notion that value to society and skill determines dollar value of pay-packet is ludicrous. What did George Cloony ever do in his entire career that matches the value of a single New York firefighter on one particular 9/11 morning? Yet who has the bigger pay-packet?

There's a damn good reason we pay chemical engineers more than we pay the guy who takes your order at Arby's.
Really, is that the same reason why we pay any one of Britney Spears, George Clooney and Jessica Simpson, more than the chemical engineer, the teacher, the medical researcher, and the fire fighter combined?

Even though the chemical engineer may be a megalomaniacal anti-Semite who likes to eat kittens for breakfast and the guy at Arby's may donate blood every six weeks and volunteer at the homeless shelter, the chemical engineer is worth more on a financial basis.
How circular. If we took to paying the person capable of producing the biggest fart more money than anyone else does that make farting of greater actual value to society than it was previously? Of course the more we pay people the greater their financial value, but the fact remains that if we suddenly started paying the chemical engineer less (thus reducing his or her financial value), the chemical engineer doesnt become of any less actual value to society. The fact remains that the worthiness of one's contribution to society and the financial recompense that contribution recieves are not identical things.

Apparently there is a "political will" to have a "universal healthcare system".

Majority of Americans Want Massachusetts-Style Health Law (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PollVault/story?id=1834807)


It is just a start, but there is a will.

Edit: another good article.

Health Care: It's What Ails Us (http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1498)

Don't confuse a popular will with a political will. Unless those in political power believe that instituting a universal health care system (with its accompanying costs) will help them retain this political power, they are not going to do so. As things stand it appears that they do not believe this.

Don't confuse a popular will with a political will. Unless those in political power believe that instituting a universal health care system (with its accompanying costs) will help them retain this political power, they are not going to do so. As things stand it appears that they do not believe this.
Just because it is not happening on the federal level, does not mean that it isn't happening.

Already, several States are breaking into the concept and some have been reported here. So, there definitely is a political will, it is just not on the national level.....YET.

Edit: I do believe that as more and more employers find the spiraling cost of supplying their employees with healthcare plans prohibitive, they will either eliminate the plans or pass on the extra costs to their employees, or cut coverages.

As more and more healthcare plans are weakened or eliminated, there will be a groundswell of support for a national healthcare system. Too many "for profit" hospitals are popping up, which adds to the burden. Toss in a recession or two and US healthcare will decline from its' already lower standards.

No, most people have simply been brainwashed by whatever government they reside under.






Oh, the irony.

But enough of that.. If taxation is slavery then what does that make private property?

Nice theory, do you have any actual proof that this is the case. Incidentally, the UK has both a NHS and private healthcare, the cost of a private procedure is alot higher than on the NHS, even for elective procedures.

The cost of private procedures is not always that much higher though. Yes, some people get their healthcare entirely free and if I needed major surgery it would be cheaper on the NHS, but for the little things (especially dentistry) going private is not much more expensive than using the NHS. In fact if you take into account the fact that I've spent the last twelve years paying approx 10% of my wages towards the NHS, their prices are bleeding extortianate!

Trilby63;11936870']Oh, the irony.

But enough of that.. If taxation is slavery then what does that make private property?

Tax isn't slavery. It's robbery. Private property is private property, I don't understand the relevance.

Tax isn't slavery. It's robbery. Private property is private property, I don't understand the relevance.
Yet we're all quite happy to vote people into office who are going to tax us, it seems.

Trilby63;11936870']Oh, the irony.
Of you calling it irony.


Trilby63;11936870']But enough of that.. If taxation is slavery then what does that make private property?
Morally proper.

Yet we're all quite happy to vote people into office who are going to tax us, it seems.
Strange how that works huh? :eek:

Where do you get off calling someone a psychopath just because they support a NHS, especially after being warned in moderation for flaming and flamebait?
He has absolutely no regard for the rich at all. They exist just to be bled dry. He couldn't care if they lived or died, just so long as they are squeezed for every "excess" penny they have. Sounds a lot to me like being a sociopath.

What I'm doing is just the reverse of what the UHS people do (as well as the myriad socialists/communists): they say that if you're against the UHS, you're for killing the poor and making the rich richer. Well if that's the case, then I can play that game just as well. If you think that what I'm doing is "flaming", then all the UHS supporters who rail against the "rich" are "flaming" as well. It's just that simple.

When I saw this topic I was too excited to read the prior 20 pages, so sorry if I repeat somewhat..... There are many states in the U.S. that are considering (Michigan, Tennessee, etc) or have enacted (Massachusetts) universal health care. Federalism definitely plays a role in the United States, as the constitution specifically empowers the states with any roles not specified in the document. Thus, many view healthcare as an individual responsibility, but to be administered on a state level, rather than Federal.

Of you calling it irony.



Morally proper.

I don't suppose you'll elaborate that point?

I don't know why the USA doesn't have a national health service. I hear all sorts of different reasons. Mostly, to me, they sound like excuses.

I'm a hard worker. In fact, I'm a workaholic. If I don't have something useful to do, it drives me crazy. I like to feel like I'm _accomplishing_ something.

I can't afford health care. I've been able to afford health insurance for only a couple of years, total, during my adult life. I'm also not a big spender, and don't put a lot of store in material things. I don't buy stuff on credit, and I don't spend money on junk. I live cheaply, and spend carefully. I also tend to share freely of whatever I've got.

So when I got sick, I was basically screwed. At some point, I was exposed to something that caused damage to the temporal lobes of my brain. It didn't happen immediately or right away, and when your brain is screwed, it's hard to diagnose or know precisely what happened sometimes. All I knew was that somehow, all of a sudden, I started having steadily worsening problems with my attention and short-term memory. It finally got so bad that I'd be in the car, driving, and have no idea why, or where I was going. I'd have to look around for clues, and felt a little like I was stuck in the movie "Memento."

But by the time I knew I was in real trouble, I'd lost clients because I couldn't finish jobs properly, or in a timely fashion (I was a freelance designer and programmer). And after a few months with no work, I didn't have the werewithal to do things like get expensive testing, or hire attorneys. I was basically just screwed. I tried to apply for disability, but the process was, frankly, so complicated, that I wasn't able to get very far, because I couldn't _think_ straight. And because I don't (usually) look or sound like a complete basket case (I can remain verbally articulate even in a fugue, although I'll sometimes repeat myself or lose track of a conversation).

So all of a sudden, there I was, with real health problems, and there was no help to be had. But the problems I had were probably such that I could function much better, and be able to work again, if I could get _some_ treatment. In fact, the few times I was able to scrape together enough funds, I _did_ find stuff that would help me function better. But it's expensive, and really needs to be monitored by a doctor. You don't want to self-medicate with stuff like Adderal and Ritalin, or anticonvulsives, or really anything else that messes with your brain.

It took me years (and lots of help from my friends), to be able to retrain my brain to the point that I've regained a lot of functionality, but I'm still not right. I still have days where I'm basically like an alzheimer's patient. A couple of weeks ago, I thought, very firmly, that it was Christmas.

Over the course of the last year and a half or so, while I've gotten back a lot of function brain-wise, I'm now suffering from a lot of other health problems related to having basically been poisoned (while working! Long hours! at low pay!). My lungs were damaged, my immune system is shot. If I get a cold, it becomes pneumonia. Not _can_ or _might_ but _does_ each time. My joints are riddled with rheumatoid nodules (I'm only 36), and I'm getting cancerous growths throughout my body, which are currently (I hope) benign, but I can't afford to have them removed, and I can't even afford to get proper testing to find out if I'm already going to die.

I'm in a constant low level of pain, I have random days where I go into fugue states and can't function, and I've lost physical capacity. All of this makes it hard for me to work, or support myself even at a minimal level. And most likely, it'll kill me young. And most likely, it's all treatable, even if only to get me to a basic level of functionality so I can do _something_ useful, in whatever time I have left, and medical care could certainly increased the time I have left.

I'm not a vagrant, or a sponge. I'm not stupid, or laszy, or uneducated. I'm just poor, and can't get health care because I'm poor, and I happen to slip right through the cracks of even the very few services intended for the indigent in this country.

I'm also not alone.

And frankly, I was in favor of national health care in this country back when I was in good health, and could afford private care.

I won't bother to discuss compassion, because I think very few people seem to respect arguments like that. At least not beyond lip service.

My main argument is that sick people can't work. And people who have the specter of a health crisis hanging over their heads not only have to deal with that fear personally, but they end up more likely to _get_ sick. If people can get treatment to prevent illness or recover from it, then (ta da!) they can go back to being functioning members of society.

And there's also a lot of people who take a whole lot of extra _crap_ from employers because they're afraid of losing health coverage for themselves or their families, and that means that there are people who continue to work in bad conditions because they're afraid to get stuck with worse ones. That reduces pressure on businesses that let their employees live in fear.

And on the even lower ends of the income scale, when you have a job, but no health care, you're even more screwed, because if you get sick, you not only can't afford good treatment to get better, you lose days of work, if not your whole job. I'm sure an environment of fear and desperation among the lowest-paid workers seems _great_ for a company or corporation, but it's not good for a country or its people.

I've lost several years of my life, and am only now getting to where I can really work again. That's many thousands of productive hours of work I could have given to society. And frankly, part of it's because among my many fine qualities (among which modesty figures highly), I'm very determined not to give up. I've seen other people succumb to problems like mine (or worse ones, or sometimes smaller ones), and become shells of people, or just die.

Now multiply me by the zillion other people in similar situations.

We also are having problems with diseases which were once thought fairly beat, which are not only more frequent, but which have become more resistant to treatment. I suspect that a lot of that is because there are people who, since they couldn't get treated, just stayed sick, and even exposed other people to what made them sick.

Heck... many places I worked expected you to come to work even if you had a bad cold, or a serious flu. And then the whole office would get it. I'm sorry... I'd rather have had the one person take a day off, and do their work for them, than have 3/4 of the office be out sick, or working _badly_.

And think about some of the people who can least afford health care, people, and can't afford to lose work. That's right... the ones who handle your food. Enjoy that salad bar, or the fruit and vegetables you just bought. It's probably been handled at some point by someone who can't afford a doctor.

If our country can't afford decent health care for everyone, then we're doing something _very_ wrong. I'm always hearing, when my fellow Americans want to impress people, how much plenty we have here. And we do. Our country is rich in resources, land, food, and manpower. We even have quite a few people with a work ethic. But somehow, when it comes to health care or education, we don't have any money?

You know, I never once cheated on my taxes. And it's not because I was afraid I'd get caught. It's because I know that tax money is (theoretically anyway) used to fund things that benefit the nation as a whole, including myself and my family. It's how we afford things like roads, police, national security, education, and a whole host of other things. I really don't mind paying taxes.

And I definitely wouldn't mind paying 10% more on my taxes, if it got me health care, because private health care would amount to way more than that.

I've lived all over. When someone makes 700 dollars a month, and rent is 400 dollars a month, and food is 100 dollars a month (yes folks, welcome to poverty), and bills are 100-200 dollars a month, please explain to me where the money for that "affordable" health care is going to come from?

Some places I've lived, the bare minimum cost of living is a lot higher, but the wages aren't.

I'm not sick because I deserve it, because I'm too stupid and untalented to make a living. I found myself unable to make a living because I became sick.

I also found myself in a position where I couldn't even _prove_ how sick I was until it was too late to go after the people who _made_ me sick.

And I'm _still_ working. I have started taking small web contracts (because I can largely set my own hours), and I do menial labor and security at a business owned by a friend, even though I'm in pain (I usually try not to let on how bad I'm actually feeling). So I'm not lazy. But I'm probably going to die young and in pain, because I can't afford the health care that could alleviate my symptoms.

And if I could, I'm exactly the type of person who works their whole life, never retires, and works up until their dying day. I do _good_ work, too, by the way.

When I hear someone say the system works, or says that people who can't afford health care don't deserve it, or who complain that they don't see why they should have to pay taxes that benefit other people, it kind of makes me wish I could put them all in my shoes. Or better yet, in the shoes of all the people who are _way_ worse off than I am.

You can't work when you're eally sick. Or you can't work well. You can't supoprt yourself. If you're on the lower end of the income scale, you can't afford to stay healthy, and then you have _less_ money when something happens to you.

For the people who complain they don't want "their" taxes to support other people's health care... well... that would be like me saying I don't want _my_ taxes to support schools, because I don't have children (yay... I could live in a _completely_ uneducated country.). Or that I shouldn't have to pay for roads, because I don't drive (oh boy... I guess camels could deliver our groceries and supply the needs of society). Or I shouldn't have to pay for military expenditures because _I_ didn't get into a war with another country personally.

The purpose of taxes is so that a society can provide things that the whole society benefits from. I think our society would benefit greatly from improved health care for everyone, and it wouldn't just be the people on the bottom who benefit.

As for state health care somehow not being as good as private health care... I'm sorry... I've seen some pretty sorry private health care dished out... for lots of money. When I _had_ insurance, I dislocated my knee. The doctor's office and MRI office screwed up completely on reading my test results (from an MRI), and not in a small way. The result was that an injury that would have been easily correctible in the first couple of months went untreated until my leg was further damaged, and now it will _never_ function properly again. Oh yeah... and it hurts, too.

The thing that bothers me isn't even the crap that's happened to _me_. It's that I know that my personal case is by far not the worst that happens. I know that much worse happens to thousands and thousands of other people, and I find it hard to believe that "most of them deserve it."

Sorry for the long rant. But it's a matter somewhat close to my heart.

Trilby63;11937046']I don't suppose you'll elaborate that point?
Which one? And the merest fact that you're having this conversation with me means that you accept private property at least insofar as your own body. Argumentation ethics (Hoppe) is pretty neat, especially combined with contractarianism (Narveson).

Which one? And the merest fact that you're having this conversation with me means that you accept private property at least insofar as your own body. Argumentation ethics (Hoppe) is pretty neat, especially combined with contractarianism (Narveson).

The one about morality. What you think please. Not someone else.

Trilby63;11937179']The one about morality. What you think please. Not someone else.
Argumentation ethics with contractarianism is what I think.

Tax isn't slavery. It's robbery. Private property is private property, I don't understand the relevance.

No it isn't. It's dues. If you join a club you pay membership dues. If you join a union you pay dues. If you want citizenship in a civilization, you pay dues. We just call it taxes. I hate to borrow a conservative line, but if you don't like it you can leave. Ted Kazinski did. He stayed in the country, but he left civilization. He lived in a shack in isolation. Needed to pay no taxes and got by on a couple of hundred dollars a year. If you want to live in a town, city, or even part of a county, just being human means you are a burden to that society, and your taxes offset that burden.

There are some key problems with introducing a National Health Service into the United States: Where's the money coming from? Taxes? And what about the quality of care you're going to get in socialised health care?

If you told the American people they'd have to foot the bill, which they will, they will rarely agree to pay increased taxes.

Holy..effin' where do I begin???? Another damn thread turned into "bash the Americans thread"! What a bunch of children. First off I want to know what exactly these "poisons" where that you got exposed to and who these " people " are that made you sick. I'm almost on the verge of calling your story bullshit, because of the loopholes. Secondly I have never heard of an employer that wants you to show up to work ill. Most places I know of would rather send you home! This also includes manufacutring plants, for those asses that want to throw out that card. secondly for those Americans that don't know how to get affordible insurance I suggest you get off your ass and do your research to get your self some affordable health insurance. It's out there look for it. Especialy before you come down with some crazy ass illness.

Before people start shouting out some absurd argument, I went without health insurance for six years, because I didn't want it. Not because I couldn't afford it. Saying you can't afford health insurance is such a bullshit excuse. Every employer is obligated by law to provide it. Also if your self employed there are other and various ways to still get health insurance. Look for it! I personaly went without health insurance , because I wanted to pay off some debt I aquired. I could still have afforded it I just opted for the option to go without. That's exactly what everyone else is doing in the U.S. no matter what the excuse they make up to tell everyone else. We're giving up on the cost of health care so we can do other things and that's that. Guess what people if we went into a UHS we'd have the same amount taken out of our paychecks each week. It's just a matter of wether it's going to the government or an insurance company.

Neither do I want to hear more sob stories. Listen we have all had our struggles including myself. This might be a calous attitude, but we don't live in a world of daisy filled meadows with cute little bunnies hopping around. Sometimes the meadow withers, sometimes the bunnies are born with six legs and sometimes the bunnies eat each other. I'll help out the next guy as much as possible, hell I took care of my father for three years and he has a whole host of medical problems. By the way he's on partial disablilty, ei: poor.

Christ reading through this thread paints this insane picture like there are poor people droping like flies everywhere and everyone is in a mountain of medical debt. I assure you all that as I look out my window there are not roving bands of sick people running around like gangs of zombies from " Night of The Living Dead", with lawyers chasing after them.. Get a fucking grip.

It's interesting to see how many forgieners are such huge experts on the U.S. and what we should do with everything. Let me be the first to tell you that really.. no I mean really... you have NO CLUE. Even if you have lived here for some time .. you still have NO CLUE. We are so wonderfully complex and diverse, you all study us and make your gross judgments. It's very amusing.

Here it is in a nut shell. A vast majority of us don't like the idea of UHS because it is so close to socialism/communism, big government and taxes. As a whole we hate all of it. Maybe that's the wrong way to think of things, but who exactly has all the answers? Your system has some strengths our system has some strenthgs and they both have their weaknesses as well.

I'm rather getting tired of listening to Europeans and their self rightous utopian dream. As if they have all the answers! As if their governments have never hit a sour patch or they've never had lousy leaders. Give me a break.

Let me explain this simply if you don't like how we Americans run our nation don't come here. To those Americans that cry over stupid things, either act like you live in a democratic nation and get your lazy ass more involved in your government or get the fuck out of the country! It's lazy nonresearching fucks like that, that got GWB elected twice in the first place! Christ I know imigrants that sometimes bust their ass, in the work place and in government participation than some Americans. That's why some illegals get better health care coverage. They actualy do the research! I have no need for part time Americans. Nor will I EVER apologize for being American. Kiss my American ass!

Argumentation ethics with contractarianism is what I think.

No. Those are words given to describe someone elses idea that you happen to agree with. What do you think?

No it isn't. It's dues. If you join a club
False analogy. Unless, of course, you'd like to explain precisely how being part of "society" is just like voluntarily joining a club.

Trilby63;11937484']No. Those are words given to describe someone elses idea that you happen to agree with. What do you think?
I told you what I think. If you're too lazy to do the research, let me know.

I told you what I think. If you're too lazy to do the research, let me know.

You made the claim that it was morally correct. I couldn't care less if you don't want to back it up.

[snip]
Guess what people if we went into a UHS we'd have the same amount taken out of our paychecks each week. It's just a matter of whether it's going to the government or an insurance company.
[snip]


What was ever provided by the government at less than 200% of the cost of it being provided privately? If you have it taken out of your paychecks it will cost you more and you will get less service for your dollar - at least that is what all the evidence to date indicates.



It's interesting to see how many forgieners are such huge experts on the U.S. and what we should do with everything. Let me be the first to tell you that really.. no I mean really... you have NO CLUE. Even if you have lived here for some time .. you still have NO CLUE. We are so wonderfully complex and diverse, you all study us and make your gross judgments. It's very amusing.

What I see here is a discussion on the merits of a welfare system. How do you make this out to be an attack on the USA? Paranoia or Delusions of Grandeur or what?



I'm rather getting tired of listening to Europeans and their self righteous utopian dreams. As if they have all the answers! As if their governments have never hit a sour patch or they've never had lousy leaders. Give me a break.

Way to generalise. I am a European (by birth and upbringing - I am now an American in that I live in South America) and I certainly don't have a self righteous utopian dream.

Nor will I EVER apologize for being American.
Who asked you to, and why do you think you should? (If you didn't you wouldn't have mentioned it.)

@ Canuck Heaven


Just because it is not happening on the federal level, does not mean that it isn't happening.

Already, several States are breaking into the concept and some have been reported here. So, there definitely is a political will, it is just not on the national level.....YET.

Edit: I do believe that as more and more employers find the spiraling cost of supplying their employees with healthcare plans prohibitive, they will either eliminate the plans or pass on the extra costs to their employees, or cut coverages.

As more and more healthcare plans are weakened or eliminated, there will be a groundswell of support for a national healthcare system. Too many "for profit" hospitals are popping up, which adds to the burden. Toss in a recession or two and US healthcare will decline from its' already lower standards.


I have argued that the only effective government healthcare scheme for countries with large populations (over 200 million say) is to have locally administered schemes. Now these are different to universal health care schemes in that those that do not want to partake have more chance to move and free themselves of the burden. They are also inherently competitive - in that the region with the best health care can use this to attract residents and industry.

That there is a groundswell of support for the idea is nothing new. But if you present the majority of these supporters with the cold hard financial figures - of how much extra they will pay in tax compared to what they will save in health insurance - they tend to lose their enthusiasm for the idea very quickly.

What I'm doing is just the reverse of what the UHS people do (as well as the myriad socialists/communists): they say that if you're against the UHS, you're for killing the poor and making the rich richer. Well if that's the case, then I can play that game just as well. If you think that what I'm doing is "flaming", then all the UHS supporters who rail against the "rich" are "flaming" as well. It's just that simple.
Just to clarify is it your position that people are correct if they claim "if your against the UHS you're killing the poor and making the rich richer", or is it your position that if someone else argues a fallacy you will too and so in fact you yourself dont believe all that you are saying, but you say it anyway?:confused:

@ Canuck Heaven[/SIZE]

I have argued that the only effective government healthcare scheme for countries with large populations (over 200 million say) is to have locally administered schemes. Now these are different to universal health care schemes in that those that do not want to partake have more chance to move and free themselves of the burden. They are also inherently competitive - in that the region with the best health care can use this to attract residents and industry.

That there is a groundswell of support for the idea is nothing new. But if you present the majority of these supporters with the cold hard financial figures - of how much extra they will pay in tax compared to what they will save in health insurance - they tend to lose their enthusiasm for the idea very quickly.
I see that you have not read my supporting links? Currently the US is wasting $Billions on inefficiencies in the system. Also when "for profit" insurance companies, or middlemen are removed from the equation, the cost of healthcare goes down. Also when you relieve the doctors from having to pay exorbitant insurance for malpractice, the costs also go down. The US is paying almost double per person to provide healthcare then Canada is and that still excludes 46 million uninsured people.

Of course lawyers and insurance companies stand to lose the most, but so what. I am saying that the money is already there and the US can provide all inclusive healthcare for less than it already spends.

Perhaps you also missed the link that I provide that suggests that current employer based plans are endangered due to rising healthcare costs. The plans are either reducing coverages, downloading additional costs to employees, or are being scrapped altogether.

What was ever provided by the government at less than 200% of the cost of it being provided privately?
If the quoted statistics on the cost per capita of health care in the privatised system that operates in the US as compared to the publically funded system that operates in the UK is any indication, then apparently health care for starters...

There are some key problems with introducing a National Health Service into the United States: Where's the money coming from? Taxes? And what about the quality of care you're going to get in socialised health care?

If you told the American people they'd have to foot the bill, which they will, they will rarely agree to pay increased taxes.
Americans already are paying taxes to support a healthcare system that is broken. Billions are being spent on wasted inefficiencies and much of that can be allieviated through a single payer healthcare system.

Health expenditure per capita (http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/52.html) (PPP US$)

The sum of public and private expenditure (in purchasing power parity terms in US dollars), divided by the population. Health expenditure includes the provision of health services (preventive and curative), family planning activities, nutrition activities and emergency aid designated for health, but excludes the provision of water and sanitation. See health expenditure, private; health expenditure, public; and PPP (purchasing power parity).

The proof is in the pudding.

Trilby63;11937517']You made the claim that it was morally correct.
I provided you the sources. I don't care if you're lazy.

Just to clarify is it your position that people are correct if they claim "if your against the UHS you're killing the poor and making the rich richer", or is it your position that if someone else argues a fallacy you will too and so in fact you yourself dont believe all that you are saying, but you say it anyway?:confused:
The latter. Sometimes you have to meet the fallacy with a fallacy in order to expose it. For far too long, many socialists have attempted to take the moral high ground by saying "oh, well you just want to kill the poor". Time to give them back the same sort of argument. If it makes them angry--tough. They shouldn't have done it in the first place.

snip--lots of stuff about Britney Spears not being worth as much as teachers, etc.

Granted. But entertainment is a messy business, economically speaking. Relatively few people in the entertainment industry make mega-dollars, and, through a perversion of the market, many less-talented people earn more money. The entertainment industry is an exception to a much larger rule, though--people are paid what they're worth. I will give you that most entertainment personalities are overpaid, and that FDNY firefighters are worth more to society, but entertainment is a world unto itself--it seems as though the rules of economics no longer apply.

At least, that's how it seems at first glance. But then look closer--why are those people so rich? Because people pay them what they think is a fair price for their product. If you don't like Britney Spears, don't buy her CDs; if you don't like Paris Hilton, don't watch The Simple Life; if you don't like George Clooney, don't watch Syriana. Clearly, enough people DO like those people and their product that they CAN live like royalty.

Entertainers are also helped along by the fact that they can affect a much larger group of people. A firefighter would be worth a hell of a lot to me if he saved my life, but he doesn't save the lives of 30 million people, one night a week, 30 weeks a year. George Clooney DOES appear on ER to 30 million people, one night a week, 30 weeks a year (or at least he did--is ER still on? Is George Clooney still on it?). The firefighter might be worth $300,000 to each of twenty different people, but George Clooney is worth $5 to each of 100 million people. Entertainers, therefore, depend on quantity over quality to make their money.

By the way, if the only counter-example to the idea of people being paid what they're worth is the entertainment business, you haven't done a very good job of debunking the general idea. You've only shown that it doesn't work in a single, very specific, very f---ed-up market.

We've deviated from the main point--is a national healthcare system an economically feasible enterprise for America to undertake? I think not, and even if it is, the American government has no mandate for providing it. I am a strict constructionalist--if it's not in the Constitution, it shouldn't be in the federal government. The Constitution has no provision for a national healthcare system; hence, there should be no national healthcare system.

Americans already are paying taxes to support a healthcare system that is broken. Billions are being spent on wasted inefficiencies and much of that can be allieviated through a single payer healthcare system.

Health expenditure per capita (http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/52.html) (PPP US$)

The sum of public and private expenditure (in purchasing power parity terms in US dollars), divided by the population. Health expenditure includes the provision of health services (preventive and curative), family planning activities, nutrition activities and emergency aid designated for health, but excludes the provision of water and sanitation. See health expenditure, private; health expenditure, public; and PPP (purchasing power parity).

The proof is in the pudding.

Yet another reason that I've never disagreed with the fundamental concept of UHS. We Americans claim we dont want to spend outrageous sums on healthcare, but we already are. Part of this is people are reluctant to check out early warning signs because they dont want to pay if their wrong. Late term treatment is far more costly than early.

I provided you the sources. I don't care if you're lazy.

Ah well, not only do my discordian beliefs disagree with what you said they absolutely refute it and show it to be the vapid, psuedo-intectuall garbage it is.

Granted. But entertainment is a messy business, economically speaking. Relatively few people in the entertainment industry make mega-dollars, and, through a perversion of the market, many less-talented people earn more money.
Right so the premise "earnings are based on skill and worthiness of contribution to society" is false. It shouldnt be necessary to point out that any argument (such as the argument you made earlier) that includes a false premise is unsound.

The entertainment industry is an exception to a much larger rule, though--people are paid what they're worth. I will give you that most entertainment personalities are overpaid, and that FDNY firefighters are worth more to society, but entertainment is a world unto itself--it seems as though the rules of economics no longer apply.
Hang on, entertainers are paid more than their worth comparative to others in some cases and this is according to you an annommaly that is due to entertainment being a world unto itself (a fact I disagree with), but firefighters dont recieve compensation commiserate with their contribution either, is fire-fighting also a world unto itself? How many of these worlds unto themselves do we have chalk up as an annommally before we accept that it's not actually an annommally at all? What about Tiger Woods vs the University proffessors who teach the next generation of medical researchers, brain surgeons, chemical engineers? The list could continue to be expanded. The fact is it simply is not true that recompense is commisserate with skill and worthiness of contribution. Mothers for instance are not paid at all, but giving birth is the contribution that makes other contributions possible. You premise is quite simply incorrect.

At least, that's how it seems at first glance. But then look closer--why are those people so rich? Because people pay them what they think is a fair price for their product.
Which is an entirely different premise from 'people are rich because of the worthiness of their contribution to society". The fact that people like to buy heroine and will pay a high price for it does not make heroine a worthy contribution to society nor does it mean that heroine dealers are necessarily skilled and worthy contributors to society.

If you don't like Britney Spears, don't buy her CDs; if you don't like Paris Hilton, don't watch The Simple Life; if you don't like George Clooney, don't watch Syriana. Clearly, enough people DO like those people and their product that they CAN live like royalty.
Which is irrelevent to the point, the point being that you asserted that people's earning is commiserate with their contribution to society. If that were true then heroine is a wonderful contribution to society and drug dealers deserve more respect since they contribute so worthily....

Entertainers are also helped along by the fact that they can affect a much larger group of people. A firefighter would be worth a hell of a lot to me if he saved my life, but he doesn't save the lives of 30 million people, one night a week, 30 weeks a year. George Clooney DOES appear on ER to 30 million people, one night a week, 30 weeks a year (or at least he did--is ER still on? Is George Clooney still on it?)
I wouldnt have a clue if ER is still haunting the TV screens, nor who is currently acting in it. What I do know is that fire-fighting is more worthy contribution to society than an hour long weekly medical drama.

By the way, if the only counter-example to the idea of people being paid what they're worth is the entertainment business, you haven't done a very good job of debunking the general idea. You've only shown that it doesn't work in a single, very specific, very f---ed-up market.
Actually a single real-world counter example is proof of the falsity of a statement. No more is needed. Further it isnt just that entertainers are paid in excess of their relative contribution, as you yourself conceed others in other industries are underpaind relative to their contribution. Fire fighters being a case in point.

We've deviated from the main point--is a national healthcare system an economically feasible enterprise for America to undertake?
Actually I just replied to you. I note that before the counter examples disproving your premise were raised you thought it was on-point enough to have dedicated the bulk of your post to....

I think not, and even if it is, the American government has no mandate for providing it.
I dont know that it is unfeasable economically. Nor do I know that there is an absence of a mandate.

I am a strict constructionalist--if it's not in the Constitution, it shouldn't be in the federal government.
I suspect you fail to understand or choose to ignore the intended application of the document. I dont for a moment believe only what is in the Constition was intended to ever happen, otherwise why have a government with legislative powers?

The Constitution has no provision for a national healthcare system; hence, there should be no national healthcare system.
The Constitution is open to interpretation, else a Supreme Court wouldnt need to make rulings about it (everyone would already agree what was meant).

Trilby63;11937825']Ah well, not only do my discordian beliefs disagree with what you said they absolutely refute it and show it to be the vapid, psuedo-intectuall garbage it is.
Aha. But you shall burn in Slacklessness trying not to praise "Bob"'s name.

Aha. But you shall burn in Slacklessness trying not to praise "Bob"'s name.

Puhlease.. Eris dumped the sad git and for good reason..

the government needs to stay out of peoples lives. having national healthcare is socialism. Good natured socialsim. its better to keep those kinds of things to private companies.

the government needs to stay out of peoples lives. having national healthcare is socialism. Good natured socialsim. its better to keep those kinds of things to private companies.

So, how do you propose to ensure that everybody has access to healthcare?

Trilby63;11938042']Puhlease.. Eris dumped the sad git and for good reason..
You're just a dupe of the conspiracy, pink-boy.

First of all, I live in Australia and I love the fact that I can see a doctor of my hoosing, free of charge, within 24 hours of making an appointment (or within 2 hours [max] of entering a clinic).

Now, I saw someone a couple of pages ago claim taht they didn't want a "collective pool" for healthcare. And that got me thinking.....

Do these same people have their own water tank, rather than dipping into the collective water resources?

Do these same people have their own generator, rather than dipping into the collective electricity resources?

Do these people fund their own child's education, or do they send their children to a public school, funded by - you guessed it - a collective pool of resources?

Our entire society is made up of collective pools of resources. If you're so against collective healthcare, then how can you support these other collective resources?

I'm a little short of time but wanted to comment on a couple different posts ive seen:

1) Britney Spears IS valued by society much more than a firefighter, baseball players are valued much higher than a teacher – this is fact. That you, and a lot of people including myself, think this is pretty messed up is fairly irrelevant. You express your value with your dollars – and the dollars go to what society values most.

That you, personally, would only spend $10 on a CD, but $1000 for a firefighter is your own personal valuation. Society as a whole collectively spends much more on one entertainer than on one individual firefighter. That means that every single individual in the world values a firefighter more than Britney Spears (barring a couple loonies), society as a collective values Britney Spears far more than one single firefighter.


2) The health system is so insanely expensive because of government interference. Without government interference it would be a fraction of its current costs (as proof I offer the fact that healthcare costs vary substantially from one jurisdiction to another, so that two hospitals a mere 10 miles apart can have drastically different costs – the only difference between them being the level of interference).

I suggest that doing things in a half-assed political compromise way is the real problem. Were the system to be free from government micromanagement and bureaucracy or be completely state run it would be more efficient. This is why I would support either way (though privatizing would be the best over-all, it is less politically feasible at the moment).

3) The US is really big. It is also composed of 50 semi-sovereign states. If you want to compare systems between the US and some European countries, it would be more appropriate to compare it to the EU as a whole rather than individual countries.

In sheer terms of scale and diversity of population (geographic density, culture, language, even climate), the NHS would be a completely different beast in the US than in the UK or France or wherever.

What was ever provided by the government at less than 200% of the cost of it being provided privately? If you have it taken out of your paychecks it will cost you more and you will get less service for your dollar - at least that is what all the evidence to date indicates.


I made that statment for the person that made some ridiculous example of living off of $700 a month. If they had to pay into NHS they would only be living off $600 a month. I'm making a guess of course, before some smart ass railroads me with a jackass comment.

What I see here is a discussion on the merits of a welfare system. How do you make this out to be an attack on the USA? Paranoia or Delusions of Grandeur or what?

Oh.... what was the subject mater of this thread? Oh yes, yes Now I remember, " Why doesn't the USA have an NHS?" Hmmm..seems to me the very subject is about the U.S. Which in itself is fine until some one jumps on board and starts telling everyone how Americans are when they have no clue what they are talking about.

Hush, now. Taxes that go towards the military and death = good. Taxes that go toward healthcare and preservation of life = bad.

Let's see a subtle attack on American military might.

Apparently Americans are content with stuffing billions of dollars into the pockets of insurance agents and nefarious lawyers rather then investing that money into a universal health care system.

An obvious attack on Americans.

I just seems a little daft for an advanced country to not have universal healthcare based on a persons ability to contribute to the whole rather than having poor people unable to get healthcare simply because they are poor. It's not as if the NI contributions in the UK are particularly irksome and probably cost alot less than health insurance in the US because everyone has to pay it.

Ok this wasn't an attack as much as it is a statment made out of ignorance. We have a healthcare system for the poor, duh.

Hmmm.. so anyways shall I find more posts to quote for you?

Way to generalise. I am a European (by birth and upbringing - I am now an American in that I live in South America) and I certainly don't have a self righteous utopian dream.

Good I'm glad to hear that. Maybe I did generalise and for that I'm wrong. However, it's difficult not to make that assumption when people are trying to make us feel like idiots for what we do. We're not perfect, people.

Who asked you to, and why do you think you should? (If you didn't you wouldn't have mentioned it.)

I feel that way, because whenever I'm on some message board or talk to people from another country ... It's always : Americans this, Americans that, Americans are so stupid... yadda...yadda..yadda. Like we always have to justify what we do. Shall I find more quotes for you?

I'm the first person you'll find that loves a mature intelligent debate about something and I love an exchange of ideas.What I don't like are alot of the childish immature attitudes some people harbor. The author of this thread merely wanted to know why we don't have a NHS. Unfortunatley some people have spoiled the thread with their juvenile comments. Several Americans have stated why we don't want an NHS. I'll say it again as a majority Americans don't like socialism or comunism. We distrust big government and we hate taxes. An NHS to us dables in each of those fields. Maybe our passions are making us blind, but that's who we are. That's what makes us American.

the government needs to stay out of peoples lives. having national healthcare is socialism. Good natured socialsim. its better to keep those kinds of things to private companies.
Don't you think that it would be more beneficial to have a Government run not for profit healthcare system than a private for profit healthcare system?

Why should private healthcare providers make a profit from a persons unfortunate circumstances?

What kind of regulations if any do these private companies operate under?

Due to rising healthcare costs, many employer sponsored plans are becoming cost prohibitive, and employers are increasing employee co-payments, and/or are reducing coverages, and/or are terminating plans.


The Impact of Rising Health Care Costs (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml)

National surveys show that the primary reason people are uninsured is the high cost of health insurance coverage (9).

Economists have found that rising health care costs correlate to drops in health insurance coverage (10).

Nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of the uninsured reported changing their way of life significantly in order to pay medical bills (10).

Almost 50 percent of the American public say they are very worried about having to pay more for their health care or health insurance, while 42 percent report they are very worried about not being able to afford health care services (11).

A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses (12). Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.

One half of workers in the lowest-compensation jobs and one-half of workers in mid-range-compensation jobs either had problems with medical bills in a 12-month period or were paying off accrued debt. One-quarter of workers in higher-compensated positions also reported problems with medical bills or were paying off accrued debt (13).

If one member of a family is uninsured and has an accident, a hospital stay, or a costly medical treatment, the resulting medical bills can affect the economic stability of the whole family (14).

A new survey shows that more than 25 percent said that housing problems resulted from medical debt, including the inability to make rent or mortgage payments and the development of bad credit ratings (15).

A survey of Iowa consumers found that in order to cope with rising health insurance costs, 86 percent said they had cut back on how much they could save, and 44 percent said that they have cut back on food and heating expenses (16).

Retiring elderly couples will need $200,000 in savings just to pay for the most basic medical coverage (17). Many experts believe that this figure is conservative and that $300,000 may be a more realistic number.

From the same article:

Since 2000, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 73 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 14 percent and cumulative wage growth of 15 percent during the same period (3).

Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component for employers. Unless something changes dramatically, health insurance costs will overtake profits by 2008 (6).
Since the US healthcare system is driven by the private sector, why has employment-based health insurance premiums increased 73 percent in the past 5 years?

Perhaps you have an extensive employer provided healthcare plan and that is why you don't care about those who have nothing?

For some of those who think they have all the answers, I found this interview tends to back up what I have posted here, regarding costs and quality of service:

Click on the video interview, and/or read the transcript.

SOARING HEALTH CARE COSTS (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june06/healthcare_1-10.html#)

Bottom line:

overall I think people look at the big picture and say it's clear we're in a serious national cost, health spending crisis.

There isn't a corporate leader who doesn't believe that or a serious health economist who doesn't believe that. Rising costs are a driver of several things. They're a driver of declining affordability of health insurance coverage. They are a driver of declining employer-based coverage.

The Kaiser Family Foundation Survey shows that 69 percent of employers were offering coverage in 2000. That number is now down to 60 percent. And in addition to that, public health insurance programs are growing. 8 million people on Medicaid alone over the last -- since 2000.

MARGARET WARNER: New ones.

SUSAN DENTZER: New ones. If this were not happening, the overall rate of health un-insurance would be worse. We're now at 46 million uninsured. We know that but for the growth of public programs that number would be higher as well.

So everybody steps back and looks at that and says we have a problem. We don't have anything on the horizon that looks like it's going to solve it or attack it in a concerted way. And where it will all end, who knows?

We don't have an NHS because it would cost taxpayers too much money and give 15% of our economy to the government, I am not willing to give Gov. Co. anymore power than it already has.

We don't have an NHS because it would cost taxpayers too much money and give 15% of our economy to the government, I am not willing to give Gov. Co. anymore power than it already has.
Right now, the US is paying 16% of the GDP towards healthcare.

You are probably not too concerned about increasing costs because you have an employer supplied healthcare plan?

Right now, the US is paying 16% of the GDP towards healthcare.

You are probably not too concerned about increasing costs because you have an employer supplied healthcare plan?

Yep, private health care for me baby, as it should be.

Yep, private health care for me baby, as it should be.
So basically, you are saying that you are okay and that you don't care about the 46 million who can't afford health insurance?

Let's revisit what you stated earlier:

We don't have an NHS because it would cost taxpayers too much money
Your proof of this claim?

So basically, you are saying that you are okay and that you don't care about the 46 million who can't afford health insurance?
Wow...talk about your flagrant non sequiturs and strawmen. Couldn't you have worked in that he wants to eat babies, too?

Christians are all about donating to help other people!
When it gets them a tax break and recognition.


Dont generalize. Instead, look at what you do for others.

Wow...talk about your flagrant non sequiturs and strawmen. Couldn't you have worked in that he wants to eat babies, too?
How is asking a question a non sequitur?

Speaking of non sequitors, you have used them in this debate to the point of flaming and flamebaiting other posters for which you received an official warning.

So, given that I answered your question, while you evaded mine, it looks like I'll just have to give summary judgement that you do hate the rich.

We know that you think that taxation is "slavery", but you really have added nothing much in regards to this debate. You use more of a personal attack rather then debating the points. You have called two posters "sociopaths (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11935403&postcount=278)" because they don't agree with you. Now those are non-sequitors.

So please debate the points rather then attack the individual. Thanks.

How is asking a question a non sequitur?
Your question has within it an irrelevant conclusion you drew from his statement.


Speaking of non sequitors, you have used them in this debate to the point of flaming and flamebaiting other posters for which you received an official warning.
They weren't non sequiturs. So what is your point?



We know that you think that taxation is "slavery", but you really have added nothing much in regards to this debate.
What a wonderful lie.

It would behoove you to be honest. People don't like liars.

Your utter disregard for their property necessitates that you either are a sociopath or you hate them. Which is it?

I am done with you. Your increasing aggression, irrationality and dodging of the questions at hand are making this debate utterly worthless.

Maybe you should look at some of the moresensible libertarians on this board, such as Greill or AB Again if you want to convince people of your ideology, rather than simply making them disdain it.

So basically, you are saying that you are okay and that you don't care about the 46 million who can't afford health insurance?


The problem right now with insurance is lack of competition, the medical insurance people in Congress have their own special interest group to keep competition out of the market, so that only a few big brand name insurance runs the market. If this special interest group is removed, the market would have more competition. More competition equals lower prices.

Your question has within it an irrelevant conclusion you drew from his statement.
It isn't irrlevant if it is in fact true?

They weren't non sequiturs. So what is your point?
Calling someone a psychopath without any basis in fact is illogical.

Suggesting that someone "hates the rich" because they support a NHS is a non sequitor.

What a wonderful lie.

It would behoove you to be honest. People don't like liars.
You are proving my observation that "you use more of a personal attack rather then debating the points". Calling me a liar doesn't improve the debate.

The society you live in has chosen to impose taxes upon the people within that society. One could argue that without the imposition of those taxes the US would be nowhere near the superpower that it is today.

At any rate, there are States that are moving towards a comprehensive healthcare plan, and hopefully the federal government will realize the benefits of a single payer system and work towards establishment of a universal healthcare system.

I haven't even started to real all the replies. This applies only to the original message in this thread.

The reason that the US does not have this system is very simple. We have seen the shortcomings of a government controlled health system in Canada. We see the people from Canada crossing the border to get health care because our system is far superior to the one in their native land. We see the innovation that comes from well trained doctors with the incentive to come up with new treatments. And we have seen in every aspect of life that the free market system works. Things are easier to use and often less expensive when the government allows private individuals to do their work. The world has proven time after time that socialism does not work. The health care industry is no different.

Personally I would see it as an affront to my personal rights and freedoms as an American if this plan were put into place. The price would be too large to justify. Our economy would be crippled by the increase in taxation that would follow in the wake of such a plan. We have a system that ensures that everyone does have access to health care, but it is placed upon them to make the decision. For those that are truly too poor to afford health care, we have medicaid. For others, it is their responsibility to provide it for themselves. I am self employed and pay a great deal for my health insurance. However, it is something that place a high priority on, and so I pay the price. No less should be expected form anyone else.

I think you all would find that the health system would run much more effectively and quickly if you would scrap the system you have in place and adopt a free enterprise model. Of course, we know that won't happen. I'm just thankful that when it was proposed here in the early 1990s it was quickly shot down.

The problem right now with insurance is lack of competition, the medical insurance people in Congress have their own special interest group to keep competition out of the market, so that only a few big brand name insurance runs the market. If this special interest group is removed, the market would have more competition. More competition equals lower prices.
In the case of Canada's universal healthcare system, it is run as a non-profit entity and there is little or no competition. Eliminating for-profit entities reduces costs and is therefore less expensive to run.

snip

Your sig..

I prefer - "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining" :D

In the case of Canada's universal healthcare system, it is run as a non-profit entity and there is little or no competition. Eliminating for-profit entities reduces costs and is therefore less expensive to run.

Yea, but how high are your taxes?

I have a question about the current US system: how does A&E work if all medical care is privatised?

I haven't even started to real all the replies. This applies only to the original message in this thread.

The reason that the US does not have this system is very simple. We have seen the shortcomings of a government controlled health system in Canada. We see the people from Canada crossing the border to get health care because our system is far superior to the one in their native land.
From what I understand, the above is more myth than reality. Perhaps you could provide some data to support your assumption?

How many Americans are gertting their prescriptions filled in Canada?

Canadians also live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate. From what I understand, many Americans don't avail themselves of preventative medical care because the cost is too high. Preventative health care reduces the cost in the long term, and saves thousands of lives.

We see the innovation that comes from well trained doctors with the incentive to come up with new treatments. And we have seen in every aspect of life that the free market system works. Things are easier to use and often less expensive when the government allows private individuals to do their work. The world has proven time after time that socialism does not work. The health care industry is no different.
So far, you haven't proven that socialized healthcare is inferior to US healthcare. You also haven't proven that socialism is a failure, but that is another thread.

Personally I would see it as an affront to my personal rights and freedoms as an American if this plan were put into place. The price would be too large to justify.
The US is already paying 50% more than the next highest country per capita for healthcare, yet you have 46,000,000 with no basic healthcare. It would appear that there is a ton of profiteering going on by the private enterprises. This robs Americans of a truly quality healthcare system.

Our economy would be crippled by the increase in taxation that would follow in the wake of such a plan.
Can you produce data that would back up your assumption?

We have a system that ensures that everyone does have access to health care, but it is placed upon them to make the decision.
From what I have read, the system has failed in regards to the tens of millions who do not have adequate healthcare.

IFor those that are truly too poor to afford health care, we have medicaid. For others, it is their responsibility to provide it for themselves. I am self employed and pay a great deal for my health insurance. However, it is something that place a high priority on, and so I pay the price. No less should be expected form anyone else.
Apparently, Medicaid doesn't cover all poor people, wheras in Canada, all citizens receive full coverage.

What is all this talk about 46,000,000 Americans that have no healthcare insurance?

Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups.

I think you all would find that the health system would run much more effectively and quickly if you would scrap the system you have in place and adopt a free enterprise model. Of course, we know that won't happen. I'm just thankful that when it was proposed here in the early 1990s it was quickly shot down.
Apparently, too many people fall through the cracks already in a system that is basically pro for-profit?

Well, here I am a guy from across the pond who is wondering why the USA doesn't have a National Health Service. IS it because of taxes or government interference? I'm curious to know. And you citizens of the USA and other nations without one, would you like a NHS or not? And to the nations who do have an NHS do you want to keep it or get rid of it?

Poll Coming

That's easy. Rich people are the only ones who can get elected. Rich people don't need national health care, so they don't care.

Yea, but how high are your taxes?
It would be difficult to compare the Canadian tax structure versus the US in regards to healthcare alone. Canadians tend to support more social elements then do Americans. All considered, I do believe that we get value for our tax dollars.

However, I recently read (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml)that the annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $11,000. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,000. I can assure you that that is far higher then any tax appropriation that would come from my wages.

To add some more prespective to the points that I have been raising:

ABSTRACT (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768)

Background A decade ago, the administrative costs of health care in the United States greatly exceeded those in Canada. We investigated whether the ascendancy of computerization, managed care, and the adoption of more businesslike approaches to health care have decreased administrative costs.

Methods For the United States and Canada, we calculated the administrative costs of health insurers, employers' health benefit programs, hospitals, practitioners' offices, nursing homes, and home care agencies in 1999. We analyzed published data, surveys of physicians, employment data, and detailed cost reports filed by hospitals, nursing homes, and home care agencies. In calculating the administrative share of health care spending, we excluded retail pharmacy sales and a few other categories for which data on administrative costs were unavailable. We used census surveys to explore trends over time in administrative employment in health care settings. Costs are reported in U.S. dollars.

Results In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada.

Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations' figures exclude insurance-industry personnel.)

Conclusions The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system.

Yay socialised medicine!

Because it would bankrupt the US, just as it has done to various European countries before reforms were enacted. Then there's the problem of waiting lists, not enough equipment, and quality issues.

Oh, and the most important: it is nothing more than theft and slavery. To forcibly take money from people and put it toward a fund to allow others to have something resembling access to healthcare is stealing and the enslavement of those who had the money forcibly taken no matter what guise or supposed "humanitarian" face might be put on it.

You're exactly right. :D
I worked in the paper end of health care

every time the government put in a "reform" to help make health care more affordable it would work for a year or two and then make health care even less affordable then it was before

somewhere between half and 60% of the cost of doing health care buisness in this country is government compliance costs

which is why some doctors are now opting out and providing people with ludicrously cheap health care

more government will only make it worse

Right again. More gov't WILL only make it worse

The biggest problem in the US is that the Federal Government has a "One Size Fits All" approach. So, rather than let the hospitals or the medical community dictate its own costs (free market), the US government, thru its Medicare and Medicaid programs have caused the cost of medical care to sky rocket.

For example, many years ago, the average cost of an ambulance transport in the area of the US where I lived was about $90.00. Then, Medicare decided that they were going to drop their reimbursement rate to 50% of the costs. That meant that everyone was going to loose. However, the Feds said that if you are taking Medicare patients, you cannot bill them or bill a third party. Therefore, the medical community as a whole had no choice but to raise their charges by about 100% just to be able to break even.

Our Federal Government has put so many restrictions and demands so much red tape when dealing with Medicare, that it restricts a lot of doctors and providers as to what they can and cannot do.

And another example of National Health Care would be my neighbor Canada. Their NHS started to close hospitals because they did not have enough persons using them, specially in the more rural areas. Where I live, there is a large amount of nurses from Canada, and they all say the same thing. In order to save money, they are cutting back on the hospitals available for specialty procedures. That means that you may have to travel several hours for a heart attack or a stroke treatment.

In the US, almost all of the EMS Paramedic systems are local or county government ran, or volunteer systems. If you have a medical emergency, you will be transported to the nearest medical facility that can handle your situation. Neither EMS nor the hospital can deny you treatment for lack of money to pay on the spot, or lack of medical insurance. You will be treated, stabilized, and sent home. Then, the EMS and the hospital will worry about billing you for the costs.

Exactly. Which is why I do NOT want an NHS or UHS.

Bold is mine.

That bold is the misconception.

We have a system whereby the poor can receive healthcare. What the debate is about in this country now, is that those who aren't "poor enough" to qualify for the programs and aren't covered by employers insurance are opting to forego healthcare because of it's costs.

I do not believe forced socialization of medicine is the solution. I do believe some type of reform is necessary to help the uninsured. And, for the record, I do not favor forced insurance programs that Mass. is trying right now, either.

IMO, "opting" isn't the right word. A better word (or phrase) would be "financially forced."
Two reasons I can think of.

1) Taxes, that's the big one.
2) The government has no business having any access to my doctor, I'd rather big brother not have a convenient way of see my medical records.

I agree :D

That's how I feel about it. I want a universal healthcare system, but I don't want the US government to administer it. Uncle Sam isn't exactly known for spending his money in a sensible fashion.

I agree with you. IF i were in favor of an NHS or a UHS, I wouldn't want Uncle Sam getting his grubby, incompetent hands on it either.

It does. America already pays more per capita for what healthcare they do provide than any nation with NHS and people in America pay out the ass for their rip off insurance policies. Americans should just pick their favorite corporation and mail them money for no reason, you'd get the same bang for your buck.


I don't know what kind of idiot trusts the state government to be any more fiscally responsible or competent than the federal government. I know for damn sure the Alabama government isn't.

Neither is the Tennessee government when it comes to healthcare.

Ever wondered why that is? Hint: it's not because of evil, greedy capitalists. Rather, it's because of the government intrustion.

I agree with you, though "evil greedy capitalists" (which are nevertheless NOT
mutually inclusive) certainly aren't helping things either.

Which is not to speak evil of capitalism.

Again you are describing taxation as mugging or extortion ... which is a much better but less emotive analogy.

Taxation, considering the U.S. Government's insatiable appetite for money, and for obtaining it inequitably, IS extortion and mugging.

At least IMNSVHO.

I am done with you.
Thank you for your concession.

It isn't irrlevant if it is in fact true?
But it isn't true.


Calling someone a psychopath without any basis in fact is illogical.
But there is a basis.


Suggesting that someone "hates the rich" because they support a NHS is a non sequitor.
What a wonderful oversimplification. Think you can try again without the fallacy?


You are proving my observation that "you use more of a personal attack rather then debating the points".
No it doesn't. You lied. Calling you a liar is not a personal attack; it's a fact.


The society you live in has chosen to impose taxes upon the people within that society.
And the society in the southern US many many years ago "chose" to segregate blacks and whites. What's your point?


One could argue that without the imposition of those taxes the US would be nowhere near the superpower that it is today.
One could argue that without those taxes, the US would be more affluent, since without taxation, it's quite difficult to finance a war. Especially if the country is on the gold standard. Kant himself stated as such.


At any rate, there are States that are moving towards a comprehensive healthcare plan, and hopefully the federal government will realize the benefits of a single payer system and work towards establishment of a universal healthcare system.
Ah yes--the benefits of theft and socialism. Like East Germany. And North Korea.

In the case of Canada's universal healthcare system, it is run as a non-profit entity and there is little or no competition. Eliminating for-profit entities reduces costs and is therefore less expensive to run.
And you end up with horrid waiting lists. Tell me: is it humane to allow an elderly woman to wait a year and a half to have hip replacement surgery? The Canadian health care system certainly thinks it is.

US doesnt have it because we aren't a socialistic waste of space(yet).

And you end up with horrid waiting lists. Tell me: is it humane to allow an elderly woman to wait a year and a half to have hip replacement surgery? The Canadian health care system certainly thinks it is.
That's stupid. The state of Canadian health care is a result of politicians who believe it is possible to spend less money and get more. So they've gutted health, and then when the inevitable waits happen, they point to how useless public health care is. A typical conservative hit job.

No it doesn't. You lied. Calling you a liar is not a personal attack; it's a fact.
You invalidate your posts with your persistent personal attacks. You don't seem to care about the debate. You were warned for flaming yet you came back and called Ardee Street a sociopath. Now you are calling me a liar. Perhaps my presenting of certain facts is proving difficult for you?

At any rate, Fris suggested at post # 266 that you were done with this thread. I suggest that you take his advice because I have had it with your BS. Nothing personal, you might be a great guy but your debating skills are extremely poor. I have been here over 2 1/2 years and have never resorted to using Moderation for resolution of situations such as this but, enough is enough. Go away troll.

That's stupid. The state of Canadian health care is a result of politicians who believe it is possible to spend less money and get more. So they've gutted health, and then when the inevitable waits happen, they point to how useless public health care is. A typical conservative hit job.
Or perhaps it's just the inevitable result of socialized medicine.

You invalidate your posts with your persistent personal attacks.
You invalidate your posts with the style over substance fallacy.

Now stop being a troll.

That's stupid. The state of Canadian health care is a result of politicians who believe it is possible to spend less money and get more. So they've gutted health, and then when the inevitable waits happen, they point to how useless public health care is. A typical conservative hit job.
There is only one thing wrong with your post. Most Canadians are quite happy with the healthcare system and with the infusion of new funding, it is in good shape. I would certainly prefer our healthcare system over the US for profit system.

You invalidate your posts with the style over substance fallacy.

Now stop being a troll.
Now I am faced with a dilemma.....do I report your irrelevance to this thread to the Mods, or do I just ignore your posts? Since I am reluctant to report obnoxious posters, such as yourself, I have decided to just ignore your banality. Enjoy life, as difficult as that may be for you to accomplish. :D

Yeah, you're better off ignoring them. "Four-fifths of all our troubles would disappear, if we would only sit down and keep still. " (Silent Cal Coolidge)

Costs for healthcare in the US are oustripping wage increases and inflation.

Trends and Indicators in the Changing Health Care Marketplace (http://www.kff.org/insurance/7031/print-sec3.cfm)

Exhibit 3.3: Increases in Employer Health Plan Premiums Compared to Increases in Overall Inflation and Workers’ Earnings, 1988-2005

In 2005, premiums for family coverage increased 9.2%. This is the first year of single digit increases since 2000. This is the second consecutive year that premium increases were less than they were in the previous year. While lower than in recent years, the 9.2% increase in the cost of coverage exceeds the overall rate of inflation by nearly 6 percentage points and the increase in workers’ earnings by over 6 percentage points. Since 2000, the cost of premiums for family coverage have increased by 73%.
Obscene profit taking by private healthcare insurance providers?

Or perhaps it's just the inevitable result of socialized medicine.
People like you tend to scream bloody murder over taxes until someone they know gets shot. And then they're up in arms because the police didn't do their job, and they sue doctors for not doing their job, etc etc. I can't convince you that in fact money is, astoundingly, required to make things work, so I won't try any further.
However, you might consider that privatized health care is never as glorious as it seems. The idea that businesses should always be more efficient is fine in theory until you actually stop and think. And then you realize that wow, it really IS amazing that Bell, or AT&T or whatever phone company in fact has a totally inane phone system. Even though that's their specialty. Privatization is not efficiencyization. It's just a different, more expensive, set of problems.

Now I am faced with a dilemma.....do I report your irrelevance to this thread to the Mods, or do I just ignore your posts?
The mods would just warn you for wasting their time, troll.

People like you tend to scream bloody murder over taxes until someone they know gets shot.
*yawn*


And then they're up in arms because the police didn't do their job, and they sue doctors for not doing their job, etc etc. I can't convince you that in fact money is, astoundingly, required to make things work, so I won't try any further.
Especially since I'm not seeing any data showing me that the Canadian government is reducing funding for the UHS.


However, you might consider that privatized health care is never as glorious as it seems.
Ok.

(considers it)

Now that I've considered it, I find socialized healthcare to be all the more worthless.


The idea that businesses should always be more efficient is fine in theory until you actually stop and think. And then you realize that wow, it really IS amazing that Bell, or AT&T or whatever phone company in fact has a totally inane phone system.
That being your uninformed opinion.

The mods would just warn you for wasting their time, troll.
Well, I could clearly understand their reasoning, because IMHO YOU are truly a waste of time. Consider this my last reply to you, unless of course you want to actually debate the topic at hand with something actually representing facts.

Well, I could clearly understand their reasoning, because IMHO YOU are truly a waste of time.
IKYABWAI. How childish.

Why no NHS in the US? Akkk!!! Ebil C0mmuni2im!!!! If God wanted everyone to be healthy, he wouldn't have created germs!!!!!111!!!11!!

Why no NHS in the US? Akkk!!! Ebil C0mmuni2im!!!! If God wanted everyone to be healthy, he wouldn't have created germs!!!!!111!!!11!!

Or tapeworms.

Since healthcare costs in the US are becoming prohibitive, perhaps it is time to outsource healthcare?

To cut its insurance costs, a US papermaker plans to let workers seek medical care abroad in 2007 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0816/p03s03-usec.html).

ATLANTA – Carl Garrett, a paper-mill technician in Leicester, N.C., is scheduled to travel Sept. 2 to New Delhi, where he will undergo two operations. Though American individuals have gone abroad for cheaper operations, Mr. Garrett is a pioneer of sorts.

He is a test case for his company, Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc., in North Carolina, which is set to provide a health benefit plan that allows its employees and their dependents to obtain medical care overseas beginning in 2007.

"It's brand-new and nobody's ever heard of going to India or even South Carolina for an operation, so it's all pretty foreign to people here," says Garrett. "It's a frontier."

Garrett's medical care alone may save the company $50,000. And instead of winding up $20,000 in debt to have the operations in the US, he may now get up to $10,000 back as a share of the savings. He'll also get to see the Taj Mahal as part of a two-day tour before the surgery.

His two operations could cost $100,000 in the US; they'll run about $20,000 in India.

With US health insurance costs soaring, cash-squeezed companies such as Blue Ridge and poor states such as West Virginia are considering affordable plans that may require their employees to travel to India, Thailand, or Indonesia.
A healthcare holiday in Indonesia. Sounds like fun. :rolleyes:

Since healthcare costs in the US are becoming prohibitive, perhaps it is time to outsource healthcare?

To cut its insurance costs, a US papermaker plans to let workers seek medical care abroad in 2007 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0816/p03s03-usec.html).


A healthcare holiday in Indonesia. Sounds like fun. :rolleyes:

Now that would make a good Daily Mail headline if they headed for the UK. Not that anyone would want to be treated by evil commie Socialised Medicine, mind...;)

Now that would make a good Daily Mail headline if they headed for the UK. Not that anyone would want to be treated by evil commie Socialised Medicine, mind...;)
No it is much better to head to Muslim countries such as Indonesia. :eek:

After doing some more research, it appears that even more businesses are considering outsourcing healthcare to other countries, such as India. In this article, it talks about 3 Fortune 500 companies considering the feasibility.

Businesses may move health care overseas (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061102/ap_on_he_me/outsourcing_health)

NEW DELHI, India - Businesses and insurance companies are starting to eye the potential savings of outsourcing health care from the world's richest country to the developing world.

"It's just one of the many ways in which our world is flattening," said Arnold Milstein, chief physician at New York-based Mercer Health & Benefits, who's researching the feasibility of outsourcing medical care for three Fortune 500 corporations. "Many companies see it as a natural extension of the competition they've faced in other aspects of their business."

With an estimated 45 million uninsured Americans, some 500,000 trekked overseas last year for medical treatment, according to the National Coalition on Health Care. Asian hospitals in Thailand, India and Singapore have long been swarmed by medical tourists looking for tummy tucks and face lifts, but many glitzy, marble-floored facilities are now gaining reputations for big-ticket procedures including heart surgery, knee and back operations.

Some American hospitals already rely on places like India for X-ray readings and other diagnostics, while also importing foreign doctors and nurses. But the U.S. health care industry has been largely immune to overseas competition — just one reason behind soaring costs.

Premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage have surged 87 percent over the past six years, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, putting a huge burden on both companies and employees. Family health coverage now runs about $11,500 annually, with workers themselves forking out nearly $3,000.
Despite claims to the contrary by some posters here, it does appear that the American healthcare industry is indeed not well.

The mods would just warn you for wasting their time, troll.
No, I think we're smart enough to tell the debaters from the trolls.

For ongoing trolling, flaming, and flamebaiting, you might have gotten a warning. Since you abjectly ignored my prior warning in this thread, we'll give you a week off to look up more buzzwords in your philosophy textbooks in lieu of any actual debating. Next one's a deletion.

Forumbanned. One Week.


~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Why no NHS in the US? Akkk!!! Ebil C0mmuni2im!!!! If God wanted everyone to be healthy, he wouldn't have created germs!!!!!111!!!11!!

R35157 teh ebil influence of Rush Limbaugh. c0mmunism is double plus good!

Medicare and Medicaid.

Medicare and Medicaid.
I find these rather confusing, especially considering the following:

What Medicaid Does Not Cover (http://www.mamashealth.com/insurance/medicaid.asp)

Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups. Low income is only one test for Medicaid eligibility; assets and resources are also tested against established thresholds.

Medicare is poor quality (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6722)?

In fact, Medicare pays low-quality physicians the same amount it pays high-quality ones - and sometimes pays them more. Several studies by John Wennberg and his colleagues at Dartmouth Medical School suggest that the quality of care in Medicare is well below what it could be - and that quality is lowest in areas where Medicare spends the most.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/medicare1.html

Medicare needs better benefits, including a prescription drug benefit, like modern health insurance plans. Medicare’s outdated, "one-size-fits-all" benefit package does not cover prescription drugs and does not provide timely, consistent coverage for many modern technologies and preventive treatmentscare. It does not protect beneficiaries against the high costs of treating serious illnesses, and i. It imposes unnecessary regulatory burdens on providers and patients. As a result, seniors often do not receive appropriate, up-to-date treatment for their health problems. Most other insurance programs, including the program available to all Federal employees, provide reliable options for getting modern health insurance benefits. However, Medicare’s does not, however, and its options are actually becoming more limited.

Medicare Is Not Enough (http://www.hcvadvocate.org/hepatitis/hepc/Medicare.html)

Traditional Medicare is in two parts:

Part A – Hospital: This portion covers hospitalization, skilled nursing facilities and some home health nursing.

Part B – Medical: This portion covers other medical charges, such as physicians, diagnostic testing, some preventive care and other medical charges.

Part A is automatic. Part B is considered voluntary and once coverage starts, $58.70 will be deducted from each monthly Social Security payment to pay for it.
With a universal healthcare coverage, these people would be fully covered.

Eligibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29#Eligibility)

In general, individuals are eligible for Medicare if they (or their spouse) worked for at least 10 years in Medicare-covered employment and are at least 65 years old and are a citizen or permanent resident of the United States of America.

I couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread (more like the first half), but I just wanted to throw my two cents in.

I lost my health insurance last year when the company I worked for was sold to new ownership. I'm only 23, so it's not too much of an issue for me, but you can bet I'm not happy about it.

A close relative has been having kidney problems for the last two years. Nothing life threatening, but frequent clinic visits, and one or two minor medical procedures have been necessary.

Her employer, who she has worked for for more than 12 years, has a comprehensive insurance plan for it's workers, and which my relative has been covered by for the entire course of her employment.

My relative is now being DENIED coverage for her recent medical needs by this insurance provider, and now must pay over $7000 out of pocket.

So...given these two bits of info, you fucking better believe that I want a NHS system in the U.S. I'm tired of employers and insurance companies dictating to me and my loved ones exactly what type of health-care, and to what dollar amount, we are "qualified" for. :mad:

I couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread (more like the first half), but I just wanted to throw my two cents in.

I lost my health insurance last year when the company I worked for was sold to new ownership. I'm only 23, so it's not too much of an issue for me, but you can bet I'm not happy about it.

A close relative has been having kidney problems for the last two years. Nothing life threatening, but frequent clinic visits, and one or two minor medical procedures have been necessary.

Her employer, who she has worked for for more than 12 years, has a comprehensive insurance plan for it's workers, and which my relative has been covered by for the entire course of her employment.

My relative is now being DENIED coverage for her recent medical needs by this insurance provider, and now must pay over $7000 out of pocket.

So...given these two bits of info, you fucking better believe that I want a NHS system in the U.S. I'm tired of employers and insurance companies dictating to me and my loved ones exactly what type of health-care, and to what dollar amount, we are "qualified" for. :mad:
As long as the US continues to believe that private for-profit healthcare is the way to go, you will see more and more of these types of occurrences. It will be a continual erosion of healthcare benefits designed to protect the financial interests of the middlemen. Reduced coverages, increased co-payments, and outsourcing healthcare lead to an unhealthy environment for the patient. Here is a good article that details the inadequacy of the system:

Restructuring the U.S. Health Care System (http://www.issues.org/19.4/relman.html)

I love this. Not really, the thought of DIY dentistry scares the hell out of me. Not to mention DIY surgery or orthopedics.

A man fixed his front tooth with superglue after failing to find an NHS dentist.

Gordon Cook, 55, has used the bizarre "DIY dentistry" technique on a loose crown for the last three years - with each fresh application of glue lasting around two months.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/11/gordoncook131106_228x151.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=416187&in_page_id=1774

I love this. Not really, the thought of DIY dentistry scares the hell out of me. Not to mention DIY surgery or orthopedics.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/11/gordoncook131106_228x151.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=416187&in_page_id=1774

Proves we need more NHS dentists, I think.

I love this. Not really, the thought of DIY dentistry scares the hell out of me. Not to mention DIY surgery or orthopedics.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/11/gordoncook131106_228x151.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=416187&in_page_id=1774

He's obviously using inferior superglue if he has to replace it every couple of months. Everyone's done DIY dentistry. Didn't you have baby teeth that came out when you were around six or seven? There have been instances of DIY surgery, including one case of a woman performing a mastectomy on herself, and that during the 19th centruy, but I agree, it's not for everyone.

Proves we need more NHS dentists, I think.

Shame the current incentives offered to dentists are ridiculous

Shame the current incentives offered to dentists are ridiculous

My dentist seems fine with it.

My dentist seems fine with it.

Dental students are offered 4 grand a year if they sign a contract to work in the NHS at the end of their studies but they can pay it back at any time to get out of the contract. A lot of students simply take the money and put it in an account to build up interest and then pay back the capital after they graduate.

Another complaint i've heard is that its now compulsory for dentists to change gloves for every single patient but there havent been any increases in cash to practices to pay for this. Costs from this alone can run into the thousands.

All i'm saying is that the incentives to lure more dentists into the NHS just arent good enough to overcome the lure of private practice

Another complaint i've heard is that its now compulsory for dentists to change gloves for every single patient but there havent been any increases in cash to practices to pay for this. Costs from this alone can run into the thousands.

it wasn't before?!

gross.

it wasn't before?!

gross.

I'm getting my info from my dental student flatmate. Apparently the guy he did work experience with only used them in cases where he thought he was at increased risk. He found it more difficult to work with gloves since he had trained without and relied a lot on feeling

I'm getting my info from my dental student flatmate. Apparently the guy he did work experience with only used them in cases where he thought he was at increased risk. He found it more difficult to work with gloves since he had trained without and relied a lot on feeling

eww......no way is someone weird touching the inside of my mouth without gloves on, clean ones.

Dental students are offered 4 grand a year if they sign a contract to work in the NHS at the end of their studies but they can pay it back at any time to get out of the contract. A lot of students simply take the money and put it in an account to build up interest and then pay back the capital after they graduate.
Uh huh. I don't see how that would drive students away from the NHS, but it seems a bit self defeating. But, with Labour's tuition fees, the ones they promised they wouldn't introduce, I don't blame them.

Another complaint i've heard is that its now compulsory for dentists to change gloves for every single patient but there havent been any increases in cash to practices to pay for this. Costs from this alone can run into the thousands.

All i'm saying is that the incentives to lure more dentists into the NHS just arent good enough to overcome the lure of private practice
I don't doubt that, Labour is too content with pouring money into shareholders in useless PFI schemes that don't work, rather than actually put money into what they are supposed to be funding.

eww......no way is someone weird touching the inside of my mouth without gloves on, clean ones.

Same here.

Another complaint i've heard is that its now compulsory for dentists to change gloves for every single patient but there havent been any increases in cash to practices to pay for this. Costs from this alone can run into the thousands.

I can't possibly see how the fuck you are objecting to that. It is like complaining tattoo artists have to change needles, or surgeons have to use sterilised instruments.
I don't know what dentists do in England, but in America they poke around in your mouth with blood and saliva and all sorts of evil people bacteria.

I love this. Not really, the thought of DIY dentistry scares the hell out of me. Not to mention DIY surgery or orthopedics.
It seems rather odd that you are focusing on a non life threatening dental situation instead of looking at the broader picture and focusing on the thousands of lives lost in the US due to improper healthcare.

Since you are a private enterprise kinda guy, what do you think about the outsourcing of US healthcare to countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, and India?

I am not familiar with the finer workings (ie, failings) of this NHS of yours, but its principle seems like a good idea.

Pushistymistan;11953092']I am not familiar with the finer workings (ie, failings) of this NHS of yours, but its principle seems like a good idea.

In Canada, it is called the Canada Health Act and it is a universal healthcare service that is jointly funded by the Provinces and the Federal Government. Although it is called Medicare, it is totally unlike the Medicare or Medicaid in the US, in that all medical costs are covered in Canada for all citizens. On the whole, I truly believe that our healthcare system is better then in the US and far less costly then the US system.

I can't possibly see how the fuck you are objecting to that. It is like complaining tattoo artists have to change needles, or surgeons have to use sterilised instruments.
I don't know what dentists do in England, but in America they poke around in your mouth with blood and saliva and all sorts of evil people bacteria.

I'm not objecting to them using sterile gloves obviously. All i mean is that they should be given more money to cover the costs

I'm not objecting to them using sterile gloves obviously. All i mean is that they should be given more money to cover the costs

I'm sure they can ask the Americans for some, they are used like toy balloons. Boxes are piled upon shelves and under desks.

I would like to be confident that I'd get health care. That would be really nice.

It seems rather odd that you are focusing on a non life threatening dental situation instead of looking at the broader picture and focusing on the thousands of lives lost in the US due to improper healthcare.

Since you are a private enterprise kinda guy, what do you think about the outsourcing of US healthcare to countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, and India?

We almost do that. There are a number of MDs that come in on H1-B visas from countries that have NHS, single-payer services. I wonder why they aren't satisfied to practice in their native countries?

Meh, healthcare's for the living.

We almost do that. There are a number of MDs that come in on H1-B visas from countries that have NHS, single-payer services. I wonder why they aren't satisfied to practice in their native countries?

Perhaps you haven't heard the situations such as this http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061103/NEWS/211030362/1003/news03
where employers who self-insure are sending patients overseas and insurance companies. It's really just a matter of time when an insurance company says " We'll only pay x dollars for this service...go to India, or pay for it yourself.

Perhaps you haven't heard the situations such as this http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061103/NEWS/211030362/1003/news03
where employers who self-insure are sending patients overseas and insurance companies. It's really just a matter of time when an insurance company says " We'll only pay x dollars for this service...go to India, or pay for it yourself.
Nope, hadn't heard of going to India. I wouldn't do it. In fact, last time I was there, the doc that does our vaccinations, suggested that I bring my own sterile medical equipment like bandages, syringes, and needles. She even gave me a catalog to choose from.

Now that you mention it, Mexico is a favorite place for fat people to get some kind of abdominal operation to make them hold less food.

The best answer would be reforms to the free-market in this country, but that's unlikely to happen.

Because it would bankrupt the US, just as it has done to various European countries before reforms were enacted. Then there's the problem of waiting lists, not enough equipment, and quality issues.

Oh, and the most important: it is nothing more than theft and slavery. To forcibly take money from people and put it toward a fund to allow others to have something resembling access to healthcare is stealing and the enslavement of those who had the money forcibly taken no matter what guise or supposed "humanitarian" face might be put on it.

Shit then thats all taxes then huh!:D

Nope, hadn't heard of going to India. I wouldn't do it. In fact, last time I was there, the doc that does our vaccinations, suggested that I bring my own sterile medical equipment like bandages, syringes, and needles. She even gave me a catalog to choose from.

Now that you mention it, Mexico is a favorite place for fat people to get some kind of abdominal operation to make them hold less food.

The best answer would be reforms to the free-market in this country, but that's unlikely to happen.
Actually, it is the "free market" entrpreneurs in your country that are holding the US healthcare system as a hostage. Once you get single payer healthcare established then the middlemen will disappear and healthcare dollars will go to actually improve healthcare and for all the people. Oh, and the single payer will have to be the government. If it was private, then they would mostly be concerned about how much profit they were going to make.

Perhaps you haven't heard the situations such as this http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061103/NEWS/211030362/1003/news03
where employers who self-insure are sending patients overseas and insurance companies. It's really just a matter of time when an insurance company says " We'll only pay x dollars for this service...go to India, or pay for it yourself.
I was reading up on that earlier and I posted a couple of links in previous posts to this thread:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11947497&postcount=368

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11946220&postcount=365

And it wasn't only India that was mentioned. Thailand, Singapore and Indonesia were touted as possible out of country destinations.

Actually, it is the "free market" entrpreneurs in your country that are holding the US healthcare system as a hostage. Once you get single payer healthcare established then the middlemen will disappear and healthcare dollars will go to actually improve healthcare and for all the people. Oh, and the single payer will have to be the government. If it was private, then they would mostly be concerned about how much profit they were going to make.

For me, New Labour's/Thatcherite market reforms are pretty much proof of that. My mum was a nurse until I was born, and worked in an NHS hospital in Sheffield. When her hospital was directed to contract out cleaning services, the contractor immediately took the money and cut the amount of cleaning staff.

And then there's the PFI hospitals that have run horrendously over budget (http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/B2062.pdf) with companies reeling in taxpayer's money, the outsourcing of 'easy' and 'cheap' NHS work to Private hospitals leaving the NHS in the lurch (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhealth/uc934-iv/uc93402.htm). Even the NHS knows it's wrong (http://society.guardian.co.uk/privatefinance/story/0,,1244370,00.html).

Still, we'd all rather have our money going into advertising, shareholders and directors rather than doctors and nurses...right?

I was reading up on that earlier and I posted a couple of links in previous posts to this thread:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11947497&postcount=368

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11946220&postcount=365

And it wasn't only India that was mentioned. Thailand, Singapore and Indonesia were touted as possible out of country destinations.

Thanks..it's a long thread, and I haven't posted for many pages now... I had posted several studies about the number of those of us in the who would prefer a NHS, and about some of my perspectives having worked for a health insurance company, but people who are terrified of the "socialized medicine" label tend to stick their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la I'm not listening" and go on their merry way about it. What they don't realize is that we are getting close to a place where your insurance company sends you to whatever-far-off-country to have your surgery done beacuse it is cheaper for them. Drug formularies, $5000 deductibles -- all that starts with the self-insured employers first, then trickles up to the large corporations, and hits the big union policies last.

Actually, it is the "free market" entrpreneurs in your country that are holding the US healthcare system as a hostage. Once you get single payer healthcare established then the middlemen will disappear and healthcare dollars will go to actually improve healthcare and for all the people. Oh, and the single payer will have to be the government. If it was private, then they would mostly be concerned about how much profit they were going to make.

I don't see it that way. As long as the Fed regulates the way health care is provided, they are obstructing the free-market processes.

Besides, why should we "fix" something that works for about 255 million because it doesn't work for about 40 million? Let's work on the 40 million part without lousing it up for all of us.

I don't see it that way. As long as the Fed regulates the way health care is provided, they are obstructing the free-market processes.

Besides, why should we "fix" something that works for about 255 million because it doesn't work for about 40 million? Let's work on the 40 million part without lousing it up for all of us.
From what I have read, it is not working for 255 million Americans. I have read quite a few posts whereby those fortunate to have employer supplied healthcare "insurance", there are limitations as to what is covered, there sometimes are deductibles and many have maximums as to how much the insurer would be liable for.

Also, as costs going spiralling out of control, many employers are gutting any healthcare policies they have, considering off shore surgeries, increasing co-pays, reducing maximums, limiting certain procedures, or dropping healthcare provisions altogether. In an earlier post, an article suggested that the number of employers offering healthcare provisions to their employees have shrunk from 69% of employers down to 60% of employers.

To suggest that it is "working" is a bit of a copout considering the information that has been posted in this thread. Does prudence suggest that one waits until the system is totally broken before attempting to fix it? I don't think so.

Thanks..it's a long thread, and I haven't posted for many pages now... I had posted several studies about the number of those of us in the who would prefer a NHS, and about some of my perspectives having worked for a health insurance company, but people who are terrified of the "socialized medicine" label tend to stick their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la I'm not listening" and go on their merry way about it. What they don't realize is that we are getting close to a place where your insurance company sends you to whatever-far-off-country to have your surgery done beacuse it is cheaper for them. Drug formularies, $5000 deductibles -- all that starts with the self-insured employers first, then trickles up to the large corporations, and hits the big union policies last.
It is already affecting the "big union policies":

Doctor's orders: GM, UAW cut deal (http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/17/news/fortune500/gm_wagoner/)

Automaker wins pact with union to slash billions in healthcare costs for union members, retirees.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - General Motors Corp. announced an agreement Monday with the United Auto Workers union that the troubled automaker says will save billions in health care costs.

Under the deal, reached late Sunday, GM's health-care costs for union members, retirees and their families will be reduced by about $1 billion a year, the world's largest automaker said. It is now spending about $5.6 billion a year on health care costs for both active and retired employees and their families, although that number includes spending on salaried staff not covered by this agreement.

GM said that in addition, health-care liabilities on its balance sheet will be slashed by about $15 billion, or 25 percent of what it expects to spend on hourly-employee and retiree health care costs going forward, under the agreement.............

While GM is only saving $1 billion a year in health care spending under the agreement, the tentative deal will reduce costs on its annual profit-and-loss statement by $3 billion on a pre-tax basis. That's because the company must account for not only what it costs to cover current employees, but what it expects to pay for health insurance after they retire.

Retiree health care costs have become a major competitive burden for the automaker, adding thousands of dollars per vehicle. Of the estimated $5.6 billion GM is spending on health care this year, about $4 billion is spent to cover retirees and their families.

If GM is saving money, then someone is losing some healthcare benefits. Also, it stands to reason that when a big chunk of change is removed from the healthcare system like that, some other companies and/or employees will have to make up the shortfall. It would have a trickle down effect.

We tried it. Lots of people ended up unable to even get basic emergency treatment, despite the supposed "free" price tag. It's a disturbing implication, but at least under the current system, you can actually get health care; even the rich didn't always have a guarantee of that under the "national health care" free clinic system used during the early 20th century.

We tried it. Lots of people ended up unable to even get basic emergency treatment, despite the supposed "free" price tag. It's a disturbing implication, but at least under the current system, you can actually get health care; even the rich didn't always have a guarantee of that under the "national health care" free clinic system used during the early 20th century.
Who is "we", when was this "tried", and do you have a link that supports your claims?

Still, we'd all rather have our money going into advertising, shareholders and directors rather than doctors and nurses...right?
Absolutely!! NOT!! :(

When do people wake up and see the result of greed? It is mind boggling to say the least. Healthcare should not be a for profit business.

I am from the US and believe we should enact a NHS. I don’t have the time to give this the response it deserves, but I will throw these ideas out fwiw…

I believe it hasn’t happened to this point, fundamentally, because the business of health insurance is far too profitable. Keeping health care costs high supports that part of our economy. In 2004, 16% of our GDP was spent on health care. http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml In the 10 years that I worked for a health insurance company, medical care costs, insurance premiums, and copayments/coinsurance costs went up. Financially the company did quite well. Even with the “oppressive government regulation” of the industry. Note the number of Blue Cross Blue Shield plans that have changed status from not-for-profit to for profit organizations since the BCBS Association allowed it in 1994. http://www.consumersunion.org/conv/bcbs.html

I do believe that there is increasingly a climate of willingness to look at implementation of a NHS.
http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/recommendations/finalrecs.php

Anecdotally, fully 50% of the county taxes I pay go to support local Medicaid. That’s about $1500 a year that I pay directly towards Medicaid costs, in addition to my payroll taxes that support Medicare. Frankly, I’d prefer that those taxes go to better use to support a larger percentage of the population, rather than simply a narrow section of it.

Also anecdotally, that $90 charge for an ambulance service quoted several pages back is well below the copayment I had on the recent ambulance charge I incurred when my son was taken to the hospital last month. To go a total of, oh say 7 or 8 miles to the hospital, the charge was over $900 and I had a $250 copayment. Certainly the quality of service we received was excellent, and we are fortunate to have decent insurance, and $250 is not a hardship for me to pay out of pocket, but I am not so ignorant to recognize that this is not true for many Americans.

Fundamentally, I also believe that if we, as a society, don’t bother to take care of the health of our citizens, what the hell good are we anyway, but most people need to see the cost side of things, because they can’t be bothered to care about people.
Excellent post. I somehow missed this one earlier but it certainly raises some excellent points. :)

From what I have read, it is not working for 255 million Americans. I have read quite a few posts whereby those fortunate to have employer supplied healthcare "insurance", there are limitations as to what is covered, there sometimes are deductibles and many have maximums as to how much the insurer would be liable for.

Also, as costs going spiralling out of control, many employers are gutting any healthcare policies they have, considering off shore surgeries, increasing co-pays, reducing maximums, limiting certain procedures, or dropping healthcare provisions altogether. In an earlier post, an article suggested that the number of employers offering healthcare provisions to their employees have shrunk from 69% of employers down to 60% of employers.

To suggest that it is "working" is a bit of a copout considering the information that has been posted in this thread. Does prudence suggest that one waits until the system is totally broken before attempting to fix it? I don't think so.

Forget about the anecdotal instances of people that are "fortunate" to have employer-provided policies. This would all be "fixed" if the government would just butt out. For instance, access to health insurance would be vastly improved if one simple step were taken. That is to simply end the government prejudice against individual purchases of health insurance. When an employer buys that policy, he gets a tax deduction, when I buy a policy, nothing. In short, an individual is punished financially for taking care of his own health care needs, MSAs excepted.

We can go on and on, but let's work this point over first.

Forget about the anecdotal instances of people that are "fortunate" to have employer-provided policies. This would all be "fixed" if the government would just butt out. For instance, access to health insurance would be vastly improved if one simple step were taken. That is to simply end the government prejudice against individual purchases of health insurance. When an employer buys that policy, he gets a tax deduction, when I buy a policy, nothing. In short, an individual is punished financially for taking care of his own health care needs, MSAs excepted.

We can go on and on, but let's work this point over first.

While its true that businesses get a tax deduction the major advantage larger businesses have over smaller ones and individuals is the fact that they have a large number of employess allowing them to pool their risks. The young and healthy subsidize the old and sick. It avoids adverse selection where those most likely to get sick want insurance while those with low risk of getting sick choose not to buy.
That said I think the tax deduction is bad and should be undone. I think a national healtcare system like Switzerland's and with voucher might be better than a single payer plan.

Tax deductions for business sponsored health plans isn't something special.... they write it off as a business expense because that's what it IS. What would be discriminatory to businesses is if healthcare, out of everything that they pay for, isn't written off. The whole point of write-offs is that businesses are paying taxes on how much money they make (ie profit), not how much revenue happens to flow in and out of the bank accounts.

So one could argue that paying for private health insurance should be able to be written off, but not that businesses shouldn't be able to write off their healthcare expesnses, because that just doesn't make sense

Forget about the anecdotal instances of people that are "fortunate" to have employer-provided policies. This would all be "fixed" if the government would just butt out. For instance, access to health insurance would be vastly improved if one simple step were taken. That is to simply end the government prejudice against individual purchases of health insurance. When an employer buys that policy, he gets a tax deduction, when I buy a policy, nothing. In short, an individual is punished financially for taking care of his own health care needs, MSAs excepted.

We can go on and on, but let's work this point over first.
actually that's not entirely true, if you itemize an individual is allowed to deduct any healthcare costs they incur during the year on their taxes, that includes health insurance premiums, copays, prescriptions, mileage to and from the doctor, to and from the pharmacy, medical procedures not covered by insurance, a hotel stay if you have to see a doctor out of town and the mileage there and back, and even my familys medically necessary diet.


While its true that businesses get a tax deduction the major advantage larger businesses have over smaller ones and individuals is the fact that they have a large number of employess allowing them to pool their risks. The young and healthy subsidize the old and sick. It avoids adverse selection where those most likely to get sick want insurance while those with low risk of getting sick choose not to buy.
That said I think the tax deduction is bad and should be undone. I think a national healtcare system like Switzerland's and with voucher might be better than a single payer plan.

Tax deductions for business sponsored health plans isn't something special.... they write it off as a business expense because that's what it IS. What would be discriminatory to businesses is if healthcare, out of everything that they pay for, isn't written off. The whole point of write-offs is that businesses are paying taxes on how much money they make (ie profit), not how much revenue happens to flow in and out of the bank accounts.

So one could argue that paying for private health insurance should be able to be written off, but not that businesses shouldn't be able to write off their healthcare expesnses, because that just doesn't make sense

Darniane is right, in the US we are taxed based on what "profit" we make rather than how much money we actually touch during the year, businesses and individuals alike, that's why individuals get a standard deduction and exemptions, however if you feel like you spend more than that each year on stuff you are allowed to itemize. (just like buisnesses have to do)

actually that's not entirely true, if you itemize an individual is allowed to deduct any healthcare costs they incur during the year on their taxes, that includes health insurance premiums, copays, prescriptions, mileage to and from the doctor, to and from the pharmacy, medical procedures not covered by insurance, a hotel stay if you have to see a doctor out of town and the mileage there and back, and even my familys medically necessary diet.


What is the threshold? 2.5% of AGI? That's a huge amount that you have to spend before you can reap the benefits of the deduction. It should be run more like a deductible IRA by taking the costs out of your AGI.

What is the threshold? 2.5% of AGI? That's a huge amount that you have to spend before you can reap the benefits of the deduction. It should be run more like a deductible IRA by taking the costs out of your AGI.
The IRS has been talking about making it an above the line deduction for years but they can't seem to get the right people behind the idea.

edit and it's 7.5

most of my clients who buy private insurance make the cut just from premiums.

The IRS has been talking about making it an above the line deduction for years but they can't seem to get the right people behind the idea.

edit and it's 7.5

most of my clients who buy private insurance make the cut just from premiums.

They make the cut, but they still can't deduct the first 7.5% Let's figure an average income is about $50K per year for two working people. That's $3750 that is not even recognized by the IRS. If you figure that a family policy costs $400 per month, that's only $1050 that they get to deduct. Probably a $500 reduction in the tax bill?

They make the cut, but they still can't deduct the first 7.5% Let's figure an average income is about $50K per year for two working people. That's $3750 that is not even recognized by the IRS. If you figure that a family policy costs $400 per month, that's only $1050 that they get to deduct. Probably a $500 reduction in the tax bill?

I never claimed it was perfect. Last time I got to go to IRS town meeting I did explain all of my current problems with the US tax code and this guy wrote it all down on a yellow legal pad, there isn't much more that I can do alone.

I am a big supporter of the fair tax and I let them know that too....so probably they just threw away my suggestions.

Who is "we", when was this "tried", and do you have a link that supports your claims?

The US. During the Great Depression. It was heavily touted as an improvement by such famous historical figures as Al Capone and Franklin Roosevelt some of whom put in a lot of cash simply trying to keep the system afloat of their own. It was one way Al Capone nearly got off of those tax evasion charges; as to how it supports my claims, you show me your proof that your nationalized health care doesn't discriminate just like the remnants of it we've got in the states still do, I'll consider it possible.

I never claimed it was perfect. Last time I got to go to IRS town meeting I did explain all of my current problems with the US tax code and this guy wrote it all down on a yellow legal pad, there isn't much more that I can do alone.

I am a big supporter of the fair tax and I let them know that too....so probably they just threw away my suggestions.

The IRS has town meetings? They must really be trying to improve their image.

I like the fair tax, too. I did my part by voting to re-elect John Linder. At least, we'll have it re-introduced this next Congress.

The IRS has town meetings? They must really be trying to improve their image.

I like the fair tax, too. I did my part by voting to re-elect John Linder. At least, we'll have it re-introduced this next Congress.

The IRS has town meetings that are open to everyone, they have procedural meetings that are open to tax professionals. I have been to both. When I become and enrolled agent (if I passed the test......) I will be invited to yet another meeting to talk about tax law.

Forget about the anecdotal instances of people that are "fortunate" to have employer-provided policies. This would all be "fixed" if the government would just butt out. For instance, access to health insurance would be vastly improved if one simple step were taken. That is to simply end the government prejudice against individual purchases of health insurance. When an employer buys that policy, he gets a tax deduction, when I buy a policy, nothing. In short, an individual is punished financially for taking care of his own health care needs, MSAs excepted.

We can go on and on, but let's work this point over first.
Nope. Gonna stick to my guns here. It is the for-profit private healthcare industry that is making healthcare less affordable for the average person. The only way to institute a not for-profit healthcare system is for the Federal government to fund and regulate it.

Here is what the future of America thinks.

Healthcare: The Unmet Need (http://rooseveltinstitution.org/sotu/ghedi_ehrlich)

Illness is not a market-based phenomenon, and a market-based approach has predictably failed to promote the cherished American ideals of health and well-being.