Most Republicans believe the U.S. Health Care System is the Best in the World

[Boothbabe]

You Americans spend a lot of time and energy disagreeing on this issue. Why don't you put it to good use and actually come up with a solution? Just ignore the people who say socialism is the devil because they don't have a clue what they're talking about and just do what needs to be done to make sure health care is available for everybody @ a reasonable price Maybe, just maybe that could work :1orglaugh

 

[Baill Inneraora]

^^ Because since the death of Senator Kennedy, Dems only have 59 votes and it takes 60 to break a filibuster, so the President needs to pick up a couple Republican votes.

The anti-reform, pro-business, pro-insurance forces are spending tens of millions lying, scaring people and trying to intimidate Representatives to support a public option even though 70% of Americans support a public option.

It wasn’t so sad it would be hilarious. A vocal minority would much rather keep a system where thousands of people die every year because of a lack of health insurance so people like the CEO of United Health Care can make $57,000 an hour by denying sick peoples insurance claims.

 

[titsrock]

Medicare? Aren't they practically bankrupt?

But the question was name programs that work. Medicare works. We just need to fund it. The Republicans want to shut it down by not funding it.

I would like any GOP candidate at any level of gov't to run on a platform that says, "Medicare is an unnecessary 'big government' wasteful program, and if you elect me, I'll work hard to shut it down."

I suspect such a candidate will garner 2 votes in any election--his and his wife's votes...

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

You Americans spend a lot of time and energy disagreeing on this issue. Why don't you put it to good use and actually come up with a solution? Just ignore the people who say socialism is the devil because they don't have a clue what they're talking about and just do what needs to be done to make sure health care is available for everybody @ a reasonable price Maybe, just maybe that could work :1orglaugh

A) I see how undemocratic the European Union is and I don't want the same for my country. I also look at many of your socialist countries in Europe and see a lot I do not like.


B) You're saying don't argue, but the last part of your statement is basically do whatever we tell you to do. Screw that. Do you know that 80% of Americans have health coverage? When you look at the rest who don't have health coverage, a lot of that is voluntary. Many, many young people don't have insurance because they feel they can beat the odds as a young healthy person. We can find a way to insure the rest without socialized medicine.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

^^ Because since the death of Senator Kennedy, Dems only have 59 votes and it takes 60 to break a filibuster, so the President needs to pick up a couple Republican votes.

The anti-reform, pro-business, pro-insurance forces are spending tens of millions lying, scaring people and trying to intimidate Representatives to support a public option even though 70% of Americans support a public option.

It wasn’t so sad it would be hilarious. A vocal minority would much rather keep a system where thousands of people die every year because of a lack of health insurance so people like the CEO of United Health Care can make $57,000 an hour by denying sick peoples insurance claims.

Yes the side that doesn't want it is lying, or ignorant. And where is the 70% from? Did that come before or after the caveat--even if you end up paying more for health care than you are now? Suddenly people want to rethink things.


I wonder if we can force companies to insure the unisurable in order to maintain their business license. I wonder if we can break down state barriers so that residents of New Jersey can get their plan from a company in Texas etc.

I do not want the government to be running healthcare, as I see that as a doorway into even further aspects of our lives. If you look at what amounts to Health and Human Services in other countries, they are extensive and agenda driven.


Let's say you're a social liberal and a harsh conservative is elected, this guy turns on a dime and starts using this vastly enlarged H&HS to push an agenda that's frightening to you and enriches his buddies. It's suddenly not so nice, especially when you consider YOU are paying for it.

Or it could be like what happens in New Jersey. A reform minded Democrats runs for election and the N.J. Democratic machine scares people with "He's going to take away your healthcare" to make sure they vote for the status quo.

It's a doorway to machine style politics. It goes on in New Jersey, it goes on in Chicago, it led to the humiliation of New Orleans and it will happen to us. If you are a progressive who respects the rights of others to disagree with your ideals, than you should be wary of this plan almost as much as libertarians and fiscal conversative are.

 

[marquis2]

A) I see how undemocratic the European Union is and I don't want the same for my country. I also look at many of your socialist countries in Europe and see a lot I do not like.


B) You're saying don't argue, but the last part of your statement is basically do whatever we tell you to do. Screw that. Do you know that 80% of Americans have health coverage? When you look at the rest who don't have health coverage, a lot of that is voluntary. Many, many young people don't have insurance because they feel they can beat the odds as a young healthy person. We can find a way to insure the rest without socialized medicine.

It's true that the EU is undemocratic in many ways but this isn't really relevant to the health care issue.All the constituent nations have their own version of healthcare regardless of any influence of the EU.It remains a fact that however unpalatable it might be to your entrenched views that a government run system is the most efficient form of universal healthcare-you get most bang for the buck so to speak.Yes, there's always scope for tightening up and improvement but compared with the fund leakage you get in the US system it's positively Utopian.And you don't get people looking at the small print or jacking up the premiums if you develop a long term problem.

 

[Flapster]

I wouldn't argue that a government run healthcare system is the most efficient.
But the point is it the fairest to the whole population.
If you have money you can still pay for private care.
consider this, should you be punished if you are born in an area with high unemployment and a lack of skilled trades nearby.
or being born with bad genetics some people are not intellectuality/physically able to get a skilled job it's not always his/her fault.

 

[sexdog121]

I don't want to read all the replies but if it hasn't already been said, look at Canada's health care.

 

[MILF Man]

But the question was name programs that work. Medicare works. We just need to fund it. The Republicans want to shut it down by not funding it.

No......JacknCoke asked YMIHERE to name two reliable government programs. Going bankrupt is not a form of reliability. It's a form of failure. How can anyone think it's a smart idea to continue to fund a government organization that can't even control it's spending and wastefulness. I know B.O. is in the business of printing money likes there's no tomorrow but it's completely asinine to continue funding a program that is so wasteful in spending and provides a horrible service.

 

[marquis2]

I wouldn't argue that a government run healthcare system is the most efficient.
But the point is it the fairest to the whole population.
If you have money you can still pay for private care.
consider this, should you be punished if you are born in an area with high unemployment and a lack of skilled trades nearby.
or being born with bad genetics some people are not intellectuality/physically able to get a skilled job it's not always his/her fault.

We're going to get bogged down by semantics here because when it comes down to it no two people can agree what the word "fair" means.Remember the divorce lawyers' dictum that if both parties feel cheated then it's a fair settlement.It isn't fair for example that some people should fall ill and others enjoy good health.But that's how the world is.Is it fair to tax the rich more than the poor?
I would say overall that a government operated system like we have in the UK is a light year fairer than a private insurance based one.We all pay in a proportion of our income and when sickness strikes we can get free treatment for as long as it takes.Our payments aren't affected by our health record.OK , some of us are paying for others but that's the case with any insurance and it's a life long system where the payers and payees change over as time goes on.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

It's true that the EU is undemocratic in many ways but this isn't really relevant to the health care issue.All the constituent nations have their own version of healthcare regardless of any influence of the EU.It remains a fact that however unpalatable it might be to your entrenched views that a government run system is the most efficient form of universal healthcare-you get most bang for the buck so to speak.Yes, there's always scope for tightening up and improvement but compared with the fund leakage you get in the US system it's positively Utopian.And you don't get people looking at the small print or jacking up the premiums if you develop a long term problem.

It most certainly is when Americans point to Europe, the EU has pushed for a standardization of medical care in Europe which will inevitably mean more EU control of things they deem to be "public health" which is intentionally left open ended for government encroachment. Let's not forget all the Europeans mocking the U.S. for being "primative" and stupid for not adopting their systems.

All in all, I see so much bad news in the way Europe defines democracy and other aspects of society I'm very glad we aren't like them.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

I wouldn't argue that a government run healthcare system is the most efficient.
But the point is it the fairest to the whole population.
If you have money you can still pay for private care.
consider this, should you be punished if you are born in an area with high unemployment and a lack of skilled trades nearby.or being born with bad genetics some people are not intellectuality/physically able to get a skilled job it's not always his/her fault.

For the first I would advocate moving. For the 2nd I would hope, like in my previous post, that we could force companies to ensure these people. If you aren't paying like everyone else, I don't think you should get the premium care, but if the people want these folks covered, we need to find a way.

On a side note, look at some of the worst run states in the union, where the governments are losing people left and right. Almost all are run by Democrats. Most Democrats support this plan, and they figure we'll end up running this efficiently, but they don't seem to make the populace happy with what they are running. So pro-Big Government states are shedding residents left and right, why should we be happy to be like the Europeans?

What else should we adopt from Europe? How about their WONDERFUL performance with immigration? There's nothing like getting colonized by people who despise you and mock your tragedies ala 7/7 supporters. We sure want to be like you folks:1orglaugh

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

It's true that the EU is undemocratic in many ways but this isn't really relevant to the health care issue.All the constituent nations have their own version of healthcare regardless of any influence of the EU.It remains a fact that however unpalatable it might be to your entrenched views that a government run system is the most efficient form of universal healthcare-you get most bang for the buck so to speak.Yes, there's always scope for tightening up and improvement but compared with the fund leakage you get in the US system it's positively Utopian.And you don't get people looking at the small print or jacking up the premiums if you develop a long term problem.

If that's true then why do people in Europe still carry private insurance on top of everything they are already paying in taxes? What about the wild difference in quality? Are you French? Isn't France supposed to be the #1 rated health care system in the world? So great that people from other parts of Europe go there for treatment--specifically the UK?

My point is that Americans do alright, if you compare the cost of healthcare in France as compared to the UK I think we'll find out quite a bit. The UK has loads of medical tourists, a doctor shortage that's led them to recruit doctors from unfriendly countries who've gone on to launch terrorist attacks, and socialized medicine.

I also don't really understand what you mean by "leakage". Do you mean cost leakage?

 

[marquis2]

If that's true then why do people in Europe still carry private insurance on top of everything they are already paying in taxes? What about the wild difference in quality? Are you French? Isn't France supposed to be the #1 rated health care system in the world? So great that people from other parts of Europe go there for treatment--specifically the UK?

My point is that Americans do alright, if you compare the cost of healthcare in France as compared to the UK I think we'll find out quite a bit. The UK has loads of medical tourists, a doctor shortage that's led them to recruit doctors from unfriendly countries who've gone on to launch terrorist attacks, and socialized medicine.

I also don't really understand what you mean by "leakage". Do you mean cost leakage?

I mean the amount of your premiums spent on swanky buildings, shareholders' dividends, executives' bonuses and unnecessary procedures rather than on healthcare.

 

[marquis2]

If that's true then why do people in Europe still carry private insurance on top of everything they are already paying in taxes? What about the wild difference in quality? Are you French? Isn't France supposed to be the #1 rated health care system in the world? So great that people from other parts of Europe go there for treatment--specifically the UK?

My point is that Americans do alright, if you compare the cost of healthcare in France as compared to the UK I think we'll find out quite a bit. The UK has loads of medical tourists, a doctor shortage that's led them to recruit doctors from unfriendly countries who've gone on to launch terrorist attacks, and socialized medicine.

I also don't really understand what you mean by "leakage". Do you mean cost leakage?

Some people do carry private insurance too, though usually it's a job perk.Frankly I haven't and neither myself or my family have found it remotely necessary. I can get a doctor's appointment within an hour or two for example, on the NHS.
I mean the amount of your premiums spent on swanky buildings, shareholders' dividends, executives' bonuses and unnecessary procedures rather than on healthcare.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Some people do carry private insurance too, though usually it's a job perk.Frankly I haven't and neither myself or my family have found it remotely necessary. I can get a doctor's appointment within an hour or two for example, on the NHS.
I mean the amount of your premiums spent on swanky buildings, shareholders' dividends, executives' bonuses and unnecessary procedures rather than on healthcare.

Define "swanky" because Government buildings are large and expensive to maintain as well. Even if they go to the lowest bidder, state politics is always a concern. Why does it cost close to 30 million dollars to build a cafeteria for military recruits in South Carolina? Why are barracks being built in Hawaii by the same developer who's done such shoddy work on previous ventures?

Shareholders want to maximize their profits by keeping costs down, and getting rid of inefficiencies. Who's going to keep costs down in a government run system when they can't do the same in other areas? We're actually dismantling the machine controlled education system in our cities and now as we're tackling one monster, we're going to build an even bigger one?

Executive bonuses--you don't think folks involved in Public Administration here in the U.S don't recieve bonuses based on performance? It does happen here. Also, we need to give similar pay scales to public servants in order to lure them from the private sector. To keep them in the public sector, we need to offer compensation similar to what's offered in the private sector.

So I don't see unneccessary procedures going away exactly, especially when there's been resistance to tort reform (think malpractice) by the people driving this pro-government health reform plan. Also, Americans have grown to like some of these extra procedures, they may see it as a precaution that will help them in the long run. How are people going to say NO to a specialist when their co-pay has disappeared? They won't. Which means either A) Costs won't be controlled or B) a Beauracrat will have to step in between you and you doctor and tell you that you don't need that CAT scan.

Let's hope he's right.:hatsoff:

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Some people do carry private insurance too, though usually it's a job perk.Frankly I haven't and neither myself or my family have found it remotely necessary. I can get a doctor's appointment within an hour or two for example, on the NHS.
I mean the amount of your premiums spent on swanky buildings, shareholders' dividends, executives' bonuses and unnecessary procedures rather than on healthcare.

From what I've been told by relatives in the UK and Ireland, they carry private health insurance because they would rather not die of MRSA in one of the government run Hospitals when they are in for treatment that requires more than an overnight stay.

 

[marquis2]

Define "swanky" because Government buildings are large and expensive to maintain as well. Even if they go to the lowest bidder, state politics is always a concern. Why does it cost close to 30 million dollars to build a cafeteria for military recruits in South Carolina? Why are barracks being built in Hawaii by the same developer who's done such shoddy work on previous ventures?

Shareholders want to maximize their profits by keeping costs down, and getting rid of inefficiencies. Who's going to keep costs down in a government run system when they can't do the same in other areas? We're actually dismantling the machine controlled education system in our cities and now as we're tackling one monster, we're going to build an even bigger one?

Executive bonuses--you don't think folks involved in Public Administration here in the U.S don't recieve bonuses based on performance? It does happen here. Also, we need to give similar pay scales to public servants in order to lure them from the private sector. To keep them in the public sector, we need to offer compensation similar to what's offered in the private sector.

So I don't see unneccessary procedures going away exactly, especially when there's been resistance to tort reform (think malpractice) by the people driving this pro-government health reform plan. Also, Americans have grown to like some of these extra procedures, they may see it as a precaution that will help them in the long run. How are people going to say NO to a specialist when their co-pay has disappeared? They won't. Which means either A) Costs won't be controlled or B) a Beauracrat will have to step in between you and you doctor and tell you that you don't need that CAT scan.

Let's hope he's right.:hatsoff:

On our local NHS campus is a privately funded treatment centre ; part of the agreement was that the NHS provide the land in return for some access to the facilities.To step into this place one thinks it's a 5 star hotel ; it has 40 foot high palm trees inside, plush seating and wide open spaces.Certainly the attached government hospital is comfortable enough but clearly done on a budget.There is a government body called NICE which investigates whether certain drugs or treatments give good value to taxpayers (this sometimes causes anguish as they err on the side of economy)
The real cash saver though is prompt and free consultation which very often nips problems in the bud before they become serious.So if someone has a small skin growth for example they seek advice before it becomes troublesome;most local centres will remove these on the spot.

 

[CunningStunts]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/is_obamas_handling_of_honduras_1.html

This is a pretty good summation of my personal views on a Federal government "solution" to health care, embodied in this key paragraph:

"This is not about healthcare reform. This is not about a new tax. This is not about redistribution of wealth. It is all about the power to govern. Does it rest with the people, as is clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution? Can the federal government ignore the majority of the people; violate the Constitution; and assume a power not specifically granted it by the people?"

 

[Friday on my mind]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/is_obamas_handling_of_honduras_1.html

This is a pretty good summation of my personal views on a Federal government "solution" to health care, embodied in this key paragraph:

"This is not about healthcare reform. This is not about a new tax. This is not about redistribution of wealth. It is all about the power to govern. Does it rest with the people, as is clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution? Can the federal government ignore the majority of the people; violate the Constitution; and assume a power not specifically granted it by the people?"

Your starting to remind of another poster who thinks lots of things the govt does are somehow unconstitutional.What was the cry from the people at the time of the revolution? "Taxation without representation" was their problem.Health care being universal is not a new idea in the US,Teddy Roosevelt,Truman etc talked about it.

I see no 10th amendment violation.Can the federal govt ignore the majority of people? While I'm not sure they are doing that here the answer is clearly yes the govt can not and should not always do what the majority wants.As for example majority probably didn't like when supreme court ordered schools desegragated as an example.Thats what leaders are for also, do things that may be unpopular ,although majoirity thinks health care needs some sort of reform,heck even republicans say it needs something.

As you are aware Cunningstunts whatever the supreme court says is constitutional is what the law of the land is.I don't think anyone has suggested that even if what I wanted to happen which is a single payer system would be somehow be unconstitional.Unfortunately that seems and not even a public option does to be in the cards right now.Single payer is estimated that it would save 350 billion a year just by itself.You are right when you say we need to spend less and are broke.It's our current system which is by far the most expensive in the world that is the expensive way to go.Govt run plans in the other countries costs far less and actually have better health care outcomes.

That somehow that message does not get through to people in the US and acted upon and a single payer system adopted is just an indicator of how overwhelmingly powerfull the special interests in this country are.They killed evey proposal in the past and look to have succeded once again.The big profit insurance exec's etc get their way once again and we pay and pay and pay.And some go without coverage which is even more amazing given the amount we spend.WE ARE SO BEING RIPPED OFF!!!!!!!!!!!


They have no one to blame but themselves when the day comes america comes to its senses and goes for the single payer route and eliminates them from the equation entirely.They had more than enough resources to have a decent system that covered everyone with enough left over for still huge profits.But no they just went for the profits and gave us this overpriced system which doesn't cover everyone.Thats bottom line for me other countries spend way less and cover everyone and health outcomes are as good and usually better than those in US.No way having that could be unconstitutional.And if it was then maybe that thing needs to be shreded.:dunno: