Health Care

[_JS]

Currently the United States pays more per patient and as a percentage of GDP than any other nation on Earth. So, does that mean that we are receiving the best care? Do we have the highest life expectancy, the lowest infant mortality rate, the best treatment for the most people?

No. According to the OECD, we do not have any of those. In fact, we run about middle of the pack. Even in terms of medicine research, three of the five top drug manufacturers are European companies.

So, what do we have?

We have the best medical care in the world, for a few people who can afford it.

I received my employer's charitable donations booklet today, which is provided by the United Way. One of the many health-related charities to which employees may donate is a group called FACES. They provide information and assistance to families of children who need to undergo reconstruction surgery after being born with birth defects and skull deformities.

It is likely a wonderful organisation. They have an entire section of their website based on How to Pay the Bills?

The first sentence reads: "Dealing with the cost of medical treatment for your child can be overwhelming."

They go on to provide example letters so you can complain to your insurance company if they deny your claim to pay for your child's facial reconstruction. They also provide links to charities that help defray medical costs as well as a few programs.

http://www.faces-cranio.org/

For people who talk about the evils of "socialised medicine", I wonder, what about leaving a child with a cleft palate or skull deformity? Or forcing a couple into bankruptcy so that they can get their child's deformity corrected?

John Edwards, a Democratic candidate for President, spoke of a 50 year-old man in West Virginia who could not speak because of such a deformity that has never been corrected. It was a cleft palate that could have been fixed with a childhood surgery, but had never been. Imagine the opportunities this man missed in his fifty years because his family was too poor to have anything done about it.

It doesn't matter if you like Edwards or not (that wasn't an endorsement of him, just a point he raised). This is no way for a civilized nation to run a healthcare system. Call it socialised medicine, universal healthcare, or whatever - but it works far better than the leviathon we've created.

[BT]

Pay for it with a sales tax at the state level and you can have universal healthcare.

Sometimes i think people are more interested in using issues as a political club than actually putting some thought into solving the damn problem.

[_JS]

Pay for it with a sales tax at the state level and you can have universal healthcare.

Sometimes i think people are more interested in using issues as a political club than actually putting some thought into solving the damn problem.

I'm not sure what I'm being accused of, or why, but I think my point is valid nonetheless.

In other nations a child born with such a deformity has corrective surgery. Why not here? How do you even begin to justify that?

[BT]

I'm not accusing you of anything.

I am not justifying anything.

I am simply saying that if you want UHC you can have it if it is funded with sales tax( everybody pays) at the state level (local control).

I don't see anyone jumping on that bandwagon, because they don't want the problem fixed because it is  political wedge or they want someone else to pay for their healthcare, which in my opinion is a deal killer or they want the feds to manage it with no logical reason given for why the feds are best suited for this.

You can't change the past, but you can affect the future.

Work for a statewide referendum on this. Do an incubator test in California and Mississippi and then let the states decide if this is worthwhile and the level of service they can afford to provide.

The Jordanian system is funded with sales tax. Why not here?

[_JS]

If it is done within one state, it will be abused.

Why not do as Canada did and direct the states to provide it, but allow them to choose how they do so?

And since when did we start following the example of Jordan?

[Henny]

The Jordanian system is funded with sales tax. Why not here?

On a national level... and they don't pay income taxes. I am afraid that on a state level, we would get hit hard with state sales tax PLUS all the federal taxes. And as JS points out, there is a huge potential for abuse if only one or some states enact a state level healthcare program.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Jordanian system is funded with sales tax. Why not here?

Many states use a sales tax for most of their revenues already.

Some states NH and OR have no sales tax, and resistance to one is immense.

Somehow, it seems to me that imitating Jordan- a 3rd world country and a semi-democratic monarchy at best- seems to be a poor idea.

Why not imitate Costa Rica, at least?

[Henny]

Somehow, it seems to me that imitating Jordan- a 3rd world country and a semi-democratic monarchy at best- seems to be a poor idea.

Jordan is not a 3rd world country. Maybe "2nd world" if there is such a thing. But if you look at the demographics that detail the country's infrastructure, education, literacy, birth and death rates, etc., you'll find it far above what you would typically see in a true 3rd world country.

[BT]

If it is done within one state, it will be abused.

How so?

[_JS]

If it is done within one state, it will be abused.

How so?

By people from outside the state coming in and using it.

[BT]

By people from outside the state coming in and using it.

The state could set residency requirements and charge out of state fees for those who seek treatment from neighboring states.

Kind of like what they do for college tuition.

[BT]

And if run from the national level , how do you propose to fund it?

[_JS]

By people from outside the state coming in and using it.

The state could set residency requirements and charge out of state fees for those who seek treatment from neighboring states.

Kind of like what they do for college tuition.

Too difficult and too expensive by adding too much cost. Out of state folks helped ruin Tennessee's program. It won't work without all the states being onboard, in my opinion.

How it is funded is really irrelevant to the healthcare debate. That is more a fiscal debate unto itself. Personally, I find sales tax extremely regressive and I live in a state that has no income tax and relies only on sales tax for revenue. Yet, as I said, that is another matter. A National Insurance could be collected as it is in the UK, which is basically a payroll tax that would likely be less for most people than their current Health Insurance premiums.

[Henny]

Somehow, it seems to me that imitating Jordan- a 3rd world country and a semi-democratic monarchy at best- seems to be a poor idea.

Jordan is not a 3rd world country. Maybe "2nd world" if there is such a thing. But if you look at the demographics that detail the country's infrastructure, education, literacy, birth and death rates, etc., you'll find it far above what you would typically see in a true 3rd world country.

Come to think of it, I KNOW there is technically designation for a country between 1st and 3rd world. The CIA designates as such...

Developing (3rd World)
Partially Developed (2nd World, so to speak)
Developed (1st World, so to speak)

Jordan is a partially developed country.

[BT]

How it is funded is really irrelevant to the healthcare debate.

I don't see why. In fact i see it as central to the debate.

You are proposing a new service. How do you plan to fund it.

The feds can run a deficit. The states can't. Is this why you want it at a federal level?