"Michael Moore's Shticko"

[Plane]

A good friend of mine was and is an advisor to Hillary Clinton on health care issues. She indicates that one of Hillary's first major projects, as President, will be to push national health insurance, primarily to be funded via a surtax on large businesses. Various plans apparently are being explored, with even smaller businesses paying their fair share, with the expecation that they will simply increase prices to pay for it, similar to what typically happens when the minimum wage is increased.

Tell him to get the Nixon Plan out of storage, it isn't substantially diffrent from the Clintonion plan.

[Xavier_Onassis]

love it when an argument contains its own disproof.

Social security is like a clock built to wind itself , it will run down ,there is no avoiding it .
==========================================================
This is still bullcrap, no matter how many times you repeat it.

The main problem with SS is that the government is SPENDING THE EXCESS of contributions to pay for other items, notably the useless war in Iraq. If this were not being done, SS would outlast pretty much every soul in this forum.

Juniorbush wanted to abolish it because he wants to reward his fatcat buddies. He wants to prepare the population for the time when they grab all the money and abolish it, so as to avoid the people yanking all the fatsacts and their lackeys out of their holes and drowning them in the Reflecting Pool as they so richly will deserve.

[_JS]

As I said already, despite our current Health Care's flaws, I'd take it hands down over any other, when taken in their totality.  And with my intimate understanding of our current Health Care industry, there's no Federal Universal Health care plan, I could ever support.  Simple concept of Quality over Quantity

I don't think the quality is that impressive. Certainly as a function of spending and distribution (effectiveness) it is a horrible system.  You may be satisfied with 15% of the GDP being used up and increasing above the rate of inflation every year, but more people every day are not.

There are alternatives and they work better.

[_JS]

I'm guessing we will get some form of socialized medicine eventually because enough people will demand that something be done, and some politician is going to build his political legacy around "fixing" the medical industry. And then all those smoking bans and trans fat bans are going to seem like the tip of the iceberg. And of course, then we will really have a fight regarding immigration because all those folks who complain now about immigrants abusing our health care system will really get pissed when they see what the immigrants do to a U.S. with socialized medicine.

An argument based on fear? You can do better than that Prince.

The truth is that no matter how you flip and arrange the numbers, the universal healthcare systems in the UK, Canada, and Sweden (along with many other countries, such as Australia) are vastly superior to the United States. Even more amazing to those on the economic right is that they are far less costly per capita and as a percentage of GDP than the U.S. system. As the OECD says, they are even better at getting more quality healthcare to a wider distribution of people.

The advantage of our system? We have some really high tech procedures that are available to very, very few.

For that, we pay more than any country on Earth. We pay. Every year people with families pay higher and higher premiums. You get some pay raise, and I've heard some talk about real wage increase - you know right where it goes? Health insurance.

And then some people are amazed that there is a widespread annoyance with the current state of healthcare in this country. Try being a one income family and paying for good health coverage.

[gipper]

Without running a comparison to Prince's thoughtful and well-stated views, I must not only commend but celebrate JS's reason-based passion on this vital topic. One truism that should not be missed in this discussion of "socializing" medicine (or anything else) is that there are virtually countless individuals in this country toiling manfully (and womanfully) at important tasks who through temperament, interest or any other applicable reason eschew the high-paying world, where health care is fully affordable, as a concomitant to pursuing their "bliss," in the words of the noted sage: and this, folks, is the purpose of America as I see it.

[BT]

As i stated numerous times, if the people want universal health they can have it.

Set up an incubator state, fund with a sales tax and let 'er rip.

And frankly it doesn't matter how wonderful programs are in other countries. We aren't them.

[Religious Dick]

The truth is that no matter how you flip and arrange the numbers, the universal healthcare systems in the UK, Canada, and Sweden (along with many other countries, such as Australia) are vastly superior to the United States. Even more amazing to those on the economic right is that they are far less costly per capita and as a percentage of GDP than the U.S. system. As the OECD says, they are even better at getting more quality healthcare to a wider distribution of people.

The advantage of our system? We have some really high tech procedures that are available to very, very few.

For that, we pay more than any country on Earth. We pay. Every year people with families pay higher and higher premiums. You get some pay raise, and I've heard some talk about real wage increase - you know right where it goes? Health insurance.

No, "we" don't pay. I haven't been to a doctor in years. I guarantee I  payed less for my health care over the last several years than anyone in one of your Euro-socialist health care systems did, even if they didn't use the services.

What you manage to ignore is that what is payed per capita is an average, it doesn't tell us anything about what any particular individual payed for health care. Why should the desires of people who consume large amounts of health care preempt the rights of people who don't?

And then some people are amazed that there is a widespread annoyance with the current state of healthcare in this country. Try being a one income family and paying for good health coverage.

My heart bleeds. Some irresponsible parasite starts a family he can't afford to support, and thinks this entitles him to have it supported at the taxpayer's expense. Somehow, I'm not particularly filled with sympathy.

[sirs]

As I said already, despite our current Health Care's flaws, I'd take it hands down over any other, when taken in their totality.  And with my intimate understanding of our current Health Care industry, there's no Federal Universal Health care plan, I could ever support.  Simple concept of Quality over Quantity

I don't think the quality is that impressive.

I beg to differ.  Our equipment is 2nd to none.  Our research and development in new technology and medications are again 2nd to none.  People will travel thousands of miles to come HERE for their medical care, especially if it requires specialized care.  It becomes unimpressive as you start dealing with the layers and layers of bureacracy, that regulations bring upon an industry, not to mention the litigious beast this country has become.  We may not be a country that provides everyone health insurance (quantity), but we definately make up for it by the level of care and technology we provide (quality), and in the relative shortness of time it takes to get access to that quality

There are alternatives and they work better.

I'm still waiting to see it

[Universe Prince]

An argument based on fear? You can do better than that Prince.

Probably, but I don't see why everyone except me should get to do it. But fear wasn't in my mind as I wrote what I did. I was just expressing what I figured the consequences would be. It was less fear and more resignation.

The truth is that no matter how you flip and arrange the numbers, the universal healthcare systems in the UK, Canada, and Sweden (along with many other countries, such as Australia) are vastly superior to the United States.

I don't buy that they are vastly superior. They may provide quality health care to all the citizens, but I doubt that it is vastly superior. If it was, then no one would have to leave those places to get the care they need, but that does happen. No, probably not everyday, but more frequently than I think is ever publicized.

Even more amazing to those on the economic right is that they are far less costly per capita and as a percentage of GDP than the U.S. system. As the OECD says, they are even better at getting more quality healthcare to a wider distribution of people.

I am sure they are. I don't question the value of universal health care. What I question is having the government run it. There are charity hospitals and doctor's offices. And there are doctors who have found the costs of running their doctor's offices drops when they stop accepting Medicare and all that. And many of those doctors also find they can now charge according to what people can afford pay. And even pharmaceutical companies are starting to advertise that they can help people who have trouble affording their medications. And there are a number of drug discount plans available.  So it seems to me we can find solutions in the private market rather than having to rely on the government. Yes, I know, the charity hospitals are not now doing all this, and not everyone has access to doctors who charge according what people can afford to pay and all that. But I would venture to say that if we put as much effort into promoting workable private sector solutions as we do into promoting government run universal health care, we could change the way health care is handled in this country without forcing everyone to pay into a government run system. Would it be perfect? No. But as you pointed out, no system is going to be perfect.

And for the record, I think universal health care is a good idea. I just happen to think we should find ways to do it in the private sector rather than have a government run program. No, I don't have all the answers as to how that would work, but then, I don't need to have all the answers. There are 300 million people in this country, many of whom could contribute good ideas, and I'm sure we can work something out. I'm not saying there is no room for some group to help coordinate efforts. This is something that perhaps the Red Cross could do. Some of the churches who run hospitals of their own would, I am fairly sure, like to help with such a program. So I have faith that we could do it, if we wanted to. The problem is, we don't want to. We want government to do it for us.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Why should the desires of people who consume large amounts of health care preempt the rights of people who don't?

Why should the childless pay school taxes?

Why should people who never travel pay for highways and airports?

Why should those who seldom bathe pay for water to be delivered to the obsessively clean?

[Amianthus]

Why should the childless pay school taxes?

Why should people who never travel pay for highways and airports?

Why should those who seldom bathe pay for water to be delivered to the obsessively clean?

Everywhere I've lived, water was metered and you only paid for that which you consumed. Likewise, fuel taxes are supposed to pay for highways and airports, and people who don't travel pay no fuel taxes.

And it seems that public schools are the only thing in this list where you are correct. Simple solution - only people with children attending school should pay for schooling.

[kimba1]

on the subject ouR medicine is 2nd to none.

isn`t the more costly procedure nowadays outsourced now?
meaning if you want a hip replacement your insurance carrier will fly you to india to get it since it`s not affordable anymore have it in aMERICA ANYMORE.

MEANING INSURANCE COMPANIES DON`T WANT TO DEAL WITH AMERICAN MEDICINE

[sirs]

on the subject ouR medicine is 2nd to none.  isn`t the more costly procedure nowadays outsourced now?
meaning if you want a hip replacement your insurance carrier will fly you to india to get it since it`s not affordable anymore have it in aMERICA ANYMORE.

Ummmm, not that I'm aware of.  Have any examples?  Last time I checked, if a Hip replacement was necessary, Insurance authorization ususally was achieved within 2-4weeks at the most, following the Dr's request.  Try getting such a surgery anywhere to that close in the UK or in Canada.  Elective surgeries such as those could take 6+months to get authorized and scheduled. 

[kimba1]

I think I saw it on 20/20
and several articles have been popping up lately on the subject of outsourced medical care
if I remember right
due to our highly restrictive laws
india even do more advanced experimental procedures.
the hip replacement procedure uses a hip part not available yet in the U.S.
the only draw back is it`s very hard to do follow ups.

[kimba1]

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/02/outsourcing_med.html