So I just watched Sicko and .. - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Axeman · 07-01-2007, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico

Not only are Health Insurance companies screwing people, but now in Maryland, they just passed a law that if you are not insured, you have to pay fines.

Try to guess who wanted this law passed?

Does this mean they won't be able to deny people insurance for pre existing? Also any mention of reasonable rates for these people or is it a free for all where they get charged ridiculous fees or risk the fine?

GreyWolf · 07-01-2007, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smax

I disagree with your idea of basic health care being a fundamental right because its flat out wrong. By definition a fundamental right is a right that has its origin in a country's constitution or that is necessarily implied from the terms of that constitution. Nowhere in the US constitution does it mention right to free or affordable health care, I think you are confusing a fundamental right with moral obligation.

You may disagree on the words of healthcare being a "right" (call it a moral obligation or whatever), but that is the basic concept surrounding healthcare in most industrialized countries. Namely - "everyone" is entitled to medical treatment irrespective of "how nasty" they may be or what it may cost etc.

The US Constitution is an excellent document and obviously considered carefully by those who participated in drafting that document. The world has moved on in a few hundred years - and will continue to move forward. Agree that there is no specific provision in the US Constitution for healthcare - however that was never the guidelines for the rest of the industrialized world and, least most of them, do provide healthcare as a right - and not necessarily with any basic changes to their constitution.

It may be worth noting that any industrialized country would freely provide healthcare to any individual from the US should they need this while travelling. Call it a moral obligation or whatever - but the net result is back to that keyphrase "accessable healthcare".

BTW... Nothing on this planet is "flat out wrong" - there are millions of shades of grey

pocketkangaroo · 07-01-2007, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axeman

Your forgetting about state income tax which most states have. for $100k rate your looking at about 9% on top of the 28% federal.

Now if your in one of those states with no state income tax, then yes its a savings and you can pay for your increased health care and hope they don't ever try to fuck you.

Only a couple states have rates as high as you state. And the ones that do, are progressive, and only effect the top couple percent of income earners. 20% of the states don't even have a state income tax, and the most of the rest are only a couple percent.

Axeman · 07-01-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Only a couple states have rates as high as you state. And the ones that do, are progressive, and only effect the top couple percent of income earners. 20% of the states don't even have a state income tax, and the most of the rest are only a couple percent.

http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/ind_inc.html

80% of the states have state tax. Looking at this list it looks like the average person with 100K a year would be in the 6-7% range with 25 of the states having 6% or higher.

Axeman · 07-01-2007, 03:16 PM

It should also be noted on the tax argument that by going to universal health care you would not be paying more in taxes and if the government tried to snowball you into believing that, then your getting fucked and should vote in people who won't lie to you.

The reality is the US pays double what the canadian government does per tax payer for health care already. And nearly 14% of your GDP is spent on health care which is 3% higher than any socialized nation.

With proper health care focusing on preventive care your taxes spent per person on health care should normal itself out to that of Canada, France, Britain, Sweden etc which is nearly half your current levels.

So if anything your taxes should decrease unless the government can justify where your extra taxes saved were now being spent and who's pockets it ended up in.

pocketkangaroo · 07-01-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axeman

http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/ind_inc.html

80% of the states have state tax. Looking at this list it looks like the average person with 100K a year would be in the 6-7% range with 25 of the states having 6% or higher.

At 6 or even 9 percent, someone making $100,000 is still only paying 27-31% in taxes.

GreyWolf · 07-01-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico

Not only are Health Insurance companies screwing people, but now in Maryland, they just passed a law that if you are not insured, you have to pay fines.

Try to guess who wanted this law passed?

Damn... classic predatory action - and no need to guess on which lobby group pressured that into action and who has a common interest either way. Sounds like a no-brainer for all interest parties

Axeman · 07-01-2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

At 6 or even 9 percent, someone making $100,000 is still only paying 27-31% in taxes.

LOL - You mean 34-37% if you use the 6 or even 9 percent state.

28% of that is federal taxes.

madawgz · 07-01-2007, 03:38 PM

when i was young i had tons of ear infections...

if we lived in the US im sure that my parents wouldnt of been able to afford the bill and we wouldnt be living nice thats for sure...:\

Probono · 07-01-2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axeman

LOL - You mean 34-37% if you use the 6 or even 9 percent state.

28% of that is federal taxes.

Please stop! You are forgeting FICA, FUTA, etc add almost 10% more to any that you are paying in the US then add State income tax if you live in a State with income tax. Then add the cost of health insurance!

Probono · 07-01-2007, 04:08 PM

If you are self employed the rate is 15.3% PLUS your income tax, plus your State Tax. So the rates are higher than you think. If you have a job you only pay 1/2 of the 15.3%, still 7.6% plus your income taxes

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...=98846,00.html

smax · 07-01-2007, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreyWolf

You may disagree on the words of healthcare being a "right" (call it a moral obligation or whatever), but that is the basic concept surrounding healthcare in most industrialized countries. Namely - "everyone" is entitled to medical treatment irrespective of "how nasty" they may be or what it may cost etc.

The US Constitution is an excellent document and obviously considered carefully by those who participated in drafting that document. The world has moved on in a few hundred years - and will continue to move forward. Agree that there is no specific provision in the US Constitution for healthcare - however that was never the guidelines for the rest of the industrialized world and, least most of them, do provide healthcare as a right - and not necessarily with any basic changes to their constitution.

It may be worth noting that any industrialized country would freely provide healthcare to any individual from the US should they need this while travelling. Call it a moral obligation or whatever - but the net result is back to that keyphrase "accessable healthcare".

BTW... Nothing on this planet is "flat out wrong" - there are millions of shades of grey

You are the one who came in stating health care is a fundamental right, not my fault that it's not. If calling it a shade of grey makes you feel better by all means but until there is an amendment in the Bill of Rights, granting free health care to all Americans, you're wrong.

It's a moral issue not a rights issue and the government has no place pushing morality on it's citizens, do they try? you bet but that doesn't make it right and being in this business you should be firmly against that.

As for your claim about how "The rest of the world is doing it", you must not be to familiar with Americans as we like to buck the trend and do things our own way, it's been like that since 1776

notabook · 07-01-2007, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smax

As for your claim about how "The rest of the world is doing it", you must not be to familiar with Americans as we like to buck the trend and do things our own way, it's been like that since 1776

I wonder if the continual devaluing of the American dollar reflects that attitude.

pocketkangaroo · 07-01-2007, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axeman

LOL - You mean 34-37% if you use the 6 or even 9 percent state.

28% of that is federal taxes.

No, I calculated the federal wrong at first. At $100,000, you only pay 22% taxes.

pocketkangaroo · 07-01-2007, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Probono

If you are self employed the rate is 15.3% PLUS your income tax, plus your State Tax. So the rates are higher than you think. If you have a job you only pay 1/2 of the 15.3%, still 7.6% plus your income taxes

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...=98846,00.html

If you work for yourself, it's best to form an S-Corp to help offset that tax.

GreyWolf · 07-01-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smax

You are the one who came in stating health care is a fundamental right, not my fault that it's not. If calling it a shade of grey makes you feel better by all means but until there is an amendment in the Bill of Rights, granting free health care to all Americans, you're wrong.

It's a moral issue not a rights issue and the government has no place pushing morality on it's citizens, do they try? you bet but that doesn't make it right and being in this business you should be firmly against that.

As for your claim about how "The rest of the world is doing it", you must not be to familiar with Americans as we like to buck the trend and do things our own way, it's been like that since 1776

I don't really give a toss what it's called - that's just semantics. I also don't give a shit what the US Bill of Rights says - that never was a guide to healthcare.

Who said anything about government "pushing morality on it's citizens"?? Not me. Don't tell me how to think next because I am "in this business" - it matters little what I think - the issue of healthcare has already been decided upon by almost all other western nations, - not by you or me.

Mmmm.. to be honest I also don't give a shit about how "Americans like to buck the trend" - that's not my problem. It is apparently yours. I don't care what the US does - it's not my business unless it gets in my face. The only issue which did affect me was having to pay for my US friends medical bills because the system failed miserably.

The core issue has nothing to do with the US Bill of Rights or "bucking trends" or "opinions". It relates entirely to providing accessible healthcare - you either have this or not.

bhutocracy · 07-01-2007, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

You pay 40% for most middle class people. In the US, it's about 25% for the same person. In fact, we don't have a rate over 35%.

So if you make $100,000 a year, you'll pay around 28% in the US and 40% in the UK. That's a difference in $12,000 a year, and $1000 a month. You can easily provide the best health insurance for your family for under that.

Wrong. I know it seems easy to just look at the top marginal tax rate and think that 28% or 40% of the income is paid in tax, but it's not the way it works. Tax brackets are tiered systems. By making that assumption you are way off the mark.

In the US if you earn US$100,000 you'll pay US$22,331 + state income tax.
In the UK you'll pay US$26,952 - a US$4621 difference..
Which is basically the same amount as the state income tax on average. So the AVERAGE person on 100k in the US pays the EXACT SAME amount as the average person in the UK. If you live in a minority of states with no income tax you save $4621.. giving you $385 a month insurance. Not the best.

The American tax system only really works better for the well off. While there is no real difference at 100k.. at 200k that 40% would have really eaten into it if you were in the UK. Of course you're only talking about 1% of people here. Not the vast majority.

cptnflpjck · 07-01-2007, 05:32 PM

it works over here fine... Do you in America also have to pay for mental health care.

It doesn't make sense how can your government be so selfish, you shouldn't be making money out of the sick

buzzy · 07-01-2007, 05:35 PM

so there u go we pay the same tax as americans and we get better public transport and free healthcare

oh and also here you can live off benefits or as you call it welfare, which you cant live off in america...

ahhh i love the uk

GreyWolf · 07-01-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cptnflpjck

it works over here fine... Do you in America also have to pay for mental health care.

Don't even go there *lol*

Tho maybe not so extreme, but a few Euro and other countries also have a way to go when it comes to mental health. That always was left at the bottom of the in tray. At least that is not yet another financial burden placed on an individual who is mentally ill - and possibly to the extent of selling all assets to pay for it.

The Sultan Of Smut · 07-01-2007, 05:41 PM

In Canada if your condition is life threatening you get same day service (or next morning service) buy if you have a relatively minor injury then you hop on the waiting list for surgery. For example: major stroke = instant MRI, ligament damage in shoulder = waiting list.

Then there are also differences in the quality of care you will recieve depending on the province you're in. Alberta = not too shabby, British Columbia = annoying.

pocketkangaroo · 07-01-2007, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

The American tax system only really works better for the well off. While there is no real difference at 100k.. at 200k that 40% would have really eaten into it if you were in the UK. Of course you're only talking about 1% of people here. Not the vast majority.

How can you say that? A third of our country pays nothing in income tax. The top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes. The top 5% alone pay 56% of the taxes. Heck, the bottom 20% of earners actually get money back.

Basically 50% of our country is paying for everything. I don't see how that benefits just the wealthy?

smax · 07-01-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreyWolf

I don't really give a toss what it's called - that's just semantics. I also don't give a shit what the US Bill of Rights says - that never was a guide to healthcare.

Who said anything about government "pushing morality on it's citizens"?? Not me. Don't tell me how to think next because I am "in this business" - it matters little what I think - the issue of healthcare has already been decided upon by almost all other western nations, - not by you or me.

Mmmm.. to be honest I also don't give a shit about how "Americans like to buck the trend" - that's not my problem. It is apparently yours. I don't care what the US does - it's not my business unless it gets in my face. The only issue which did affect me was having to pay for my US friends medical bills because the system failed miserably.

The core issue has nothing to do with the US Bill of Rights or "bucking trends" or "opinions". It relates entirely to providing accessible healthcare - you either have this or not.

WOW you obviously cant grasp the simple concept of fundamental rights even though you like to toss the term around. Learn the definition of a word before you misuse it again.

If you don't give a shit about The Bill of Rights then you don't give a shit about fundamental rights since you can not have one without the other. Here I'll simplify it for you since that seems to be the only way you can understand.

A fundamental right is a right that has its origin in a country's constitution or that is necessarily implied from the terms of that constitution. These fundamental rights usually encompass those rights considered natural human rights.

Morality refers to the concept of human action which pertains to matters of right and wrong?also referred to as "good and evil"?used within three contexts: individual conscience; systems of principles and judgments?sometimes called moral values?shared within a cultural, religious, secular or philosophical community; and codes of behavior or conduct morality.

So as I'm saying for the third time and and maybe you might get it, a person has no right to health care but people feel moral obliged to offer it. Hence government dictating socialized medicine is not exercising rights its dictating morality.

Now I'm for people having access to affordable health care from a moral standpoint, I've had insurance all of my life and never had a single problem so its easy for me to say fuck them all but I would probably have a hard time sleeping at night.

So in essence , you have as much a right to health care as you do a drivers license.

GreyWolf · 07-01-2007, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smax

WOW you obviously cant grasp the simple concept of fundamental rights even though you like to toss the term around. Learn the definition of a word before you misuse it again.

If you don't give a shit about The Bill of Rights then you don't give a shit about fundamental rights since you can not have one without the other. Here I'll simplify it for you since that seems to be the only way you can understand.

I'll repeat once more.... I have rights to healthcare in the same way all individuals have under a universal healthcare system. What bit do you not understand???

I'll also repeat - I don't care what the US Bill of Rights has to say - that's your concern. My interest in the US Bill of Rights goes as far as my interest in the rights of any nation. Shall we discuss the rights issues of Canada or any other western nation instead of trying to talk about self??

The issue and the subject of the thread is not about Bills of Rights - it's about the ability to get accessible healthcare. I don't care about your agenda or bullshit - if anything I care more about US people who cannot get healthcare than bothering about the Bill of Rights.

I never saw a doctor yet who managed to use the Bill of Rights in his treatment process - tho maybe a few copies could be used to wipe the blood up after an operation.

bhutocracy · 07-01-2007, 07:00 PM

I think you're getting confused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I don't see how that benefits just the wealthy?

Thats because I didn't say that. I said the US system was better for the wealthy than the UK system. I thought I laid that out fairly clearly by showing that the top UK tax rate really only starts to kick in and start making a difference around US$100k.

On a side note, the top 5% paying 50% of all taxes is just a statistical eventuality of having rich people paying a higher tax bracket.. it's the same everywhere. Even with a flat tax the richest 5% will pay more a disproportionate amount.. it's a bit like saying 100 is a higher number than 10.

Probono · 07-01-2007, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

If you work for yourself, it's best to form an S-Corp to help offset that tax.

Note: you pay half your S-corp employer pays the other half. Net savings =zero

DaddyHalbucks · 07-01-2007, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pimpware

But that's the idea, kindo of 1 for all and all for 1.

Most people in US don't understand that, maybe because they are so so so so afraid of the Socialism ghost

This is nothing about socialism, it's about taking minimum care of other people.

It's easy for a healthy guy say that the insurance system works great, but on the 1st real health problem you will change your opinion because it's all wounderland when you are puting money on the insurance company pocket but at first expensive treatment you are kicked from the system.

In general, US people believe too much on urban miths instead of thinking by they selfs.

Leaving grammatical errors aside, this still makes no sense.

Smart Americans don't dislike universal healthcare because of jingoisms like "socialism."

The reason we oppose it is because it creates big government, which is inefficiant, costly, and prone to corruption. Lots of people will take from it, but only some will contribute to it. It's the tragedy of the commons. The cure is worse than the disease.

Let private charity provide more to the poor and indigent.

That said, the US healthcare system is broken. There are probably legislative fixes that can help it.

The free market system works very well most of the time. When it doesn't, you use legislation to tweak it. You don't throw out the baby (capitalism) with the bathwater (broker healthcare/ corporate abuses).

DaddyHalbucks · 07-01-2007, 09:08 PM

Michael Moore is also a lousy filmmaker from a technical stand point.

All the conflicting audios made the movie unbearable.

Sausage · 07-01-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porn Farmer

No.

Think about it for a second, if the English, Canadians and Australians had healthcare systems that sucked you would hear them complaining about it all the time. But they don't. They paise it. Even most conservatives in those countries appreciate the value of universal healthcare.

In Australia we don't have perfect healthcare, but in comparison to America I am really really fortunate to be here and not there! It's not perfect here, but its definitely working.

tony286 · 07-01-2007, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Michael Moore is also a lousy filmmaker from a technical stand point.

All the conflicting audios made the movie unbearable.

he is lousy thats funny.

Probono · 07-01-2007, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Michael Moore is also a lousy filmmaker from a technical stand point.

All the conflicting audios made the movie unbearable.

The issue is not Michael Moore, his film or his abilities. The question was does government health care work in countries that have it. The pulse is it is not perfect but yes it does work.

The system in the US is broken, badly broken and whether it is a government program (feared by the healthcare insurance industry and the AMA) or a private system that assures healthcare to all, something needs to be fixed. If you consider government inefficient and corrupt what do you consider businesses that care more for profits than their customers, ie: health insurance providers?

montel · 07-01-2007, 09:23 PM

healthcare in australia is ok. if people say it is 'broken' here then they dont know what they are talking about.

the Shemp · 07-01-2007, 09:26 PM

- monday - didnt feel well
- tuesday - felt worse
- wednesday - noticed odd bruises on my arms
- thursday - went to local doctor, he ordered blood work
- thursday afternoon - results of blood work are very bad
- thursday evening - admitted to Vancouver General Hospital Leukemia section, private room...consult with Hematologists and and oncologist
- Friday noon - Surgeons insert hickman line in my chest
- Saturday morning - chemotherapy starts

thanks canada

Phil21 · 07-01-2007, 09:43 PM

I think unversal healthcare is a great idea.. but in practice I truly have quite a few worries.

For example..

I was on a business trip in Miami, and came down with a horribly painful middle ear infection. Anyone who's had one of these knows the pain can be unbelievable - I know it was a shock to me!

I have insurance.

So I call around there, to see what wait times are at "urgent care" type clinics. I basically just needed a bottle of freaking penicillin.

Totally. Fucked. Beyond. Belief.

I actually had people laugh at me on the phone when I asked if I could be seen within a few hours. They said if I came in that day, I might be seen the next if I stayed all night. Same situation at the ER's (which I really would have hated clogging up with a simple ear infection!) - hugely long waits for non-critical stuff.

The reason? Tons of people without insurance. Largely immigrant populations, or whathaveyou. I asked around, and it seems this is a condition pretty common in all major US cities. Since I'm not from such a climate, I really had no idea. Where I'm from, you could walk into the ER needing 2 stitches and walk out an hour later (been there, done that) completely done. Or call 20 minutes before you wanted to see a doctor for a possible strep infection and be seen immediately. This is not the case there. The latter was even without insurance, at a cost of less than $150 prescription included!

So, I elected to simply wait until I flew home 2 days later and saw a new doctor I never saw before within 2 hours of getting off the plane.

If "free" healthcare is anything like how the Miami system is run I want absolutely no fucking part of it. It might work if you have a life threatening condition that requires urgent care - but what about shit that makes me totally useless to make a living? I might be *able* to live through the pain, but I can guarantee you I was not providing for my family during that time at the level I should have been.

Being able to pay for quality and prompt care is something I think many people are very wary of giving up. Right now the US system sucks in that the poor without insurance, and poor with not top-of-the-line insurance plans get totally screwed. However, those that can afford the care get it quite well.

How can a rare resource (health care) be provided "equally" to all without the tragedy of the commons happening to it? I work with a couple folks from Canada, and they say our system is far superior for "minor" issues in that they can get fixed up ASAP with no delay, but they far prefer the Canadian system for large (expensive) problems. Having the option of saying "You know, I could suffer through this infection for 2 weeks and be largely useless - or go see a doctor for $200" is a pretty powerful choice. It's not so much of a choice when you are on a 1 week waiting list to see the doctor for a condition that may be gone by then.

Something needs to get fixed, but holy crap it's a tough problem to solve if you ask me.

the Shemp · 07-01-2007, 09:54 PM

i cant believe the misconceptions amercians have about universal health care...is it about the poor getting the same treatment as the rich? i think that must bother a lot of you...

notabook · 07-01-2007, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Shemp

i cant believe the misconceptions amercians have about universal health care...is it about the poor getting the same treatment as the rich? i think that must bother a lot of you...

Most democrats, it does bother. That's why most democrats are pro health care for all - they are empathetic and can actually see the economic benefits of having a national healthcare system. A healthier country means a more productive country; a healthier country means a richer country ? both economically as well as morally. Sure, you won?t see the economic benefit overnight. It will take a few decades for preventive medication to take effect but after a few decades of a universal healthcare system, the USA would benefit greatly.

Axeman · 07-01-2007, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Shemp

i cant believe the misconceptions amercians have about universal health care...is it about the poor getting the same treatment as the rich? i think that must bother a lot of you...

A lot of them don't realize the wait times currently seen in the ER are longer because they don't have universal care. They blame it on the uninsured and illegals flooding the ER. Which is true but the reason behind why they flood the ER escapes them. It's the only place they can go as a last measure for free care. If you had universal care where all were covered most of these people would seek out the family doctors and clinics for their minor ailments instead of flooding the ER and staff with things that are hardly emergencies. Not to mention when you nip things in the bud early in preventive health care instead of sick care, you also decrease the % of people in the ER for issues that became serious due to neglecting them at earlier stages due to having no coverage.

You lived in Bellingham, so you know the propaganda that gets tossed about and the lobbiests that ensure that myths get spewed as fact about health care in the US. When it gets driven at you over and over again from the top on down its pretty easy to take it as fact.

GreyWolf · 07-01-2007, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Michael Moore is also a lousy filmmaker from a technical stand point.

All the conflicting audios made the movie unbearable.

Jeezz - do you ever shut and and stop talking trash???

You are the judge of Moore's abiltity from a "technical stand point"?? What qualifications do you have in the technical aspect of film making?? None.

The sound is called a sound track - Get a hearing aid...

Probono · 07-02-2007, 07:43 AM

I don't think I read a single comment from a person not living in the US that was negative about universal healthcare. US citizens are programmed to fear their government and it's incompetence. Still we pay them 15.3% of our wages for retirement and post retirement healthcare. We trust them with nuclear weapons and we think they are incompetent to handle administering health care. Well if that is correct we should find a new government because this one is not working too well.

The fear of all things socialized is a selective tool used to raise fears in Americans. Many things are already socialized in the US and I doubt you would want a private military (although this administration is close with it's very well paid contractors in Iraq) etc.

American believe the propaganda because they have been lied to for so long about the superiority of the US life that they cannot question that other countries might have better solutions to the same problems. From my first trip out of the USA I realized the US was NOT the perfect nation state taught in the schools.

directfiesta · 07-02-2007, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Leaving grammatical errors aside, this still makes no sense.

Smart Americans don't dislike universal healthcare because of jingoisms like "socialism."

The reason we oppose it is because it creates big government, which is inefficiant, costly, and prone to corruption. Lots of people will take from it, but only some will contribute to it. It's the tragedy of the commons. The cure is worse than the disease.

Let private charity provide more to the poor and indigent.

That said, the US healthcare system is broken. There are probably legislative fixes that can help it.

The free market system works very well most of the time. When it doesn't, you use legislation to tweak it. You don't throw out the baby (capitalism) with the bathwater (broker healthcare/ corporate abuses).

Privatize the Pentagon then ....

Project-Shadow · 07-02-2007, 07:58 AM

I'm content paying my 'extortionate' 40% and getting my health care for free, sure i'd much rather be paying 28% but at the end of the day. I've had my appendix removed, wisdom teeth out, frequent trips to the gum clinic *cough*, general GP checkups all for 'free'

Yes there are things that could be better, it's quite hard to find an nhs dentist but the prices are reasonable if you can find one, but overall i'm pleased with the way the nhs is run.

pocketkangaroo · 07-02-2007, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Leaving grammatical errors aside, this still makes no sense.

Smart Americans don't dislike universal healthcare because of jingoisms like "socialism."

The reason we oppose it is because it creates big government, which is inefficiant, costly, and prone to corruption. Lots of people will take from it, but only some will contribute to it. It's the tragedy of the commons. The cure is worse than the disease.

Let private charity provide more to the poor and indigent.

That said, the US healthcare system is broken. There are probably legislative fixes that can help it.

The free market system works very well most of the time. When it doesn't, you use legislation to tweak it. You don't throw out the baby (capitalism) with the bathwater (broker healthcare/ corporate abuses).

We don't have a free market system right now. Hospitals are required to treat anyone with a life threatening illness, they are required to meet a quota of uninsured people, and "free" clinics are prevelant in poorer areas.

The Pharm companies have lobbied for laws that don't allow us to have a choice on our medicine, by making sure we can't buy drugs overseas. They sell drugs to us for $10 a pill while they sell the same pills to other countries for pennies. Since we can't buy from those other countries, they have a government made monopoly on the product. Explain to me where the free market comes in to play there? Or when they push laws in that make it near impossible for generic manufacturers to compete and force them to buy directly from the main manufacturer.

We can also take a look at Medicare plans that are voted in by the government. The ones that YOUR REPUBLICANS decided to put in place that doesn't allow the government to negotiate prices at all. So much for your party being the ones for capitalism, eh?

Our current healthcare system is not run on the free market system. It is run by the government. The big difference between national healthcare and our current system is that the ones getting the benefits are the insurance companies and Pharm companies that destroy the free market for an extra buck.

We have socialized medicine as it is. Your talking points just care to take the whole national healthcare = communist theory.

Phil21 · 07-02-2007, 09:43 AM

Just want to point out many Americans already have a tax burden above 40% when you consider federal, state, local, fica, and sales taxes.

I know I do. And I'm certainly not at the top of the tax scale either.

Many friends are absolutely floored when I sit down with them and actually show them how much in taxes they are paying. It really is ridiculous.

My largest I guess concerns with public healthcare are twofold.

1. It will result in larger government, and almost assuredly used as an excuse to raise taxes. You can disagree and say that the current system is already "run by the government" - however, no matter what it WILL be used as an excuse to increase the tax burden on Americans whether needed or not.

2. Less choice. Sure, there probably isn't a whole lot of choice in the system as it stands today. However, if you truly can afford it - you can get any sort of care you want immediately. That will not be an option in a public system. There needs to be a way to implement a public system that does not LOWER standards for anyone, while raising the standards for the disadvantaged.

If those two concerns could be met, then I'd be happy with a public health system. If I can walk to the doctor to get a strep check, and not have to wait 2 weeks for it (where I may as well just tough it out at that point), I'm pretty happy and it's an improvement for me. However, I've actually talked with Canadians and the like. There ARE reasons they come here for some health care. In general, it seems that they are extremely happy with their system for "large" things like say heart attacks, major injuries, etc. But pretty turned off from it by smaller less urgent things where queues can measure in months.

Axeman · 07-02-2007, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil21

1. It will result in larger government, and almost assuredly used as an excuse to raise taxes. You can disagree and say that the current system is already "run by the government" - however, no matter what it WILL be used as an excuse to increase the tax burden on Americans whether needed or not.

If your government uses that as an excuse kick them out for people who don't. You have 24 other countries in the western industralized world using universal health care there for you have 24 comparables on what the administrative costs should be as well as total cost per person for each year average. Also you have the benchmark of the total % of GNP spent on health care. If they try and bs you into anything about more government, more taxes etc then you need to present the facts, get them to try and justify their actions and if unhappy, kick their asses out for people who will do it right.

The reality is you spend twice the tax dollars per person per year on health care already then Canada, UK and Britain. Universal care cuts out the bs middlemen and lowers administration costs immensily. If anything your tax dollars should be lowered since your cost per person for health care WILL drop over the next 5-10 years as preventive medicine care and administration costs kick in. If they don't lower your taxes, demand to know where that extra money is being funneled in the government. Who is spending it and why. Maybe its for good things maybe its not and its time to kick their asses out. Thats what democracy is all about. THE PEOPLE should be running the show and you get a chance to show your power every 2 years for the senate and house and every 4 years for the president. Use it well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil21

2. Less choice. Sure, there probably isn't a whole lot of choice in the system as it stands today. However, if you truly can afford it - you can get any sort of care you want immediately. That will not be an option in a public system. There needs to be a way to implement a public system that does not LOWER standards for anyone, while raising the standards for the disadvantaged.

If those two concerns could be met, then I'd be happy with a public health system. If I can walk to the doctor to get a strep check, and not have to wait 2 weeks for it (where I may as well just tough it out at that point), I'm pretty happy and it's an improvement for me. However, I've actually talked with Canadians and the like. There ARE reasons they come here for some health care. In general, it seems that they are extremely happy with their system for "large" things like say heart attacks, major injuries, etc. But pretty turned off from it by smaller less urgent things where queues can measure in months.

With universal you have tons of care and options. I can choose my doctor, my hospital, my specialist. No question for an elective thing such as a knee or shoulder injury you will wait longer to see the specialist and get it fixed than in the US if your HMO is the very best and green lights the procedure in a timely fashion. That is an IF though. And of course if you are rich enough to pay cash for it, then of course it will be faster than in Canada for instance but in Britain where its a universal with the option for private it would be the same.

And your case for strep throat is just crazy. If I feel I have strep I book an appointment with my family doctor in the morning. Go to the appointment and about 30-60 min later walk out with my prescription. If your doctor doesn't have an appointment left for that day and your desperate then just use the walk in clinics and do the waiting list to get in. Works well other than its not your family doctor. There is no reason to not be seen by someone about it within a day let alone your "two weeks" disaster scenario for strep throat. Two weeks maybe to see a specialist for a torn knee but thats after you saw the family or emergency doctor already to determine it wasn't life threating like a severed artery etc.

Jut to clear up some misconceptions. And I have lived under both the Canadian and US systems.

stev0 · 07-02-2007, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fizzgig

There is an exception to this rule. It's possible to live in Canada and not have access to necessary health care, but it takes some really bad luck to fall into that category.

Don't even ask, I'm sure none of you will ever have to worry about it.

Only exception I can think of is if you lived in the middle of nowhere... if you have a problem and get to a hospital you will be treated. Regardless of whether you even have a health care card, they'll treat first and ask question later.

Axarsys · 07-03-2007, 05:04 AM

You think US health system sucks? Where I'm from you have to try pose as a VIP or a high-ranking military/police officer to avoid getting chopped off like a turkey on Thanksgiving. Doctors actually forget their utensils in their patients. But if you have the money or know the people, you're getting the best there is. Damn corruption.

notabook · 07-03-2007, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axarsys

You think US health system sucks? Where I'm from you have to try pose as a VIP or a high-ranking military/police officer to avoid getting chopped off like a turkey on Thanksgiving. Doctors actually forget their utensils in their patients. But if you have the money or know the people, you're getting the best there is. Damn corruption.

Which country is that? And also doctors forgetting utensils in their patients happens quite often in the US as well.

07-01-2007, 03:16 PM	#55
Axeman Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Swamp Posts: 5,201	It should also be noted on the tax argument that by going to universal health care you would not be paying more in taxes and if the government tried to snowball you into believing that, then your getting fucked and should vote in people who won't lie to you. The reality is the US pays double what the canadian government does per tax payer for health care already. And nearly 14% of your GDP is spent on health care which is 3% higher than any socialized nation. With proper health care focusing on preventive care your taxes spent per person on health care should normal itself out to that of Canada, France, Britain, Sweden etc which is nearly half your current levels. So if anything your taxes should decrease unless the government can justify where your extra taxes saved were now being spent and who's pockets it ended up in. __________________ XXXRewards - Karups - Boyfun - Jawked. Paying on time since 1997. Contact me at brent [at] xxxrewards.com

07-01-2007, 03:38 PM	#59
madawgz 8.8.8.8 Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Noordermarkt Posts: 30,509	when i was young i had tons of ear infections... if we lived in the US im sure that my parents wouldnt of been able to afford the bill and we wouldnt be living nice thats for sure...:\ __________________ TAEMDLRMSKRJIXMRLSMRJ.

07-01-2007, 09:08 PM	#78
DaddyHalbucks A freakin' legend! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA Posts: 18,975	Michael Moore is also a lousy filmmaker from a technical stand point. All the conflicting audios made the movie unbearable. __________________ Boner Money

07-01-2007, 09:23 PM	#82
montel Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: See sig! Posts: 2,606	healthcare in australia is ok. if people say it is 'broken' here then they dont know what they are talking about. __________________ Barefootsies

07-01-2007, 09:26 PM	#83
the Shemp congrats to the winners Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Echo Beach Posts: 10,891	- monday - didnt feel well - tuesday - felt worse - wednesday - noticed odd bruises on my arms - thursday - went to local doctor, he ordered blood work - thursday afternoon - results of blood work are very bad - thursday evening - admitted to Vancouver General Hospital Leukemia section, private room...consult with Hematologists and and oncologist - Friday noon - Surgeons insert hickman line in my chest - Saturday morning - chemotherapy starts thanks canada __________________ i use Vacares...so should you Submit your picture galleries to my site...Outlaw TGP

07-01-2007, 04:08 PM	#61
Probono Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Under the Rainbow Posts: 2,731	If you are self employed the rate is 15.3% PLUS your income tax, plus your State Tax. So the rates are higher than you think. If you have a job you only pay 1/2 of the 15.3%, still 7.6% plus your income taxes http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...=98846,00.html

07-01-2007, 05:32 PM	#68
cptnflpjck Registered User Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1	it works over here fine... Do you in America also have to pay for mental health care. It doesn't make sense how can your government be so selfish, you shouldn't be making money out of the sick

07-01-2007, 05:35 PM	#69
buzzy Confirmed User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,606	so there u go we pay the same tax as americans and we get better public transport and free healthcare oh and also here you can live off benefits or as you call it welfare, which you cant live off in america... ahhh i love the uk

07-01-2007, 05:41 PM	#71
The Sultan Of Smut Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver Posts: 4,325	In Canada if your condition is life threatening you get same day service (or next morning service) buy if you have a relatively minor injury then you hop on the waiting list for surgery. For example: major stroke = instant MRI, ligament damage in shoulder = waiting list. Then there are also differences in the quality of care you will recieve depending on the province you're in. Alberta = not too shabby, British Columbia = annoying.

07-01-2007, 09:43 PM	#84
Phil21 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: ICQ: 25285313 Posts: 993	I think unversal healthcare is a great idea.. but in practice I truly have quite a few worries. For example.. I was on a business trip in Miami, and came down with a horribly painful middle ear infection. Anyone who's had one of these knows the pain can be unbelievable - I know it was a shock to me! I have insurance. So I call around there, to see what wait times are at "urgent care" type clinics. I basically just needed a bottle of freaking penicillin. Totally. Fucked. Beyond. Belief. I actually had people laugh at me on the phone when I asked if I could be seen within a few hours. They said if I came in that day, I might be seen the next if I stayed all night. Same situation at the ER's (which I really would have hated clogging up with a simple ear infection!) - hugely long waits for non-critical stuff. The reason? Tons of people without insurance. Largely immigrant populations, or whathaveyou. I asked around, and it seems this is a condition pretty common in all major US cities. Since I'm not from such a climate, I really had no idea. Where I'm from, you could walk into the ER needing 2 stitches and walk out an hour later (been there, done that) completely done. Or call 20 minutes before you wanted to see a doctor for a possible strep infection and be seen immediately. This is not the case there. The latter was even without insurance, at a cost of less than $150 prescription included! So, I elected to simply wait until I flew home 2 days later and saw a new doctor I never saw before within 2 hours of getting off the plane. If "free" healthcare is anything like how the Miami system is run I want absolutely no fucking part of it. It might work if you have a life threatening condition that requires urgent care - but what about shit that makes me totally useless to make a living? I might be able to live through the pain, but I can guarantee you I was not providing for my family during that time at the level I should have been. Being able to pay for quality and prompt care is something I think many people are very wary of giving up. Right now the US system sucks in that the poor without insurance, and poor with not top-of-the-line insurance plans get totally screwed. However, those that can afford the care get it quite well. How can a rare resource (health care) be provided "equally" to all without the tragedy of the commons happening to it? I work with a couple folks from Canada, and they say our system is far superior for "minor" issues in that they can get fixed up ASAP with no delay, but they far prefer the Canadian system for large (expensive) problems. Having the option of saying "You know, I could suffer through this infection for 2 weeks and be largely useless - or go see a doctor for $200" is a pretty powerful choice. It's not so much of a choice when you are on a 1 week waiting list to see the doctor for a condition that may be gone by then. Something needs to get fixed, but holy crap it's a tough problem to solve if you ask me. __________________ Quality affordable hosting.

07-01-2007, 09:54 PM	#85
the Shemp congrats to the winners Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Echo Beach Posts: 10,891	i cant believe the misconceptions amercians have about universal health care...is it about the poor getting the same treatment as the rich? i think that must bother a lot of you... __________________ i use Vacares...so should you Submit your picture galleries to my site...Outlaw TGP

07-02-2007, 07:43 AM	#89
Probono Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Under the Rainbow Posts: 2,731	I don't think I read a single comment from a person not living in the US that was negative about universal healthcare. US citizens are programmed to fear their government and it's incompetence. Still we pay them 15.3% of our wages for retirement and post retirement healthcare. We trust them with nuclear weapons and we think they are incompetent to handle administering health care. Well if that is correct we should find a new government because this one is not working too well. The fear of all things socialized is a selective tool used to raise fears in Americans. Many things are already socialized in the US and I doubt you would want a private military (although this administration is close with it's very well paid contractors in Iraq) etc. American believe the propaganda because they have been lied to for so long about the superiority of the US life that they cannot question that other countries might have better solutions to the same problems. From my first trip out of the USA I realized the US was NOT the perfect nation state taught in the schools.

07-02-2007, 07:58 AM	#91
Project-Shadow Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 7,340	I'm content paying my 'extortionate' 40% and getting my health care for free, sure i'd much rather be paying 28% but at the end of the day. I've had my appendix removed, wisdom teeth out, frequent trips to the gum clinic cough, general GP checkups all for 'free' Yes there are things that could be better, it's quite hard to find an nhs dentist but the prices are reasonable if you can find one, but overall i'm pleased with the way the nhs is run.

07-02-2007, 09:43 AM	#93
Phil21 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: ICQ: 25285313 Posts: 993	Just want to point out many Americans already have a tax burden above 40% when you consider federal, state, local, fica, and sales taxes. I know I do. And I'm certainly not at the top of the tax scale either. Many friends are absolutely floored when I sit down with them and actually show them how much in taxes they are paying. It really is ridiculous. My largest I guess concerns with public healthcare are twofold. 1. It will result in larger government, and almost assuredly used as an excuse to raise taxes. You can disagree and say that the current system is already "run by the government" - however, no matter what it WILL be used as an excuse to increase the tax burden on Americans whether needed or not. 2. Less choice. Sure, there probably isn't a whole lot of choice in the system as it stands today. However, if you truly can afford it - you can get any sort of care you want immediately. That will not be an option in a public system. There needs to be a way to implement a public system that does not LOWER standards for anyone, while raising the standards for the disadvantaged. If those two concerns could be met, then I'd be happy with a public health system. If I can walk to the doctor to get a strep check, and not have to wait 2 weeks for it (where I may as well just tough it out at that point), I'm pretty happy and it's an improvement for me. However, I've actually talked with Canadians and the like. There ARE reasons they come here for some health care. In general, it seems that they are extremely happy with their system for "large" things like say heart attacks, major injuries, etc. But pretty turned off from it by smaller less urgent things where queues can measure in months. __________________ Quality affordable hosting.

07-03-2007, 05:04 AM	#96
Axarsys Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 323	You think US health system sucks? Where I'm from you have to try pose as a VIP or a high-ranking military/police officer to avoid getting chopped off like a turkey on Thanksgiving. Doctors actually forget their utensils in their patients. But if you have the money or know the people, you're getting the best there is. Damn corruption. __________________ www.AdultDesignEvolution.com [DESIGN PORTFOLIO]