Democrats Weigh Health Mandate as Obama Urges Taxing Wealthy

[Geezah]

President Barack Obama wants Congress to consider taxing the wealthy instead of workers to pay for a health-care overhaul, as House Democrats discuss a plan to require health insurance for most Americans.

The Obama administration stepped up efforts to influence health-care legislation today as advisers David Axelrod and Austan Goolsbee appeared on television talk shows to discuss the issue.

The president is trying to avoid broad-based levies such as a Senate proposal to tax some employer-provided health benefits Axelrod said. Instead he is urging lawmakers to reconsider limiting all tax deductions for Americans in the highest tax brackets.

“He made a very strong case for the proposal that he put on the table, which was to cap deductions for high-income Americans, and he urged them to go back and look at that,” Axelrod said on the CNN’s “State of the Union.” Goolsbee, appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” said Obama is “mindful” about how “ordinary Americans are able to foot the bills” and never proposed taxing employee benefits.

House Democrats are weighing a new proposal in response to Obama’s call for legislation to be enacted by August. An outline of the plan obtained by Bloomberg News would require Americans to have insurance with some exceptions.

It would probably exempt those who can prove they can’t find an affordable policy. There could be a tax penalty for those with adequate financial resources who don’t elect to get insurance, according to the outline.

Group Rates

The outline suggests consumers who have individual health insurance policies that they like could keep them. Still, it says that “by and large” the nation’s market for individually purchased health insurance policies would move to a new federally operated exchange. It would permit both individuals and employees of small firms to buy policies at less expensive group rates.

“States will have the option to run a state exchange but the default will be a national exchange,” according to the outline.

Karen Lightfoot, a spokeswoman for House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat whose panel is working on a proposal, said the document that is circulating is not the official work of the committee.

All House Democrats will be briefed June 9 on the details of a single piece of legislation that three House committees will work on, with the House slated to act by the end of July. The proposal is part of a broader push by Democrats in Congress to complete a revamp of the U.S. health-care system by an early fall timetable set by Obama.

Kennedy’s Approach

In the Senate, health committee chairman Edward Kennedy has an early draft of legislation that also includes a so-called “individual mandate,” and would require all employers to supply health insurance for workers or contribute to the cost of a plan.

Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, would also create a public health plan to compete with private insurers, a priority of Obama’s that is opposed by Republicans, and would bar insurers from limiting coverage.

The effort to overhaul health-care would affect a sector that makes up 17 percent of the U.S. economy. The goal of Democratic supporters is to provide insurance to most of the nation’s 46 million uninsured, and lower the soaring cost of care. A key challenge is the potential impact of legislation on an already rising U.S. budget deficit that may reach $1.8 trillion this year.

Axelrod, speaking on CNN today, said the ultimate goal of legislation is to reduce costs.

“We have to bring down the cost of health care,” he said. “If we do that and make it affordable, people are going to buy it, mandate or no mandate.”

Burdens on Business

Google Inc. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, speaking on Fox, said reducing costs would also ease burdens on business.

“The only way to really address this is to address the combination of coverage and cost,” Schmidt said. “So anything that the Congress and the president does has to do that. And from my perspective, the sooner the better.”

“You won’t fundamentally solve the problems in business until you solve the problem of spiraling health-care costs, which is driving everybody crazy,” he added.

Lawmakers have a plethora of proposals to raise the hundreds of billions estimated to be needed for an overhaul, including new taxes on soda, beer, and wine, and a partial tax on employer-provided health insurance for the first time. The tax-free nature of employer-provided insurance is the biggest tax expenditure in the federal budget.

Taxing Cap Deductions

Obama’s own proposal would set a 28 percent cap on tax deductions for items such as mortgage interest, investment expenses and charitable gifts for Americans in the two highest tax brackets, which would be 36 percent and 39.6 percent under his proposals. Without the cap, they would be able to deduct 36 cents and 39.6 cents on the dollar for those expenses, respectively.

Obama also proposes new taxes on securities dealers and life insurers, and to raise revenue by prohibiting certain estate-planning techniques.

House Democrats intend, like Kennedy, to include a new government program to provide health-care to a portion of the uninsured who don’t already qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, according to the outline.

While the lawmakers continue working out the details, they intend the new program to operate through the exchange and for both the public program and private insurance policies to have the same basic benefits.

Helping the Poor

House Democrats want to improve the Medicaid health-care system for the poor, including a uniform benefits package and “improved” provider payments. They are weighing whether to add people who are near the poverty level to Medicaid or to provide subsidies to allow them to purchase their own policies.

The plan would place new restrictions on private insurers, including a bar on excluding coverage for those with “pre- existing conditions.”

The legislation would seek to get some cost savings from Medicare and Medicaid, including incentives for doctors to coordinate their care and get bonuses for improving quality, according to the outline.

Link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aj5HHIKfogR8&refer=worldwide)

.....................

[Lazuris]

Instead he is urging lawmakers to reconsider limiting all tax deductions for Americans in the highest tax brackets.



Another great idea from clown Obama. This will absolutly destroy our economy. It would kill the housing market, kill investment property market, and end charities as we know them. And thats just the start. This doesn't even include the massive cost of health care.

[Soldat_Américain]

let the POTUS bashing begin

[Mr.K]

Another great idea from clown Obama. This will absolutly destroy our economy. It would kill the housing market, kill investment property market, and end charities as we know them. And thats just the start. This doesn't even include the massive cost of health care.

Housing market is aready messed up. Investment property? Another "flip that house" scheme, didn't work too well with the subprime crisis didn't it?
As for charities, its government money anyway, the money given is a tax deduction. Healthcare is more important than canned coup.

[Ordie]

It would kill the housing market, kill investment property market, and end charities as we know them. And thats just the start. This doesn't even include the massive cost of health care.

I got news for you: the housing, investment real estate and charities have already been killed or close to dying even with the current privatized health system.

[Soldat_Américain]

you know maybe if everyone wasn't so focused on being rich and giving themselves a gagillion dollah bonuses then maybe we wouldn't be in this mess...god

[Mr.K]

you know maybe if everyone wasn't so focused on being rich and giving themselves a gagillion dollah bonuses then maybe we wouldn't be in this mess...god

It's a bit more complex than that.
By the way that's the american dream, getting rich. So if you take that out, you destroy america! You commie !p-)

[Ordie]

It's a bit more complex than that.
By the way that's the american dream, getting rich. So if you take that out, you destroy america! You commie !p-)

Ironically everyone in America identifies themselves as middle class including the poor and the rich.

[Soldat_Américain]

It's a bit more complex than that.
By the way that's the american dream, getting rich. So if you take that out, you destroy america! You commie !p-)
I used to think I needed a 20,000sqft house and ten cars...and now, well a two thousand sqft three vehicles(2 cars, truck for pulling a horse trailer) and my bike and some land. It is a little more complex, but everyone is out to screw each other.

[Mr.K]

Ironically everyone in America identifies themselves as middle class including the poor and the rich.

Yep same can be said in Canada. It seems to be problematic to state your social class. if you say that you're rich it will only spark envy and jealousy, if you say you're poor, then you're labeled as a loser. And lets not foret the people who try to keep up apperances.

And there is also people who do not view themselves as rich because someone else they know is richer.

[Geezah]

I don't get it, America is the land of opportunity, it's all about being the best you can possibly be. I just don't understand why Americans want to be so much like Europe. I left the UK to come here for a number of reasons, none of them was about being poor.

[PeterRJG]

I don't get it, America is the land of opportunity, it's all about being the best you can possibly be.

Absolutely, and Americans are taking their opportunity to declare bankruptcy in the face of $70000 medical bills. The upshot of which is that it drives up premiums even more due to HMO's needing to cover their losses. In the end, nobody wins.

Moral of the story so far? Don't get seriously ill or injured in the United States.

[Blue_0]

Another great idea from clown Obama. This will absolutly destroy our economy. It would kill the housing market, kill investment property market, and end charities as we know them. And thats just the start. This doesn't even include the massive cost of health care.

What housing market?
investment property market? what are you talking about?
charities? No charity ever helped my family, and my mother raised 4 children alone while working as retail clerk. (and she is the best mother anyone ever had to)

[SilentType]

We're not talking about medical care for the poor. The poor in America already qualify for Medicaid and that is in serious danger of going bankrupt right now with out-of-control costs.

What the Democrats want is a government run health care plan for the middle class. That will make them the largest health care provider and they'll be able to basically totally control the health care industry. Having a single insurance provider or one overwhelming insurance provider is NEVER a good idea. Such a thing is called a monopoly whether it is a government one or not.

What the Government needs to do is use its commerce clause powers to regulate the Health Insurance industry removing state barriers that prevent a true open and free market. Competition needs to be injected right now into health insurance, because currently there really is none. They have their own little state monopolies with very limited competition.

We also need to remove the problem of medical malpractice insurance being so high. Go down to your local Emergency Room for treatment and you'll find that half your bill is from "cover your butt" tests and over the top expensive tests. This is called "defensive medicine" and runs up medical bills to about twice what they should be in a lot of cases. It is done, because the doctors are scared to death they will later be sued and it will be pointed out that they could have done "Z" test, but only did "X" and "Y".

[sinophile]

This is a pathetic joke. C'mon think this through.

About 12% of US per capita gross domestic product remains unconsumed by per capita debt. In other words, adjusted for inflation, there may be $4,000 per person in the US available for any purpose other than paying down debt.

All those wealthy people and corporations you hate so much... they add up to $1.2 trillion dollars of available GDP available to redistribute and tax. That's it. In 2007 US healthcare costs were $2.4 trillion, or approx $7,400 per person.

Some of you actually believe the lie that government sponsored healthcare will erase a (45%) $3,400 per person gap in health care costs (costs that are expected to increase by double digits in the coming years). Illustratively speaking... tell me what doctor will accept a 45% pay cut and give you reliable service without something on the side.

Welcome to the Chinese healthcare system. Hope you like it.

Robbing the last remaining reserve of investment capital and throwing it down the rabbit hole of government sponsored healthcare, government stimulus spending and other grand crusades is insanity. Its like removing the engines from an airplane in mid-air to decrease weight.

Mind numbing insanity.

[Blue_0]

Welcome to the Chinese healthcare system. Hope you like it.


Any healthcare system is better then no healthcare system at all.

And that is what we have, healthcare for the crazy rich, and the rest go bankrupt or worse.

-- Bluelight

[Soldat_Américain]

The last episode of Real Time with Bill Maher addressed this issue along with a few others. Yes America is the land of opportunity...but where else in the world do people become doctors so they can get freakin' rich?

[RxOnco]

Bill Maher? You might as well be quoting something out of a Michael Moore movie or the Pravda.

Over the years, I've worked with and met plenty of doctors. They don't get into the field for money.

[brainplay]

We're not talking about medical care for the poor. The poor in America already qualify for Medicaid and that is in serious danger of going bankrupt right now with out-of-control costs.

What the Democrats want is a government run health care plan for the middle class. That will make them the largest health care provider and they'll be able to basically totally control the health care industry. Having a single insurance provider or one overwhelming insurance provider is NEVER a good idea. Such a thing is called a monopoly whether it is a government one or not.

What the Government needs to do is use its commerce clause powers to regulate the Health Insurance industry removing state barriers that prevent a true open and free market. Competition needs to be injected right now into health insurance, because currently there really is none. They have their own little state monopolies with very limited competition.

We also need to remove the problem of medical malpractice insurance being so high. Go down to your local Emergency Room for treatment and you'll find that half your bill is from "cover your butt" tests and over the top expensive tests. This is called "defensive medicine" and runs up medical bills to about twice what they should be in a lot of cases. It is done, because the doctors are scared to death they will later be sued and it will be pointed out that they could have done "Z" test, but only did "X" and "Y".


Agree on this 100%. Medical malpractice insurance and some of the payouts are damn crazy. Its one of the biggest reasons hospitals charge #20 for an aspirin.

[Jobu]

The last episode of Real Time with Bill Maher addressed this issue along with a few others. Yes America is the land of opportunity...but where else in the world do people become doctors so they can get freakin' rich?

A vast majority of those who want to become doctors just to get rich never make it through medical school.

They very quickly come to realize that there are much easier ways to get rich.

[Geezah]

Bill Maher? You might as well be quoting something out of a Michael Moore movie or the Pravda.

Over the years, I've worked with and met plenty of doctors. They don't get into the field for money.

+1 on that, Bill (I'm a knobcheese) Maher. Great source of information.

I've experieneced both National Healthcare and Privatised Medicine and I can safely say I prefer the American method. It's a free market and I get to choose which Doctor I spend my money on.

Also, why can't Doctors get into medicine for the money, if they are good at what they do, why can't they get paid for it.

[Soldat_Américain]

SO I'm guessing you and Rush and best buds.

[Mr.K]

The last episode of Real Time with Bill Maher addressed this issue along with a few others. Yes America is the land of opportunity...but where else in the world do people become doctors so they can get freakin' rich?

Canada, oh wait, they all leave for the USp-)
Putting a salary cap on doctor's compensation, would cause a ****storm though, no politican would dare to pull such a stunt.
Anyways today's medecine is very far from the hippocratic oath.

[Soldat_Américain]

Canada, oh wait, they all leave for the USp-)
Putting a salary cap on doctor's compensation, would cause a ****storm though, no politican would dare to pull such a stunt.
Anyways today's medecine is very far from the hippocratic oath.
Well I'm just saying every single thing in America these days is all about making a huge profit, not medium or a modest profit. Maybe if I was in a different profession I wouldn't have the opinion, but I also grew up with blew collar parents. Healthcare ain't about keeping you well at all these days.

[sinophile]

Any healthcare system is better then no healthcare system at all.

And that is what we have, healthcare for the crazy rich, and the rest go bankrupt or worse.

-- Bluelight

You either didn't read my post (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4186475&postcount=15), or you don't understand it.

Your need for healthcare, beyond urgent need assistance, shouldn't be society's problem or expense. Not because you're not worth it - I'm sure you are - but because society can't afford it. That was my point - the US can't afford it. Go back and re-read my post (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4186475&postcount=15) one more time... we can't afford it. We're broke. We're going to destroy our economy in the pursuit of a benefit we cannot afford to offer. And don't tell me the economy is already destroyed... because it could get a lot worse... more than 80% of Americans are still employed (for now).

[Mr.K]

Oh I'm not saying that everything is good the way it is, i'm just saying why a change will not be possible. If you want to bring the cost of healthcare down, you would need to nationalize it and put a salary cap. The problem with that you cannot nationalize thnigs such as cosmetic surgery since it is not essential, and a good part of the medical talent, knowing they won't get huge compensations as MD will choose cosmetic surgery, and you'll have a lack of doctors.

[Danik]

Oh I'm not saying that everything is good the way it is, i'm just saying why a change will not be possible. If you want to bring the cost of healthcare down, you would need to nationalize it and put a salary cap. The problem with that you cannot nationalize thnigs such as cosmetic surgery since it is not essential, and a good part of the medical talent, knowing they won't get huge compensations as MD will choose cosmetic surgery, and you'll have a lack of doctors.

Would you then suggest a cap on medical school tuition if doctors have a cap on their salary?

[Danik]

Well I'm just saying every single thing in America these days is all about making a huge profit, not medium or a modest profit. Maybe if I was in a different profession I wouldn't have the opinion, but I also grew up with blew collar parents. Healthcare ain't about keeping you well at all these days.

Do you at times find it difficult to produce non-generalized, non-simplistic statements? So far you are 6/6 in this thread.

Doctors want to be compensated well, and they deserve it.

If they were in it for the money they would get an MBA, spend no more than 2 years in grad school and make exactly what they are making without the responsibility of anyones life in their hands.

[brainplay]

Well I'm just saying every single thing in America these days is all about making a huge profit, not medium or a modest profit. Maybe if I was in a different profession I wouldn't have the opinion, but I also grew up with blew collar parents. Healthcare ain't about keeping you well at all these days.

Actually its about making profit, period. Unfortunately too many people will point at a medium or modest profit..heck any profit as being over the top.

As a blue collar the advancement of yourself or your children out of your status into the super elite rich status through hard work and education should be one of your biggest goals. The "I give up" or mediocre status usually doesn't creep in until late in age when the opportunities have dried up or are drastically reduced.

Seeking "moderate" profits does not promote or grow a business. You play to win and accept whatever profits you can get whether they are small or big but you never shoot for the middle unless its a stepping stone to huge profit.

[Arsenal]

If my tax dollars are going into someone else's healthcare, will I also get the opportunity to control how many calories that person eats a day, how many cigarettes they smoke per week, how many hours they spend in the sun without sunscreen? Do I get to decide whether or not they can ride a motorcycle or engage in any kind of semi dangerous activity that carries the possibility of them getting severely injured? Somehow, I don't think so.

I don't own people. I have no say in what they do or how they treat themselves, so why is now my responsibility to pay for the failure of the decisions they make?

[sinophile]

If my tax dollars are going into someone else's healthcare, will I also get the opportunity to control how many calories that person eats a day, how many cigarettes they smoke per week, how many hours they spend in the sun without sunscreen? Do I get to decide whether or not they can ride a motorcycle or engage in any kind of semi dangerous activity that carries the possibility of them getting severely injured? Somehow, I don't think so.

I don't own people. I have no say in what they do or how they treat themselves, so why is now my responsibility to pay for the failure of the decisions they make?

The government will decide for you. At best they'll charge a higher premium to those people. And, they'll also be deciding what life saving procedures will be paid for, and how much will be paid. You'll live or die based on what the Dept of Health mandates.

[Soldat_Américain]

I'm a pessimist and a cynic...but you guys are swimming in the open ocean on that one

[Arsenal]

I'm a pessimist and a cynic...but you guys are swimming in the open ocean on that one

You think so? Since you have no problem with my argument, please send me 30% of your income. I have the sniffles. And for heaven's sake, don't go skiing like in your avatar picture. It's dangerous and I've come to depend on your income. Kthxbye.

[Mr.K]

Great system !
http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm



Study Links Medical Costs and Personal Bankruptcy

Harvard researchers say 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 were caused by health problems—and 78% of those filers had insurance

By Catherine Arnst (http://www.businessweek.com/print/bios/Catherine_Arnst.htm)
Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illness, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid.
Medically related bankruptcies have been rising steadily for decades. In 1981, only 8% of families filing for bankruptcy cited a serious medical problem as the reason, while a 2001 study of bankruptcies in five states by the same researchers found that illness or medical bills contributed to 50% of all filings. This newest, nationwide study, conducted before the start of the current recession by Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler of Harvard Medical School (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?capId=6162089), Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?capId=6162087), and Deborah Thorne, a sociology professor at Ohio University (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?capId=4141584), found that the filers were for the most part solidly middle class before medical disaster hit. Two-thirds owned their home and three-fifths had gone to college.
But medically bankrupt families with private insurance reported average out-of pocket medical bills of $17,749, while the uninsured's bills averaged $26,971. Of the families who started out with insurance but lost it during the course of their illness, medical bills averaged $22,658. "For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection. Most of us have policies with so many loopholes, co-payments, and deductibles that illness can put you in the poorhouse," said lead author Himmelstein. "Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy."
The study underscores President Barack Obama's arguments in calling for health-care reform legislation this year. In a letter to Democratic Senate leaders this week, the President said: "Health-care reform is not a luxury. It's a necessity we cannot defer. Soaring health-care costs make our current course unsustainable. It is unsustainable for our families, whose spiraling premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are pushing them into bankruptcy and forcing them to go without the checkups and prescriptions they need."
Highest Costs for Diabetes, Neurological Illness

The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?capId=3534954) and published online June 4 by the American Journal of Medicine. It will appear in the Journal's August print edition. The researchers examined the court records of a random sample of 2,314 bankruptcy filings across the nation during early 2007, and also contacted those filers for written explanations. The researchers then followed up with extensive phone interviews of 1,032 of those filers.
They found that a number of medical factors contributed to a family's financial disaster. More than 90% of medically related bankruptcies were caused by high medical bills directly or medical costs that were so high the family was forced to mortgage their home. The remaining 8% went bankrupt because a medical problem caused them to lose income. The authors were not able to track credit-card defaults caused by medical bills, but a 2007 study found that, of low- and middle-income households with credit-card debt, 29% used their plastic to pay off medical expenses.
Individuals with diabetes, one of the most common chronic diseases in the U.S., and those with neurological illnesses such as multiple sclerosis had the highest costs, an average of $26,971 and $34,167, respectively. Hospital bills were the largest single expense for half of all medically bankrupt families.
Dr. Woolhandler, an advocate of a single-payer health-care system, said lawmakers in Washington should reconsider health-care reform in light of the study. "Covering the uninsured isn't enough," she said. "Reform also needs to help families who already have insurance by upgrading their coverage and assuring that they never lose it."
Arnst (cathy_arnst@businessweek.com) is a senior writer for BusinessWeek based in New York.




The government will decide for you. At best they'll charge a higher premium to those people. And, they'll also be deciding what life saving procedures will be paid for, and how much will be paid. You'll live or die based on what the Dept of Health mandates.

How do you know?

[Soldat_Américain]

You think so? Since you have no problem with my argument, please send me 30% of your income. I have the sniffles. And for heaven's sake, don't go skiing like in your avatar picture. It's dangerous and I've come to depend on your income. Kthxbye.
It's snowshoeing...I'll do it as long as I have the right to your first and second born.



How do you know?

Because he thinks everyone in the US government is a giant schmuck.

[jimmyboots]

Because he thinks everyone in the US government is a giant schmuck.


Its run by giant schmucks, all across the board.

[Mr.K]

It will be like Soviet Union.... In Soviet Russia doctor heals YOU!

[CPLHUNTER]

Any healthcare system is better then no healthcare system at all.

And that is what we have, healthcare for the crazy rich, and the rest go bankrupt or worse.

-- Bluelight

That's a retarded statement. I'm not crazy rich by fare and have had great healthcare for the past 10 years, before that when I worked at Wally World still had good healthcare.

[sinophile]

Because he thinks everyone in the US government is a giant schmuck.

Not at all. I briefly worked for the Feds and many of the folks I worked with were outstanding. I've personally seen excellence exhibited in the USGOV. They're very good at some things. Not so much at others.

Anyway, if you'll re-read my post (http://http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4186475&postcount=15) you'll see the Feds cannot solve what is essentially a supply problem by any means other than rationing. You guys believe the b.s. of "new approaches", but this is history repeating itself. Rationing 101. Here's how this is going to look:
- Look for uniformity and standardization of care to leave many under treated or misdiagnosed. Some MP.net(ers) will no doubt be affected by this.

- Expect shortages, lines and long waiting times as caregivers and manufactuers stop participating because of poor return on investment, false accusations of wastefulness, fraud or non-compliance. Private systems will emerge and the rich will get the best care money can buy.

- Bank on novel treatments and new technologies taking years longer to enter the system as FDA approval will be just the first of many steps required before the Feds will pay for new medications and procedures.
Absolutely there will be fewer bankruptcies due to medical expenses. But there is no such thing as a free ride. See my prior post (http://http//www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4186475&postcount=15) for the real cost in economic terms. This is insanity.

[PeterRJG]

How do you know?

He wouldn't know. Most Americans wouldn't have a clue how a national health system works. Not a one. The only thing these people "know" about it is the "socialized medicine" paranoia bs their HMO's churn out of the horror story mill.

[salmagundi]

So the way to avoid sending people bankrupt over medical costs is to make the government pay because it has infinite money & can't go bankrupt?

In Australia its sad hearing people come back from the UK and complaining about their nationalised health service. They says its much crappier than ours. Australia has govt health care too. Ours is newer, it hasn't bankrupted the govt yet so its much better. Here's what happens with our younger & better govt run health service.

* In the city you have to book the day before to see your private doctor (General Practitioner). There aren't enough GP's in the city to service you the day you get sick.

* Don't get sick in the country. There are no GP's in many country towns. They pay subsidies to attract them, but still no doctor. The nearest doctor can be hundreds of Km's away.

* Your hospital care is provided by trainee doctors. There will be one professional doctor in your hospital. He is there to supervise the trainees, not examine you. His English is not too bad but sometimes the local customs confuse him.

* The nurses will be the lowest paid university educated profession in the country. University entrance scores will be slightly above the score for Fail.

* Hospitals routinely turn ambulances away because the Emergency Department is too busy.

* You get access to drugs years behind the USA, because the govt doesn't want to provide you with the latest & most expensive.

* There are waiting lists for all forms of hospital surgery. Surgery to help old people walk (like knee-joint or hip replacements) is deemed "elective" so you have to wait years to get it. If they die of other causes before they get to the top of the list, then that saves $$ for the govt.

The problem with Govt health care programs is they get worse with time. Govts & supporters are in denial though.

Remember also the way nobody develops drugs for africa because there's no money in it? Nobody develops drugs for nationalised health systems either. We just buy generics & older lower cost medications. We piggy-back on the US system where the private health care consumer subsidises the cost of developing drugs. There's plenty of non-US drug companies in Australian & Europe, but they develop for the American market. If the American market goes down the same route as ours then who's going to pay for development of new drugs? The govt won't do it. They don't want the expense, and they don't want the political risk. What do you think would happen to a govt if something goes wrong with a govt subsidised research program with live subjects?

[deagle]

if they can afford to buy another luxury, gas-guzzler, ( $50-100k) they should be able to afford a few thousand in taxes. they can even still get that car after paying the taxes also.

[Vorian]

People shouldn't sell parts of their property just because they were unlucky enough to get cancer or have a heart disease.
Back when I was in high school my mother had to be hospitalised for little over a year due to a medical mistake. If we paid for all the treatments and her stay in the hospital I wouldn't afford to pay the Internet bill and chat in MP.net right now. Simply I would work as a waiter probably instead of studying in a university.

And that's ehy there should be free healthcare. Yes, many doctors will ask for something extra, the government won't bring new medicne fast and waiting lines for non emergencies will be high, but at least you will get treated to live the rest of your life not live to pay the bill.

[Jobu]

And that's ehy there should be free healthcare. Yes, many doctors will ask for something extra, the government won't bring new medicne fast and waiting lines for non emergencies will be high, but at least you will get treated to live the rest of your life not live to pay the bill.

Free?


LOL

[Geezah]

He wouldn't know. Most Americans wouldn't have a clue how a national health system works. Not a one. The only thing these people "know" about it is the "socialized medicine" paranoia bs their HMO's churn out of the horror story mill.

Yet I have first hand experience of both, and apart from the horror stories I could tell and the fact I believe they killed my Grandmother, I would never want to go back to that nightmare.

[sinophile]

if they can afford to buy another luxury, gas-guzzler, ( $50-100k) they should be able to afford a few thousand in taxes. they can even still get that car after paying the taxes also.

I think you're referring to the so-called rich paying for your healthcare. If so, you're an idiot. There's about 4 posts in this threat that establish no amount of taxing the rich is going to pay for your healthcare without killing someone you know, and/or killing your country economically.

It is not affordable.

What part of this don't you understand?

[Mr.K]

Free?


LOL

You're putting a price tag on human life? LOL

[Mr.K]

I think you're referring to the so-called rich paying for your healthcare. If so, you're an idiot. There's about 4 posts in this threat that establish no amount of taxing the rich is going to pay for your healthcare without killing someone you know, and/or killing your country economically.

It is not affordable.

What part of this don't you understand?

Funny, every other wealthy industrialized country can afford it.
Healthcare is a matter of national interest. But i understand that where you come from it's "me 1st" and "I'd rather buy another Louis Vutton bag instead of contributing to a healthier society"

[Holmes85]

I bet Bill Gates could pay for every American's healthcare, well maybe for a short duration.

We could start actually taxing people in the multi million or billion dollar brackets.

[salmagundi]

I bet Bill Gates could pay for every American's healthcare, well maybe for a short duration.

We could start actually taxing people in the multi million or billion dollar brackets.

Bill Gate's could probably afford Australia's health care bill for 6 months. Then he would have no money & would put up the price of windows.:bash:

Seriously $50 billion dollars doesn't go very far in even a smallish country. At 20 times our size the benefits to the US would be much smaller.

Also, don't forget these guys have passports & in an electronic age money is highly mobile too.

Nearly all tax revenue comes from the middle class. As the poor usually get healthcare subsidies in most US states it would be the middle classes paying for the middle classes. No change there, except now you have the govt choosing your doctor & telling you no, we can't afford that medication, try something cheaper.

[akd]

The last episode of Real Time with Bill Maher addressed this issue along with a few others. Yes America is the land of opportunity...but where else in the world do people become doctors so they can get freakin' rich?


a two thousand sqft three vehicles(2 cars, truck for pulling a horse trailer) and my bike and some land. It is a little more complex, but everyone is out to screw each other.

Many, many doctors live lifestyles below this level. Anyways, your four(!) vehicles would be carbon irresponsible and would certainly be heavily taxed to pay for nationalized healthcare.

[danielc]

Nationalized health care is good, in Canada, not even the rich people want a system like the US.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

So the way to avoid sending people bankrupt over medical costs is to make the government pay because it has infinite money & can't go bankrupt?

In Australia its sad hearing people come back from the UK and complaining about their nationalised health service. They says its much crappier than ours. Australia has govt health care too. Ours is newer, it hasn't bankrupted the govt yet so its much better. Here's what happens with our younger & better govt run health service.

* In the city you have to book the day before to see your private doctor (General Practitioner). There aren't enough GP's in the city to service you the day you get sick.

* Don't get sick in the country. There are no GP's in many country towns. They pay subsidies to attract them, but still no doctor. The nearest doctor can be hundreds of Km's away.

* Your hospital care is provided by trainee doctors. There will be one professional doctor in your hospital. He is there to supervise the trainees, not examine you. His English is not too bad but sometimes the local customs confuse him.

* The nurses will be the lowest paid university educated profession in the country. University entrance scores will be slightly above the score for Fail.

* Hospitals routinely turn ambulances away because the Emergency Department is too busy.

* You get access to drugs years behind the USA, because the govt doesn't want to provide you with the latest & most expensive.

* There are waiting lists for all forms of hospital surgery. Surgery to help old people walk (like knee-joint or hip replacements) is deemed "elective" so you have to wait years to get it. If they die of other causes before they get to the top of the list, then that saves $$ for the govt.

The problem with Govt health care programs is they get worse with time. Govts & supporters are in denial though.

Remember also the way nobody develops drugs for africa because there's no money in it? Nobody develops drugs for nationalised health systems either. We just buy generics & older lower cost medications. We piggy-back on the US system where the private health care consumer subsidises the cost of developing drugs. There's plenty of non-US drug companies in Australian & Europe, but they develop for the American market. If the American market goes down the same route as ours then who's going to pay for development of new drugs? The govt won't do it. They don't want the expense, and they don't want the political risk. What do you think would happen to a govt if something goes wrong with a govt subsidised research program with live subjects?

What horse**** is that?

[DS73]

You're putting a price tag on human life? LOL
Society through state laws and regulations always's "putting" a price tag on human life. It can be otherwise. the life of anybody is never "priceless".

US medical system has 3 holes:
1) juridical (not only malpractice insurance- check the number of jurists working in the industry). Doctors get small part of your money.
2) pharmaceutic giants. The system is expense oriented, it pushes not only people but hospitals etc. to spend. Newer, more, longer...
3)lack of oversight. This one is common problem everywhere.

But the worst American problem is that they are trying to adapt the commercial system "for the rich" as a general system. No country has enough money for that.
I have to remind that US still gets best doctors from all over the world, western Europe included. Not vice versa. These doctors wouldn't bother to come to US to cure just patients sitting on fixed salary. They would do it at home.

[brainplay]

Nearly all tax revenue comes from the middle class. As the poor usually get healthcare subsidies in most US states it would be the middle classes paying for the middle classes. No change there, except now you have the govt choosing your doctor & telling you no, we can't afford that medication, try something cheaper.

Actually nearly all tax revenue comes from the rich and ultra rich and large corporations. The entire tax revenue for a "middle class" family can amount to a single corporate purchase tax. Take a look at your last 1040 and then try and figure what kind of coverage it can get you. Not much.

[11 Bravo]

I used to think I needed a 20,000sqft house and ten cars...and now, well a two thousand sqft three vehicles(2 cars, truck for pulling a horse trailer) and my bike and some land. It is a little more complex, but everyone is out to screw each other.

You sound very wealthy by socialist standards soiled amican.... so you need to pay more in taxes.

[11 Bravo]

I think you're referring to the so-called rich paying for your healthcare. If so, you're an idiot. There's about 4 posts in this threat that establish no amount of taxing the rich is going to pay for your healthcare without killing someone you know, and/or killing your country economically.

It is not affordable.

What part of this don't you understand?


It's amazing how those that want something for nothing just don't see the truth you spell out here Sino. You know how many brokediks will lay back on their duffers if they get even more comprehensive government benny's.... a whole load more of worthless twits for sure !.

[Noble713]

Axelrod, speaking on CNN today, said the ultimate goal of legislation is to reduce costs.

“We have to bring down the cost of health care,” he said. “If we do that and make it affordable, people are going to buy it, mandate or no mandate.”You don't reduce costs by writing legislation advocating robbing Peter to pay Paul. You reduce costs by process improvements, organizational streamlining, and leveraging technology. Stuff that the US seems to be doing it's damnedest to move away from, partially out of laziness.

So many of our economic problems are interconnected with the issue of healthcare. People live far longer than expected, so the burden of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid is overworking the ability of the labor force to prop it up. This in turn sends us into deeper and deeper debt which gives us fewer resources for infrastructure improvement and R&D (ya know, stuff that leads to quality of life improvements and reduces costs).

Bottom line: start letting people die. Just straight up tell the population: "If you don't take care of yourself, the government certainly won't." People will either make a conscious effort to live healthier lives....or they'll die. Either way the government won't be forking out untold billions keeping them around. One third of American adults are obese. (link (http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/index.html)). We can start trimming the fat with them (pun intended).

EDIT: One more thing. A good friend of mine just finished her medical degree. She hailed the VA for their national database of electronic patient records. Apparently virtually every other medical institution has unique and archaic paper records, so information is routinely lost or misinterpreted whenever someone switches hospitals, or doesn't visit for 6 years, or whatever. This is one of the major causes of inefficiency and malpractice suits. Obama's plan for a national digital standard for medical record-keeping is a good one IMO.

[Jobu]

Obama's plan for a national digital standard for medical record-keeping is a good one IMO.

Obama's plan?

Sorry dude that was Bush's plan. He announced it in his SOTU speech in 2004 and made a deal with GE to handle the IT. They've been working on it for years.

[sinophile]

Funny, every other wealthy industrialized country can afford it.
Healthcare is a matter of national interest. But i understand that where you come from it's "me 1st" and "I'd rather buy another Louis Vutton bag instead of contributing to a healthier society"

Your smug response is really funny because you are wrong...
France: Budget deficit. Debt makes up 67% of GDP (2008 est.).
UK: Budget deficit. Debt makes up 47.2% of GDP (2008 est.).
Canada: Budget deficit. Debt makes up 62.3% of GDP (2008 est.).
And you'll find everything I said in my original post (http://http//www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4186475&postcount=15) is true for the majority of consumers of healthcare in those countries. Your society is coming apart because the people holding together are under assault by a populist, wrong-headed revolution.

A healthy society doesn't spend more than it takes in. It rewards productivity, profit and growth.

suck it.




UPDATE: The world voted today in the latest long-term treasury auction, and agrees we can't afford it.

US long-term interest rates rose to the highest level of the year on Wednesday, threatening the “green shoots” of recovery, after the latest sale of 10-year government debt met with a tepid response from inflation-wary investors.
Concerns about the growth of government borrowing forced the US Treasury to give investors in an auction of $19bn in 10-year notes a yield of 3.99 per cent – 4 basis points higher than the yield available before the auction. That constituted the biggest yield markup since a 10-year auction in May 2003, said Morgan Stanley. Yields on the 10-year note, the benchmark rate for US mortgages, hit a high of 4 per cent during the day, up from 3.6 per cent a week ago.

[Mr.K]

Your smug response is really funny because you are wrong...
France: Budget deficit. Debt makes up 67% of GDP (2008 est.).
UK: Budget deficit. Debt makes up 47.2% of GDP (2008 est.).
Canada: Budget deficit. Debt makes up 62.3% of GDP (2008 est.).
And you'll find everything I said in my original post (http://http//www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4186475&postcount=15) is true for the majority of consumers of healthcare in those countries. Your society is coming apart because the people holding together are under assault by a populist, wrong-headed revolution.

A healthy society doesn't spend more than it takes in. It rewards productivity, profit and growth.

suck it.




UPDATE: The world voted today in the latest long-term treasury auction, and agrees we can't afford it.

If you live in the United States, I'd rather not tell others that their society is coming apart, considering the the housing crisis and the financial crisis. You didn't purposely forget to include the United States debt , didn't you?





End of fiscal year 2008, debt in billions: 10,699.8 , 76% of GDP
http://www.kathylien.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/debt.jpg



That's the result of current policy.

Healthy society? I'm sure you're aware the western population is aging, the food we eat is crap, there is pollution, etc etc. and as you know these aren't the healthiest elements of the society.


A healthy society doesn't spend more than it takes in. It rewards productivity, profit and growth.
Sorry pal, this is as utopic as communism, in theory it works.
Unless you think we should just keep throwing people off the cliff until "the society" gets healthier, more productive and will have enough resources for everyone and be rewarded. Which is madness.

[Noble713]

Obama's plan?

Sorry dude that was Bush's plan. He announced it in his SOTU speech in 2004 and made a deal with GE to handle the IT. They've been working on it for years.

*Hits up Google* Well, ok then, Obama's intention to continue Bush's efforts towards computerizing medical records is a good one. Healthcare was hardly one of my concerns or interests in early 2004, considering I was in AIT.


If you live in the United States, I'd rather not tell others that their society is coming apart, considering the the housing crisis and the financial crisis. You didn't purposely forget to include the United States debt , didn't you?

I think you missed his point: yes, the US is screwed. And so is every other country that people are trying to use as an example of how to do things the "right way".

[Mr.K]

*Hits up Google* Well, ok then, Obama's intention to continue Bush's efforts towards computerizing medical records is a good one. Healthcare was hardly one of my concerns or interests in early 2004, considering I was in AIT.



I think you missed his point: yes, the US is screwed. And so is every other country that people are trying to use as an example of how to do things the "right way".

I guess i did, and my point is if you keep doing what you keep doing, you get the same results that you got before.

[sinophile]

If you live in the United States, I'd rather not tell others that their society is coming apart, considering the the housing crisis and the financial crisis. You didn't purposely forget to include the United States debt , didn't you?

If you read the entire thread you'll see my whole point is the US debt is such that it can't afford universal healthcare. But you only read a few posts, right? Nice work. You can still suck it.


Healthy society? I'm sure you're aware the western population is aging, the food we eat is crap, there is pollution, etc etc. and as you know these aren't the healthiest elements of the society.
Sorry pal, this is as utopic as communism, in theory it works.
Unless you think we should just keep throwing people off the cliff until "the society" gets healthier, more productive and will have enough resources for everyone and be rewarded. Which is madness.

If you're advocating changing the economic incentives for companies who produce unhealthy products or people who make poor consumption choices.... that's a good discussion and a good idea.

If you're suggesting universal healthcare be provided at the expense of only investors and business-owners then I say that is madness, and neither the US, nor the UK or France (and others) can now afford it.

Re-read my first post in this thread if you want to have a real discussion.