SATX John

Actually, those are earned through hard work saving and money management, or Mega Millions..... BTW why not a Jag? everyone has a Benz. Mansion or nice house, jet or RV camper. All are gained through your own hard work, not the government giving "free" things to you.

I disagree that free health care without conditions or restrictions is a "right."

No soda, fatty foods etc... That is the next set of regulations related to where this is going. No smoking, no drinking, no high risk behavior (sky diving scuba diving etc...). Once it starts the flood gates open.

I also think that if implemented it would not be the panacea everyone thinks, it will not cover everything just like Medicare/Medicaid does not.

The idea this law gives everyone something for free is a fallacy. People are required to buy it, with their money or pay a tax / penalty (depending on which day the Gov is arguing). Various plans and options are included, which individuals may or may not choose to accept. Routine health care is one option, catastrophic is another, each at different costs.

What it is not is Free.... Someone pays in the end, just like at the ER, I think this will be no different.

It does look like th mandate may go down. If that happens, the law is not practical since requiring the young to pay into the system is necessary to take care of the old. Basic insurance business numbers.

MHO.

Lion in Winter

I honestly don't know why this is still even under discussion.

Look at the map - look at the countries that have implemented universal health care. All the developed countries - are they really all disasters and "less free" than the US? Is the US really incapable of looking after its people? Look at the company the US keeps in terms of health care provision to its citizenry. The complications of Obama's proposal are a result of pussyfooting around the "t" word. It's absurd. The country's health is a public good - we all pay in and we all take out when we need it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un...ealth_care.svg

frrussre

I meant more in the pre-natal dept, certainly not any kind of religious crap way. I am totally 1000%, womans rights. Free birth control, maybe "Buy one & stop on". Few less babies born, without 2 parents.


Frank R.

frrussre

Yes, but the USA, always knows best.

"Don't confuse us with the truth, we already made up our minds"



Frank R.

frrussre

"[QUOTE=SATX John;9975944]Actually, those are earned through hard work saving and money management, or Mega Millions..... BTW why not a Jag? everyone has a Benz. Mansion or nice house, jet or RV camper. All are gained through your own hard work, not the government giving "free" things to you."

I think thats what I said, the privilege, of earning making or stealing money, as in some Banker/Stock Brokers.




"No soda, fatty foods etc... That is the next set of regulations related to where this is going. No smoking, no drinking, no high risk behavior (sky diving scuba diving etc...). Once it starts the flood gates open."

Sigh!
Frank R.

SATX John

[QUOTE=frrussre;9975982]"

Quote:

Originally Posted by SATX John

Actually, those are earned through hard work saving and money management, or Mega Millions..... BTW why not a Jag? everyone has a Benz. Mansion or nice house, jet or RV camper. All are gained through your own hard work, not the government giving "free" things to you."

Whose money did you steal to live in FT Lauderdale? Kinda up market...ehhhh What about your car?....

SATX John

You are absolutely right we can have a simple clean and efficient system like Russia and the Ukraine. Or even better yet Greece, I hear they are doing Great!!!!

Really wiki... You are better than that.

SATX John

I suppose you ascribe to Eugenics based on your comment?

Lion in Winter

So you really think that the citizens of the UK, Sweden, Germany, France, Australia, etc. etc. etc. would all be better off doing what the U.S. does?

Alternatively,your analysis of the global crash is that it was caused by universal health care?

fatbrit

And the U.S. government has has asserted this by signing:
U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) - see: article 25
U.N. International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966) - see: article 12

SATX John

You cite some countries while not others curious. Spain, Greece, Italy are absent. If you are all in then all should be included.

I do not know the details of those countries budgets, but I would speculate it may have been a contributing cause/issue, along with other social welfare programs. Would require further analysis in each case, but we are speaking in generalities.

I agree it is a complex issue, and cookie cutter does not work. The countries you cite also have significantly higher tax rates than this country. All that goes into the mix. I do not want 50% of my income to go to the government.
Call me greedy, but hey, that is why I do not live in Sweden, and pay their rate.

http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,23..._1_1_1,00.html

Never cite Wiki, but use their sources/ footnotes. Just saying.

Sally Redux

This is a very sensible take on it in Time magazine:

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/home/Ar..._Everyone.html

When Taiwan--another country with a strong free-market economy--decided to create a new health care system in the mid-1990s, it studied every existing model. It too chose a model of universal access and universal insurance but decided against having several private insurers, as Switzerland and the U.S. do. Instead it created a single insurer, basically a version of Medicare. The result: universal access and high-quality care at stunningly low costs. Taiwan spends only 7% of its GDP on health care.

frrussre

[QUOTE=SATX John;9975986] Woe!

Frank R.

frrussre

We can do the same.
The USA, has the great opportunity, to hand pick all the best parts of other countries health care models.

Reg. Frank R.

Mr Weeze

I don't know enough about the healthcare system here to contribute anything of use to any discussion, but am enjoying getting educated with the discussion.

As a side note, I thought people may be interested to know about a study from 2005, published in Nature, on the accuracy of Wikipedia compared to Encyclopedia Britannica.

Nature (requires subscription): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/438900a.html

Summary: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

In a nutshell - wikipedia is no longer as inaccurate as many perceive it to be. However, it is always sensible to have more than one source for anything. Peer reviewed studies will always trump Wikipedia.

And, I would be rightly flamed if I didn't now link to a second study from 2007 - though it is in German. Suffice to say it broadly supports the first.

http://www.stern.de/digital/online/s...us-604423.html

Also, here is the Wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliabi...rative_studies

Not looking to prove a point on either side, just a random thing I remembered from reading stuff.