Socialized Medicine - Who has it - What do you think?

Bull.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/ny_times_top_20__pay_80__of_taxes_.guest.html

 

It's not a myth. The CATO Institute has a paper on it. I'm sure if you search, you can turn it up.

Ethanol is basically a handout to agri-business.

 

For years it has been the consensus that we need to produce electricity with nuclear power and run cars on hydrogen. when rockets become more cost effective (which it is with companies like sea launch) we will be able to send the spent rods from nuclear plants off into space, Ideally into the sun.

The thing that pisses me off is we have had the technology for years to produce all of our energy without any pollution and we are still burning dead animals and plants.

 

By themselves? I don't think it's a coincidence that that's the same year the P-51 Mustangs started arriving in England. The P-51 provided the ability for bombers(many of them US bombers) to penetrate more deeply into Germany with greater success than previously.

"The P-51 Mustang is credited with providing very effective long range bomber escort. The Allied daylight bombing campaign proved extremely successful by strangling the support lines of the enemy and nearly stopping the production of war-time machinery. The P-51 Mustang and the men that flew them saved lives in the skies and on the ground."

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/p51.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51_Mustang#U.S._operational_service

America contributed a lot of hardware, blood and intellect to that war, which played a HUGE part in turning the tide.

And the Normandy invasion is so sentimentalized because it was so pivotal in winning the war and Americans had such a huge part in it, including it being under the command of an American General and the Americans taking the most heavily defended beach, where I believe the losses (on Omaha) outnumbered the losses on the other beaches combined.

So opening up the second front on the German forces the way that the D-day invasion did was inconsequential?

 

I read (and skimmed) the Cato paper and I still saw nothing about it taking more petrol than they produce in ethanol. However, I agree it is a handout/welfare problem.

Anytime a "respected" group shows their political colors, it makes it that much harder to believe their info however. That paper has some very partisan politics in it.

 

Bill Gates and people like him don't earn an "income" or wage like the rest of us - so bull to your bull.

FURTHER

(FROM THE AUSTRALIAN TAX OFFICE OFFICIAL SITE) - SO THE MIDDLE CLASS IS PAYING OVER HALF - my statement stands true - though I doubt you will apologize.

Further I'd hardly call someone earning over $70,000 a year rich - I'd call them upper middle class - I'd defined rich as someone earning over $250,000 a year - so the statistics would even be more in my favor if you took this into account. Even $250,000 a year would be poor rich - the real rich - those who don't give a stuff about how much something costs, will go to on a trip first class to the other side of the world just to see a soccer match, etc - (i.e. those who money is no object) are on $1,000,000 plus a year - these people wisely pay others to minimize their tax burden as much as possible..

Throw into the equation the amount spent by the middle class 66% of pop. on goods - and thus the GST - then their tax burden is even higher than half.

 

In response to the WWII response - although Ike had overall command the real planning was done by Montgomery and his team of British officers.

No - I didn't say that - I did say that that landing was 3/5 Non-American.

I'm not saying the U.S. had no effect on the war - certainly they dominated the Pacific War against Japan, but Russia had already made serious inroads into defeating Germany long before the Americans had an impact in Europe.

I'm not saying the U.S. had no effect on the war - I'm saying their contribution is over rated compared to the others in the war - Russia was the dominant force in winning the war - the war was decided on the Eastern front. Watch Hollywood with the John Wayne attitude and you'd quickly forget that is was the 25 million dead Russians that won the second war world. I'm no communist lover - in fact Stalin was much more of a despot than Hitler, but just because Stalin was a bloody maniac doesn't change the fact that Russia played the major role - also you might find that others make a strong argument that it was Russia's entry into the Pacific War against Japan with their highly successful invasion of Manchuria that finally convinced the Japanese to surrender - rather than the two Atomic bombs dropped by the US - after all the fire bombing of Tokyo actually killed more outright than either Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

Also underrated in the Second war world - the contribution of the British Empire - in particular the contributions by India and Canada (note although I'm from ANZAC land I don't mention them because we blow their trumpet loudly and strongly here downunder).

But this is stealing this thread so I'll post a new one on this topic if anyone is interested.

 

Sicko Update


Why Canadians Purchase Private Health Insurance
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4271

 

Arguing against adopting a health care system copied from Canada is a distraction. Instead we should be discussing how best to proceed with improving health care delivery in the US. Faults in Canada's system do not automatically rule out coming up with our own plan. In fact, studying the flaws in other systems should help us design something better. I'm tired of hearing about how Canada's plan is deficient as if that proves we can't or shouldn't do anything at all. People in the US die for lack of treatment, all the time, in greater numbers than other industrialized countries. We should be discussing how best to address the problem.

Some people have suggested opening up the federal employees health care system to the public, and letting them buy into it. I don't see anything terribly wrong with that idea, except that most people won't be able to afford it.

I don't think it's likely that we can cut back on military spending anytime soon, so we won't be able to save that way.

If we don't have universal health care or single payer health care, what are we going to do to help 40 to 50 million of our fellow citizens stay alive and healthy? I'm listening, what's a better way? Any new or creative ideas out there?

Anybody read the New York Times today? What do you think about this editorial?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

 

All I can tell you, is please look at the big picture, ok?

We are going to have 28 million Americans on food stamps this year or next. That's 1 in 10 citizens. This country has some seriously f**ked up problems, and it is because we can't take care of our own, but have to bleed the middle class to send aid to foreign countries and to fight foreign wars, then they can't insure themselves or their children.

You're looking to a government that wastes, steals and prints money like it is going out of style to continue stealing for solutions.

We already owe $50 trillion over the next 30 years to our current entitlement programs.

If you want to see government health care in action, look at the waste in medicare, and the way the veterans get benefits. This government is completely incompetent when it comes to managing social programs.

Honestly, someone as concerned and as passionate as you should be in contact with their representatives in Congress. Looking for others with similar dispositions, and forming a PAC or non-profit. Do fundraisers to get people medical insurance. Maybe figure out a way to create a private healthgroup for the uninsured to get better rates.

But the government is not going to solve your problem. Not with the warfare mentality. There simply isn't enough money to kill other people and heal our own.

I make a point of not reading Krugman. He's a dreamer who didn't toil in the real world with the rest of us. His has been a life of academia and journalism.

Most of his economics are twisted to his POV, and he heavily politicizes policies and candidates that he has an affection for (very biased).

Ok, now I have totally defamed his character, I will go read his op-ed.

EDITED::::::
Ok, I had to stop where it says the VA is great. He's a complete idiot. This is typical Krugman. He lives in a fantasy world where he makes up facts and sources no real data or proof.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the big picture, or maybe I should say, how do you know I'm not already looking at the big picture. Health care isn't the only issue I'm passionate about, it's the one I happen to be discussing currently.

I agree the gov is wasting money big time. Please be assured I do keep in touch with my congressional reps already, for whatever good it does. And I'm on the Grey Panther health insurance committee, for whatever good that might be accomplishing.

OK, I understand you think the gov won't solve this problem. How do you think it can be solved? By wishing and hoping for an enlightened society that sees the wisdom of not blowing billions on war in other countries? Too bad the majority of our fellow citizens think you and I are left wing crazies.

In the meantime, I want something done about health care. I don't see how it can happen without some kind of gov action, like opening up the federal employees health insurance plan, or maybe give tax incentives to offer insurance to low income people, or tax incentives to offer insurance to more groups, and tax credits for purchasing insurance. Something, rather than nothing.

There's nothing stopping insurance companies now from offering reasonable priced plans. Why aren't they? Maybe because they know people who need health care would actually buy it and then they would actually have to pay claims. No, they only want to insure people who are healthy enough to work.

And then there's the high cost of health care, artificially padded by insurance paperwork and overpaid executives who don't actually contribute anything towards care.

There's a scene in SICKO where a former insurance co employee talks about how she denied a man an operation, he died, and she was promoted. You really ought to see the movie, you can sort thru the stuff to decide for yourself what's real and what's not. Plus, it's actually funny in spots.

What do you think about the incentives to offer Medicare recipients prescription coverage thru private insurance companies competing with each other? It's called Part D if you want to research it further. Personally I think it sucks, there's a "donut hole" in the plan coverage, the terms favor the companies over the insured. But it is not really gov run, it's more like gov sponsored insurance companies.

What is your plan? Wait until we stop all wars?

 

Ignoring the facts won't make a system in the USA work any better. Guerilla has nailed it with the waste factor of our (and any other) government. In just a state Government it takes probably 5 levels of executive paid types to do the work that one would do in the private sector, and that is just a portion of the waste.

 

Oh but I'm not ignoring the facts. I'm entirely willing to examine all the facts. As long as we use the facts to come up with a plan. You talk about gov waste as if I suggested gov is the only solution. I'm not saying gov is the only answer. I'm ready to listen to other ideas, if you have any.

Let's discuss facts. Do you like the Medicare Part D prescription plan? Why or why not? Why did you not respond to that?

What about opening up the federal employees health insurance plan? You didn't bother to comment on that. Is that a good idea?

How can we encourage insurance companies to offer affordable insurance to people who actually need to use it? What about tax incentives and credits? You didn't bother to respond to that part of my post, is that because you don't really want to find solutions?

Aren't we smart enough to learn from others failed efforts and design something better? Or are you suggesting we do nothing because another country tried and didn't come up with the PERFECT plan?

I'm tired of dismissive comments that lead to the conclusion of "Let's do nothing about health insurance"

Let's instead discuss facts, plans, failed plans, ideas for a different plan, ...I want to hear your ideas. Or is your idea "Let's do nothing" ?

 

US health care went down the drain when the HMO Act of 1972 was passed. Managed care - through government regulating on behalf of insurance companies - has driven up prices. People need to get back to the doctor-patient relationship and get government and HMOs out of the way. Given this opportunity, the free market would work and prices would come down. Medicine is an industry where prices increase as availability and technology increase - there is a distortion in the market. The health care model in the US is actually a fascist one.

Also, any politician in the US who says prices won't increase under UHC is delusional and/or lying. The US government is insolvent, where is the money going to come from for this statist operation? Are we going to borrow it from China or Saudi Arabia?

 

If we had UHC (& I'm not saying that's the only solution), the insurance co. profit would be eliminated & our overall cost would drop dramatically.
I agree that HMO's are bad, but I have doubts that eliminating them will help all that much. Do you have any sources or data or experts to back up this assertion?

 

He has no answers kaethy. He has been asked on countless occasions to come up with alternatives to the things he wants to do away with and explanations on how any alternatives would work and as of yet he has offered absolutely nothing. All he does is parrot rhetoric that he has read on some anti-establishment website.

A better system that i would, And have suggested would be a combination of what we have in the UK and what you have in america. If hospitals are privately run by a multitude of companies they could bid on services and treatment would be funded by taxes. The patient can have access to all of the hospitals statistics regarding success rates, Cleanliness, recovery time and such and pick what hospital they want to go to. The government will allocate a fixed sum of money to them for their specific treatment and any money that isn't spent on treatment will be offset in tax breaks or go towards prescriptions or optional after-care. That way we have the benefit of free market competition and people still get treatment if and when they need it.

 

Before managed care, when my parents and grandparents came to America, a doctor's visit was $5 USD. A trip to the hospital, for my uncle, who was extremely asthmatic, was $20 USD.

Contrary to popular belief and ignorance, the US is insolvent. By 2050, the US is looking at around 60 trillion in unfunded obligations and liabilities(Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.) The only was to remedy this, according to the GAO, is to cut the size of the federal government by 60% or DOUBLE the federal income tax. If we followed the Constitution and our founding principles, we wouldn't have a government with unconstitutional departments to begin with. Hell, we wouldn't even have a federal tax burden.

Also, I am familiar with UHC. I have family members who are physicians in Italy. These programs run huge deficits and are on the verge of destabilizing.

Even the Ministry of Defence, in the United Kingdom, has written about the coming collapse of their welfare system and NHS. They are predicting these programs will fold by 2015 - mainly due to the hacks in Whitehall and their immigration policy because of the EU.

 

You're in the UK, so I don't know if this is relevant.

Here is an article on how the US took a wrong turn with managed care and the how the government - regulating on behalf of insurance companies - drove prices through the roof.

Blame Congress for HMOs
by Twila Brase

Published in Ideas on Liberty
by the Foundation for Economic Education
February 2001

continued...

http://www.cchconline.org/privacy/hmoart.php3

 

I've lived in a variety of nations, 2 with socialized medicine. Just from a general point of view, having seen a couple of hospitals, I maintained private health insurance anyway. Not to be snobby, I am sure there are nice hospitals in socialized medicine, but the couple I saw simply were nowhere I would check into unless I was right outside having a massive heart attack.