The New Election, the World Situation, and the Result

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by syscom3

No mans life, liberty or honor is safe when congress is in session.

Sometimes, the less they do, the better it is.

Good point, always though they should be in session for 3-6 months and out digging ditches the rest of the time. At least we would be sure we were getting SOME work for our money for the 6 moths they'd have a shovel in their hands.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Come on they accomplish things when Congress is in session. They raise there salaries each time more and more!

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Come on they accomplish things when Congress is in session. They raise there salaries each time more and more!

[Harvard]

Don't count on it, the liberals want a welfare system in place, and now that they have the power they will shoot for it. Things they are looking to do:

increase gun control, increase taxes, make welfare more comprehensive, and create a socialist style healthcare system.

Somebody said "sometimes it's good to elect liberals to really see hoe extreme they are". To me that's like saying "it's good to sniff a little glue to see how much better it feels when it wears off".

The point is, when you elect liberals whether they are democrat or a republicrat (turncoat), they do permanent damage.

[plan_D]

I find all the talk about the Democrats spending more money than the Republicans, or vice versa. I'm sure you're all well aware that governments do not know how to make money, they only know how to spend it. It's big business that makes a nations coffers overflow.

A socialist health system isn't so bad, although in the U.S it shouldn't be an enforced one like in Britain. Although our National Insurance does supply more for healthcare and a state pension, which is actually really good. The problems with a national health system is that, most of the time, the country that has it allows people to sponge off it without putting money in.

You shouldn't be so worried about which government takes the pedestal, all governments are terrible. Democracy would be a great system if mankind was intelligent - but it's not.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Harvard

and create a socialist style healthcare system.

Everyone having health care is a bad thing? You are so scared of what you dont really understand, it really is funny. I laughed when I read this.

[pbfoot]

I'd really like to know where you get this secret insider information on what the evil liberals have planned .... if living longer is bad I'll go liberal


Updated Tue. May. 30 2006 11:31 PM ET


Canadians healthier than Americans, study says
CTV.ca News Staff

Canadians are healthier and have better access to health care than U.S. residents. And, according to a new study, Canadians obtain better care for half of what Americans spend on their medical system.

"The data is clear and really irrefutable: Canadians are healthier than Americans and they have better access to medical care," Dr. Steffy Woolhandler of the Harvard Medical School said Tuesday. She added that medical care is easier to access for Canadians.

The study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, was conducted by Harvard Medical School researchers. They also found that:

Canadians were seven per cent more likely to have a regular doctor
Canadians were 19 per cent less likely than Americans to have their health needs go unmet.
Americans were more than twice as likely to forgo needed medicines because of cost.
Discrepancies in health care become even wider when taking into account income, age, sex, race and immigrant status. In those kind of detailed comparisons, Canadians were 33 per cent more likely to have a regular doctor and 27 per cent less likely to have an unmet health need.

Meanwhile, Americans had higher rates of nearly every serious chronic disease, including obesity, diabetes and chronic lung disease, even though U.S. residents were less likely to be smokers.

"We pay almost twice what Canada does for care, more than $6,000 for every American, yet Canadians are healthier, and live two to three years longer," said Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor at Harvard and study co-author.

This first-ever cross-national health survey analyzed data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health, with data collected by Statistics Canada and the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics.

It follows a similar study released earlier this month that found white, middle-aged Americans were less healthy than their British counterparts, who spent half as much on health care.

In the latest study, the researchers suggest the biggest barrier to health care in the United States is cost.

More than seven times as many U.S. residents reported going without needed care due to cost, compared to Canadians.

Uninsured U.S. residents were particularly vulnerable, with 30.4 per cent having an unmet health need due to cost, the study reported.

Wait times not a factor in study

CTV's Avis Favaro said the study found Canadians wait, on average, three times more than Americans for medical treatment.

"But when you look at the actual number, it was aa little over three per cent waiting for medical treatment, which is a tiny proportion when you look at the big picture, although doctors and patients might disagree with that," she said.

Lead author Dr. Karen Lasser said that, while Canada gets negative press about long wait times for medical procedures, the health system seems to work better.

"No one ever talks about the fact that low-income and minority patients fare better in Canada," said Lasser, a primary care doctor at Cambridge Health Alliance and an instructor at Harvard Medical School. "Based on our findings, if I had to choose between the two systems for my patients, I would choose the Canadian system hands down."

Dr. Raisa Deber of the University of Toronto said the message of the study is that "the sky is not falling."

"The take-home message is: When you compare Canada to the United States, Canada is spending a lot less money to get better results," said Deber, who specializes in health policy, management and evaluation.

"There are small improvement in places that could be fixed and could be made better. But on average the system is working quite well."

The one problem noted in the study: About 21 per cent of Canadian women were not receiving recommended cervical cancer screening.

"However, death rates from cervical cancer have long been lower in Canada than in the United States, presumably reflecting past screening practices and population risk factors," the study said.

The Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health surveyed 3,505 Canadians and 5,183 U.S. residents between November 2002 and March 2003.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I mean the European systems are not the greatest but atleast eveyone has insurance.

In Germany everyone has government medical insurance. They get there medications, they get seen by the docs. However in Germany everyone has the right to opt out of the government health care system and recieve private insurance. If they do so, they no longer have to pay into the government system and they just have to pay for there own private insurance.

You have a choice and it is not bad. Everyone has medical coverage. If you can not afford private insurance then you have the government one.

Not a bad deal to me. I also know all the other US soldiers and there families that come over here and live for a few years, agree and think the system works great.

Is it flawless? No, but atleast everyone has medical coverage.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I mean the European systems are not the greatest but atleast eveyone has insurance.

In Germany everyone has government medical insurance. They get there medications, they get seen by the docs. However in Germany everyone has the right to opt out of the government health care system and recieve private insurance. If they do so, they no longer have to pay into the government system and they just have to pay for there own private insurance.

You have a choice and it is not bad. Everyone has medical coverage. If you can not afford private insurance then you have the government one.

Not a bad deal to me. I also know all the other US soldiers and there families that come over here and live for a few years, agree and think the system works great.

Is it flawless? No, but atleast everyone has medical coverage.

America has always been one of the most anti-socialist countries - the majority cringe at the thought of gov't run programs. I don't think any state sponsored insurance will happen - no way in hell it'll override a sure to come veto. Also - think of the system for healthcare they want to create - it's not going to be one where monetary inputs even come close to expenditures - it'll amount to sponging, which is what PD said. No way America will pass a socialist system like that.
Where's the money going to come from if the dems took the white house and still had control of congress - you can probably count on a castrated military: the good old days of 1/2 strength TOE.

[syscom3]

The US needs something like the German system. Like Deradler pointed out, you can have private insurance, or have a govt sponsered insurance plan.

The key is, everyone has to have it and every employer has to provide it. If there is one thing the Govt can do to provide a service for the health care industry is to keep the f***ing lawyers away. Complaints and charges about bad doctors should be handled by a quasi-govt commision that can determine whether a complaint is worthy of further action or compensation.

I work in the health care industry and have seen some incredible figures, that nearly 20% of all health care costs go directly to the malpractice insurance and legal departments.

[Harvard]

We don't need gov't healthcare. People need to pay $200 a yr for their own physicals, and take care of themselves. People are too cheap, and need to set some money aside and plan for certain contengencies.

Back to healthcare, if they need expensive surgery they need to have insurance. No healthcare, and no raising taxes.

I don't want to pay for others who can't plan and take care of themselves.

Let's compare "health care" w/ "Retirement". A lot of people are retiring into poverty, usually because they didn't plan. In more rare cases they couldn't keep a steady job or due to a tragedy. Maybe we taxpayers should pay for them for retirement too.

Let's compare "healthcare" w/ owning a house. Most people can't afford a house. If we can pay for healthcare, we should pay for this too.

So let's pay for people's houses, healthcare and retirement. That's socialism, the US isn't a socialist country. Solution: Move to a country that suits you better. You've got Sweden, Finland, Germany, England and France, pick your poison.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Harvard

We don't need gov't healthcare. People need to pay $200 a yr for their own physicals, and take care of themselves. People are too cheap, and need to set some money aside and plan for certain contengencies.

If they need expensive surgery they need to have insurance. No healthcare, and no raising taxes.

I don't want to pay for others who can't plan and take care of themselves.

And how do you propose that people that live below the poverty line pay for there insurance? I guess under your thinking these people should just die and live in pain for the rest of there lives because you feel that they should pay for it themselves because themselves even if they can not afford it.

Yeah okay....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Harvard you live in a United States that does not exist....

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

And how do you propose that people that live below the poverty line pay for there insurance? I guess under your thinking these people should just die and live in pain for the rest of there lives because you feel that they should pay for it themselves because themselves even if they can not afford it.

Yeah okay....

Yes!!!!!

Harvard had better hope that for the rest of his life, he never has some bad luck and is reliant on others for help.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Harvard

Let's compare "health care" w/ "Retirement". A lot of people are retiring into poverty, usually because they didn't plan. In more rare cases they couldn't keep a steady job or due to a tragedy. Maybe we taxpayers should pay for them for retirement too.

Okay what about the people that did plan but never could get anything going. The single mother with 6 kids living in a small arpartment in a bad place. She cant go anywhere... she cant make eneogh money...

Originally Posted by Harvard

Let's compare "healthcare" w/ owning a house. Most people can't afford a house. If we can pay for healthcare, we should pay for this too.

Nobody said pay for anyones house here. So I dont understand why you bring that up. In Germany for instance the government does not pay for anyones house. You live in what you can afford and thats it. That is not socialism as you put it. I dont want to see the US become a socialist state either, but health care is a good thing.

There is nothing wrong with having government healthcare. You are just scared of what you dont know or understand.

Originally Posted by Harvard

So let's pay for people's houses, healthcare and retirement. That's socialism, the US isn't a socialist country. Solution: Move to a country that suits you better. You've got Sweden, Finland, Germany, England and France, pick your poison.

I think I hear a poor little rich kid here who just wants to complain about stuff...