I must say knowing both the English and US system well the thing that strikes me most is the massive amount of administration and bureaucracy in the US.

My wife visits one doc who works alone in his practise. He has one medical support staff, nurse or whatever and two fulltime accounting / administration staff. These girls seem to be on the phone almost fulltime with insurance companies sorting stuff out.

A doctors visit can produce about 5 or 6 pieces of mail here sometimes. Pregnancy throws up all kinds of tests, samples, scans etc and you seem to get a different letter from each link in the chain either asking for a co-pay or sometimes just informing you you don't have to pay a co-pay and then a final letter from the insurance company telling you exactly what went down.

I don't like all the damn paperwork on my desk :)

Chile was close and it didn't turn out too cool. I think it was only their copper mines that remained publicly owned which saved their economy from 100% ruin.

Laissez-faire economics was also tried in Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil during the 60s and 70s all with the same outcome :(

Oh, sure. Any libertarian being interviewed on FOX would voice a similar argument.

No I don't.

However, if we reformed the system we could cover everybody and not spend one extra cent on health care.

You have to get over your aversion to the word "tax". If you had a choice of paying a $300 a month "tax" or a $400 a month "premium" which would you choose?

Capitalism isn't a religion....you won't go to hell if you change your mind on a few things. :winkwink:

Call me socialist, but I believe a community needs to care for those citizens who are unable to care for themselves. Although some people would call it natural selection and hope the weakest would just die off quickly, there will always be a certain proportion of the population living in poverty. Poverty creates desperation which leads to increased crime, which is increased drain on the economy (legal system fees, jailing system costs, and lost products in the goods chain because they were stolen instead of paid for.) Poverty also begets malnutrition and lack of education, which leads to increased disease, which is increased drain on the economy (loss of productivity, medication costs for the already-sick instead of preventative medicine and education, welfare costs.)

So it's really in the best interests of a society to make sure everyone is healthy and working and not too desperate or depressed. If that costs the haves a little bit to make sure the have-nots aren't wanting to steal things and aren't spreading disease and whatnot, then I'm fully willing to pay that added tax.

K, back to my coffee..

Umm.. The only people who think like yourself on this issue are the super right wing republicans, your argument has all the words of a talk radio hosts, which are super right wing nut jobs.

If I made 10m a year, I wouldn't need the Gov, I would pay for insurance. Canada has insurance too, you can opt out of the Gov medical system. And the price is the same for everyone, it's a set price, or so close the differences are hardly noticeable. The Rich wouldn't pay more, duh..

If health care was currently affordable by all, had forced-regulation, and poor/vets/kids could get it without question, I would support that over universal health care.

Me personally? I'd be happy as hell to pay only $300 *or* $400 per month in healthcare. As it is right now the percentage of my income that goes toward healthcare (Function 550 in the Federal Budget) as taxes is well in excess of that.

You think of libertarians as "super right wing nut jobs"?

National Platform of the Libertarian Party Jul 2, 2000

Government should not be in the health insurance business

We advocate a complete separation of medicine from the state. We oppose any government restriction or funding of medical or scientific research, including cloning. We support an end to government-provided health insurance and health care. Government?s role in any kind of insurance should only be to enforce contracts when necessary, not to dictate to insurance companies and consumers which kinds of insurance contracts they may voluntarily agree upon.

Wow, you do listen to talk radio don't you? I heard this exact thing on the local talk radio show, man - so much bad and incorrect information going around.

You probably think that Canadians actually pay more in Taxes than Americans too? That is after all what the news tells you, so it must be true.

8 years ago, what do they say today?

And the Libertarian Party, doesn't represent the Libs that are working Americans, families, that can't afford help.

Colin, you are talking out of straight fear, and nothing else. Fear of being super taxed, fear of this effecting your money, fear of making less money.

People like you have turned this country into trash.

It would cost less if the Gov just paid your kind to leave so us people with a heart could actually take this country to a great level.

I look at the US Federal Budget every year. The "information" can neither be correct nor incorrect by itself. It depends on how much you pay in taxes.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...9/pdf/hist.pdf

Let's say you net $10 million per year and that 56% of the budget goes toward the military expenses. Then you paid $5.6 million per year for war. That sounds a little too expensive to me.

:upsidedow:2 cents:

You should try reading a bit more than the budget report, since it has little to nothing to do with this, since it's paid for by the people, for the people. When you deregulate the industry, the costs drop back to normal.

Remember, we pay $100+ for pills that really only cost $2

You are absolutely correct. I've already said that the US should pay less for military. We sure don't need a dozen aircraft carriers in 2008, DF.

BTW. Where did you get 56% from?

I am really quite fine with the way things are. I would prefer to pay less in taxes and to have a smaller government but it's not like it's bothering me. I'm just stating my preferences for the way I'd like things to be. You can tax me more and increase the size of the government. I'll live. It's just not my preference. I don't have any control or influence over it. I'm just a regular guy running a few companies and going about my daily life.

I don't know about people like me "turning this country into trash". I just sell porn, Doc. I'm not a politician. I don't work for the government. Now maybe you feel you are a better person than me and you "have a heart". Maybe you really are a better person. Maybe you work for your city government to make the world a better place and just work in porn as a side job. Good for you, Doc. Good for you. Our country needs GREAT AMERICANS like you.

That looks like it just discretionary spending. Yeah?

I support a small Gov, but that has nothing to do with heath care provided by the Gov. You can small/large Gov and still have Gov provided health care.

The comment on turning the country into trash, isn't about politicians. It's about the people with more money than they need not wanting to share a little to help all americans/humans.. Even more so when chances are it would never effect your money, but just the thought it, is enough to make you bark.

Of the top of my head .... as an example...

It seems to be in fact between 45 and 50%, but this not including the funding of Iraq and Afghanistan ... Many articles address this issue...

http://www.borgenproject.org/images/DiscFY2004Pie.gif

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/images/budget_pie.gif

Not to point out the obvious but the "poor" in the US already get free healthcare. Hell, you can be illegally here and get free healthcare. Most states offer VERY inexpensive health insurance for children of working families and the top incomes to qualify (I think here in GA it's $42K) are quite generous.

The problem right now is that the costs aren't spread amongst those who are using the services. I pay for my healthcare with my $$$ and my insurance AND I pay for the healthcare of those who can't/won't pay for their own.

How to fix that? I don't know. One idea is to have mandated health insurance like there's mandated car and homeowner's insurance. Of course, that doesn't help us with the illegals we spend billions to treat each year.

BTW folks, national defense doesn't just cover wars. There are 10's of thousands of military personal, buildings, vehicles, training facilities, etc. which have nothing to do with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Good stuff, even more reasons why we should have universal health care. If we already kind of have it, and we are all eating the tax on it anyway, we should standardize it.

That's just discretionary spending, DF.

I don't want universal healthcare. I don't want the US government to run the healthcare system. They haven't done anything right yet, why would I want to entrust my health to them??!! :helpme

When you look at the total budget including off-budget items the numbers should look like something like this for these items.

Social Security 22%
Medicare 14%
Income Security 13%
Health 10%

These are from the 2008 "estimate" but are reasonably close.

I've gotta go home but if anyone is looking at a budget for the US and it doesn't have a huge chunk for social security then you know you are looking at just the discretionary budget. Laterz ...

Neither democratic candidates plans (dont know if the republicans have plans they've put out), require you to drop your private insurance or change anything at all. Of course any tax money it needs you wont be able to opt out of, but thats how it is now with so many things. Paying school tax if you have no kids would be similar imho. Or if you have kids and send them to private schools, you're kinda paying twice.

On tax increases, lets also bear in mind that there is so much "pork" that can be cut, it wont be as if we're starting from 0. We'll need to cut the crap first. Requiring congress members to attach their names to their 11th hour pork will help us weed out the idiots in time.

Besides all that, I'll personally never forget watching my neighbor get her new shiny car, tell me she's moving into a house she bought, and having her *welfare* check accidently delivered to my mailbox :( fuck, I mean come on. There's enough built-in error to be trimmed to get this all done with barely any monetary pain at all. And thats really the bottom line isn't it?

If you dont HAVE TO switch from your current health care status, and it doesnt cost you MORE money when all the negatives are deducted and positives added.. then surely there is no remaining issue to fight over?

and how do the insurance companies with their lobby within the congress run it?

- refuse a treatment if you are too expensive to cure?
- refuse an insurance to those who are pre-destined to be expensive?
- willing you to co-pay for every other treatment?
- charging a fortune for medicaments?

Is that what they do?

You're entrusting your health to the doctors that treat you, not the organization that pays the bill. Do you trust insurance companies with your health? Also, as mentioned previously, you could potentially choose to opt out of the universal coverage and provide your own.

As for the info you provided on the programs in the US for low income families, these families get much better coverage through the goverment for little to no cost as compared to what I get through my wonderful, caring insurance company. That's seriously uncool.

I have had BCBS for the last 12 years and haven't had any of those experiences. I pay EXACTLY what I agreed to pay in my contract with them. I recently had almost $200K worth of medical bills and several bills were paid by BCBS before I even got home. Meanwhile my personal doctor no longer accepts Medicare or Medicaid patients because the government always took MONTHS to pay him back for services rendered.

Ask anyone in an area that has a local government hospital if they are willing to be treated there and most people will tell you "No, HELL NO!".

That's totally true.

I bought me some really small first aid bandage crap in the States.

It's something I use to buy in Europe, of course without any prescription or coverage.

HELL it costed me 10 USD !

Exactly the same crap that's all over the world the same I am buying here for something like 50 cents...

Why do you need to make 20 times more expensive something that people use when they get hurt?

That's the ratio between healthy / supportive vs. unhealthy / crippled

You are on the right side of the weights yet, and there will hardly be enough of those who are on the other side - so it's a very clever plan how to cash in mad coin, you will always persuade enough people that you give them the best care till the ratio between happy vs. fucked is in place

Do you really don't know ANYONE who would get fucked by his insurance company?

Might someone as well have an interest in this?

Might someone as well have an interest in this?

You already kinda entrust the Gov with your health already, they tell you what foods you can eat (or allowed to import), the canning/preserve process, every drug illegal or not, meat, all of it really. They don't provide any of these directly, they regulate it.

By having universal health by the Gov will force the insurance companies to play by the rules rather than setting the rules and forcing us to play their game. Since it's an option, why not have it?

You are all arguing how to spend money we do not have.. I think its rather funny. How about we stop BORROWING money first, then decide how we can spend what we have left.

Crazy what 8 years and one nut case can do.

Speaking of differences. I was just in Amsterdam and had a cold. They told me I needed to have a prescription just to get a decongestant. Really it is not a big deal but it is funny the little differences that can really annoy you when you are used to doing things one way.

On paying $100 for $2 pills. I'm sure there are SOME like that but as a Pfizer shareholder I can only WISH they were all like that. There's DEFINITELY no 98% profit margin (again, on average).

Pfizer made $48 billion revenue last year and the cost of the goods sold was $11 billion. That may sound obscene to some of you but then out of that $37 billion in gross profit there is another $29 billion in expenses. A HUGE R&D budget for example. No pharmaceutical company can survive for long without a new drug pipeline. Old drugs come off patent all the time introducing generic competition. After that there is over $1 billion in taxes. In the end there is a 14.5% profit margin. The $100 pill, on average, costs about $85 for the company to produce when you count all the overhead. Maybe they could sell it for $95 instead.

Trust me, some of the placebos they sell are about 800 - 2000 pct. in profit..

Basically you re - pack the same stuff that was invented by Luis Pasteur and give it a new name and a nice TV commercial, and you sell that instead of for 10 USD for 200 USD.

Talk to any doctor to confirm that.. (I don't mean specifically Pfizer but in general)