The New Election, the World Situation, and the Result

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

how can you say worse healthcare when Cuba a 3rd world country has a lower infant mortality rate then the US. But for Harvard its the kids fault for not preparing properly for its future.

Pb - I did not say it would be worse, I said it CAN lead to less efficient and effective healthcare for all. The growing healthcare funding problem in Germany is one example (state employed doctors threatening to strike!)- it's terribly expensive for the gov't to provide healthcare for all its citizens - and taxes need to be levied to provide that funding. Shortfalls of doctors and other healthcare providers is another issue.
Infant mortality is only one indicator of healthcare - but you're right, it is important. If a society cannot care for it's newborn and its future, then what the hell is wrong w/ it!? Cuba's estimated inf mort is very slightly lower than US, and US life expectancy is very slightly higher. I'm not in a position to argue various aspects affecting infant mort - although I would believe it would be quite an interesting study in terms of sociology and demographics. You would have to look at what is causing the high mortality rates in those segments of society where it is substantially higher - and why are those individuals not providing the healthcare and nutrition for their newborns. As I stated before, there are other alternatives to blanket gov't healthcare. A complete overhaul of medicaid/care is overdue. It's not about denying healthcare to citizens, but its about going about and providing the needed service in the most economically sound, and medically effective and efficient way.

Think about this: my mother was at Sloan-Kettering in NY for cancer surgery recently. There was a russian national here w/o any insurance in the room w/ her, receiving the same expensive healthcare... not even a citizen... and there are Americans that are not receiving basic healthcare, let alone oncology care. The system does need to be fixed indeed, but I'm not convinced gov't provided healthcare is the answer.

The majority of Americans would agree - it's just a step too far for us. On a side note, Cuba would historically be considered a 2nd worlder, since they threw their lot in with the USSR, not the 3rd world of the non-aligned nations... although I understand you were referring to cuba's hefty per capita gdp of 3,500 USD.

[Harvard]

If I were a politician, (no thanks) I would propose this solution: The poor and helpless American Citizen can recieve help if they present proof that they are making less than $10,000/yr.

After that, every able bodied American shall take care of their own health.

The dems don't want this. they want to give healthcare to everybody. Even people who don't need it. They want to raise your taxes, and they don't care about the poor. the people we just elected to control the house and senate care about one thing themselves, and their own power.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Harvard

If I were a politician, (no thanks) I would propose this solution: The poor and helpless American Citizen can recieve help if they present proof that they are making less than $10,000/yr.

Why $10,000? is that $10,000 for Appalachia? NYC? New Orleans?

After that, every able bodied American shall take care of their own health.

What about a 55 yo factory worker who's job went to china?

The dems don't want this. they want to give healthcare to everybody. Even people who don't need it. They want to raise your taxes, and they don't care about the poor. the people we just elected to control the house and senate care about one thing themselves, and their own power.

The democrats arent saints, but they are on the right side of the issue when it comes to affordable universal healthcare.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Why $10,000? is that $10,000 for Appalachia? NYC? New Orleans?.

Good point sys, but I think what harv was trying to say is that those americans that are able to procure their own healthcare through their employers, for example, would not need to be covered by this universal gov't healthcare system.

Originally Posted by syscom3

What about a 55 yo factory worker who's job went to china?

This is a whole other topic, and I am not fond of the newfound glory of outsourcing, but how would you propose to stop it? In the example you gave - hopefully there would be early retirement packages offered - but what's right and what is economical are often not the same.

Originally Posted by syscom3

The democrats arent saints, but they are on the right side of the issue when it comes to affordable universal healthcare.

I think it's great that they're bringing light to the issue of healthcare coverage, but what I would want to see is the system left largely intact, with the private industry augmented by a completely rewritten policy for the underprivileged. I believe it's best to grant people free will to make their own determinations, rather than government will.

[Harvard]

"What about a 55 yo factory worker who's job went to china?"

You don't need healthcare for this guy, frankly he needs to find another job. If he can't do that, then he can be one of the poor and get healthcare as a $10000 and under bracket. It would work great. I suppose we should just hand everything to this guy since he's down on his luck too. We can give him gov't welfare retirement pay, and gov't housing too. I mean he's a poor guy.

Guess what else, this guy would get his care only if he stays poor, and that will motivate him to do something about it. Far better than "universal care", The Universal Care destroys personal motivation and ambition. It's a completely socialistic idea, no matter how you cut it.

This is the union mentality, that people should be paid according to their demands, not by their skills. Keep in mind unions put our American companies out of business, by making employers pay for so much that business folds.


"democrats arent saints, but they are on the right side of the issue when it comes to affordable universal healthcare."

No they're on the left side. It's a left wing idea. Do you know what universal health care is? It's giving healthcare even to people who can afford it and don't need it. Instead we all pay higher taxes. It's a total waste of money. Why do you promote such a preposterous, awkward idea?

[mkloby]

That is one of the major problems with the turn towards socialism - the stifling of personal ambition and reward. Socialism was initially intended to be an end state, yet as european political socialist parties came into power, they often became committed to keeping the capitalist state intact - and harnessing capitalist growth to further fund social programs. It's all about where to draw the line - a strong case can be made that the socialist measures instituted in france have done much harm to the economy - hurthing rich and poor alike.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Harvard

"What about a 55 yo factory worker who's job went to china?"

You don't need healthcare for this guy, frankly he needs to find another job. If he can't do that, then he can be one of the poor and get healthcare as a $10000 and under bracket. It would work great. I suppose we should just hand everything to this guy since he's down on his luck too. We can give him gov't welfare retirement pay, and gov't housing too. I mean he's a poor guy.

I think your attitudes will be changing completely when your in your 50's and your employer mentions "outsourcing". I used to think like you, but then I grew up and discovered things arent so cut and dried.

Guess what else, this guy would get his care only if he stays poor, and that will motivate him to do something about it. Far better than "universal care", The Universal Care destroys personal motivation and ambition. It's a completely socialistic idea, no matter how you cut it.

Far from socialism, its great for capitalism. Its the govts responsibility to put a "floor" under the natural tendency of the markets to make sure all benifits are eliminated. When people are no longer worried about being serfs and peons, they look to not being a member of a union.

This is the union mentality, that people should be paid according to their demands, not by their skills. Keep in mind unions put our American companies out of business, by making employers pay for so much that business folds.

Unions in some cases perform valuble services. Nearly all of our accepted benifits these days, like vacations and some level of employer subsidized retirement and health care is the result of union activity dating back to the 30's. You can also thank Unions for things like the 40 hour week and 5 day work week.

"democrats arent saints, but they are on the right side of the issue when it comes to affordable universal healthcare."

No they're on the left side. It's a left wing idea. Do you know what universal health care is? It's giving healthcare even to people who can afford it and don't need it. Instead we all pay higher taxes. It's a total waste of money. Why do you promote such a preposterous, awkward idea?

I am in the health care industry and I know what works and what doesnt.

I cant wait to see your attitudes when you have a family, your unemployed and then you start worrying about how to pay the insurance premiums.

[plan_D]

mkloby and Havard; you're taking National Health well out of porportion. A health care system doesn't make people unwilling to achieve; it's the over the top benefits people get for having kids, or being a drug addict that does that.

Great Britain has had the NHS since 1949 and it worked great for decades. The National Insurance pays for the NHS and State Pension, there's no problems with that. People worked; and I certainly still want more money in the bank.

The problem lies with the people; the scum who sponge off it. Drug addicts, for a start, don't deserve it. It's their own fault. In America you can get cancer and end up dead or bankrupt, that's just sick.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by plan_D

mkloby and Havard; you're taking National Health well out of porportion. A health care system doesn't make people unwilling to achieve; it's the over the top benefits people get for having kids, or being a drug addict that does that.

Great Britain has had the NHS since 1949 and it worked great for decades. The National Insurance pays for the NHS and State Pension, there's no problems with that. People worked; and I certainly still want more money in the bank.

The problem lies with the people; the scum who sponge off it. Drug addicts, for a start, don't deserve it. It's their own fault. In America you can get cancer and end up dead or bankrupt, that's just sick.

I was speaking of not health care system - but socialism in general. The socialist parties themselves recognized this after they came to power, and that socialist measures if taken too far would hurt the economy, so they made socialist programs secondary to economic growth.

As said before, I just don't disagree with the concept behind universal healthcare - I just don't believe a national healthcare system is the way America needs to go, when the majority of Americans are able to procure their own healthcare insurance and receive adequate care. Steps should be instituted to help the poor. Again - it's all about how far you take said measures. I generally believe in the less gov't interference in our lives, the better.

PD - hasn't the labour gov't been attempting to change the NHS, and introduce free market into the healthcare system, or am I wrong on this?

[Matt308]

You want a good start at solving the healthcare problem? Just like they should do for paying taxes, every time you go to the doctor, you should have to take the checkbook out and write some money to the doctor. Get rid of healthcare plans that make seeing the doctor mostly transparent. How many Americans get a sniffle, go to the doc and are told that they have a bloody cold. I see it every day. The amount of money that could be saved is likely in the billions. While not the end all, it would be a great start in reducing premiums, put people more in touch with their health costs and prioritize doctor visits.

Then limit malpractice awards. While I feel that losing a family member would be my worst nightmare, I also don't think that those unfortunate enough to have that happen should be awarded a monetary finding capable of starting a third world country.

Next focus on immigration and it's impact to healthcare costs.

There is no silver bullet, but there are many areas that could be addressed in one session of congress.

[Erich]

agreed ! co-pay works out fine here for those small installments and if you have a good health insurance provider yourself who needs the frickin govt for support. And isn't this truly what it is about ladies/gents ? to be seperate and all autonomous and self surviving. guess my training did and still teaches me these small and almost taken for granted things of life

[mkloby]

I agree with both of you, Matt and Erich. Matt - malpractice cases in this country are flat out of control. The legal system needs protections put in it to get rid of the "take a shot" lawsuit attitude in this country... perhaps full financial responsibility of losing a friv lawsuit filed for court/clerk fees etc would be nice. Personally - I hate government involvement in my life. Sweden did a study in the 50's about the best setup for a home, everything from outlet locations, to types of furniture, and standard equipment in the home. This would all be provided by the state to the citizens, out of their own tax monies. That's the worst case of gov't involvement under a socialist gov't I have yet to see, luckily they sh*tcanned that program. That's a basic fundamental of American culture - which is why I find it amazingly unlikely that there will be massive gov't sponsored healthcare in the US.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by mkloby

But - it can also mean less effective and efficient healthcare for all... which is what a gov't sponsored healthcare system would likely cause. America is already acutely short of healthcare professionals. Anyhow, America is extremely unlikely to take that step towards socialism. It's going to remain a dream of hillary clinton and company.

So not as good health care is better than people who can not afford health care at all?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And Harvard you are basically proposing what I have been saying all along, you just choose not to see that.

A program that allows healthcare for the poor but for those that can afford private insurance do not recieve it. For the last couple of pages I have been saying that.

It is similar to what they do here in Germany. Basically the people that can afford it dont have the government health care and they dont pay taxes to the government health care either. If you recieve insurance from your employer you dont have government health care and dont pay the taxes into the health care system.

[Matt308]

Interesting Adler.