Daddubo
New Member
Go to link below.
https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rm_obamacare3/?a=3234
https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rm_obamacare3/?a=3234
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Good post. Why is it that using your head, some logic and problem solving skills, is so foreign to Washington?I really wish there was a netural arbiter in this debate. As long as neither side can agree with the fundamentals, every single discussion about this turns into a philosophy argument (government is good/government sucks).
I think a good starting point would be..."How many people are unable to get necessary medical treatment because of its cost?" (which is not quite the same thing as how many people are uninsured). The next question would be..."What costs would be involved in providing it through the public sector vs. the private sector?" Then, "Are there any present policies we can change that could reduce those costs?". Only then would we reach a point where the issue of structural change, and apportionment of costs, would come into play...and we simply aren't there yet.
I am a far right wing libertarian, but am willing to consider the possibility of a public health solution (among all other solutions). My problem is that we do not have the basics necessary to formulate a decision. Despite Republicans and Democrats agreeing that we need "change" (which is not the same thing as improvement), and projections of TRILLIONS of dollars in spending, and multiple thousand page bills being presented, it strikes me that we have yet to get any consensus on the fundamental questions we are trying to answer. Just my $.02
Individuals do not pay, but it costs the provences between 4 and 6 thousand per person a year. Perhaps some one can tells us what an individual pays in the US for single and family plans and if there is a deductable portion.
I'll bet Obama can't walk and chew gum at the same time...
I might have missed it in your discussion, but did you include the rather large illegal alien populations that doesn't pay taxes, yet is also included in the emergency room coverage that the rest of us pay for? (especially heavy in the southwest, but is also spread across the rest of the country) They also use up other services, in those areas without contributing towards the taxes to support those services.Northern, if you are really looking for a rational discussion of the issue, I'll offer up. One of our problems is that we pay your system as well as ours. We, as Americans, are taxed for Medicare (federal) and Medicaid (state) health programs...in addition to supplements for "teaching" hospitals. I cannot give you the number directly, but as I recall, it works out to several thousand dollars per eligible user. In addition, we have "private pay" where, in some instances, you can pay directly for service. There are also federal systems for active and retired military and their families (covered under a different budget). There is another system for American Indians (yet another system). Finally, there is private insurance, which has graduated scales from very inexpensive for the young and history free...all the way up to the very expensive (or non existent) for high risk and pre-existing and it is widely regulated.
Compounding the problem are state regulations regarding what must be covered by private insurance (but each state is different), Federal regulations governing what must NOT be done (HIPPA), a guild mentality within the medical community that prevents anyone but physicians from prescribing medicines or performing the most basic of surgeries, a protectionist mentality at the federal level that prevents access to medicines (except through the aforementioned guild) that are commonly available over the counter in other countries, and a huge symbiotic malpractice insurance company/litigation industry (one wouldn't exist without the other).
We have the best medical care in the world, but its availability is either randomly accessed, or available at a cost to those who can afford it (sort of a capitalist concept). Basic medical care is available at every emergency room in the country (and they are prevented from turning away anyone). Affecting outcomes is a fairly large population of drug and alcohol abusers, a largely sedentary and overweight population, and medical policies in which health care financial decisions are driven by third parties (employers and governments), instead of individuals.
I have heard the benefits of Canadian (and British) healthcare, but the fact is that no one goes there for treatment because its great...they go because it is free. Despite the non existent cost...a huge industry in Canada has evolved to provide private, for pay, healthcare. In essence, a guy named Adam Smith is showing where the problems lie, and offering solutions. We, unfortunately, appear headed inexorably in the other direction.
At the risk of starting an international incident, I also respectfully suggest that we are subsidizing Canada's health care bills as well. The US spends roughly 4.8% of GDP on defense spending...depending on whose numbers you use for what, that runs out to about a trillion dollars or so. Canada and Mexico spend roughly 1% of GDP. While no one tacitly admits it, the US carries the load for the defense of North America (although Canada's contributions are certainly appreciated) and the 1-2% shift in GDP Canada could easily be sharing for defense, roughly equals one third of your country's total outlay for public health care.
I might have missed it in your discussion, but did you include the rather large illegal alien populations that doesn't pay taxes, yet is also included in the emergency room coverage that the rest of us pay for? (especially heavy in the southwest, but is also spread across the rest of the country) They also use up other services, in those areas without contributing towards the taxes to support those services.
The most common question I have is, where does it say that the Govt has to supply healthcare, or anything else? I thought the basic design of the Govt was to govern, not interfere and run business. I want a new car, does that mean the Govt and taxpayers should be responsible for paying for it? Bottom line for me, I've never seen the Govt successfully run any business, and I don't want them to continue to try. How well are the banks, mortgage companies, and auto manufacturers doing here in the U.S.?? Now we want them to be involved in your heathcare?:smt089
I am Canadian and we have health care. Individuals do not pay, but it costs the provences between 4 and 6 thousand per person a year. This is tax money not a payment by an individual. It covers every thing from treatment for a cold to transplant parts and cancer treatment. You never have to pay for treatment. It may not be the best in the world but it is nice to know if you get sick and are unemployeed or under 65 and retired on a limited income you will not loose all you have to stay alive. There are no pre existing conditions that are exempt and it covers you any where you are in Canada. Is it cheaper than paying premiums in the USA I do not know. Perhaps some one can tells us what an individual pays in the US for single and family plans and if there is a deductable portion.
Wilee...that is indeed one of the philosophical questions. There is a great divide between the "government is great" crowd and the "government sucks" crowd (personally, I think its hardwiring...but that's another rant). The issue before us is a very complicated health care question in general, and a Canadian alternative in particular. I tried to outline some of the competing complications. However, the fact is that the government IS going to run something...whether it is federal control over Indian care, Veteran care and Medicare, or state control over Medicaid...and how are we best going to deal with it.
The most common question I have is, where does it say that the Govt has to supply healthcare, or anything else? I thought the basic design of the Govt was to govern, not interfere and run business.:smt089
Uh... It doesn't say that anywhere... The Founding Fathers apparently failed in their mission of writing a concise document limiting the powers of government and ensuring personal freedom. They left too much room for interpretation, allowing the document itself to be rendered invalid. Liberals call it a "living document", I call it twisting the words to make it say whatever the hell you want it to say. The phrase "common good" is one example. It was meant to mean that the government should do everything in its power to protect everyone as a group from a common threat to life, liberty, or property. Instead, it has been used as a way to take over the workplace, the environment, private businesses, as well as personal behavior.