Nope,,,,you cant opt out, but you have mulitiple choices of private providers.

Thats life :)

In the interest of clarity can you explain how that works? I have not found an explanation. How do you force people to buy the coverage? What happens if they don't? For example with social security people pay social security taxes based on income, but if they have no income or if they earn income from things like interest/dividends/insurance proceeds/etc. they don't take social security taxes on those forms of income. The point is that the issue can be a bit more complex than you imply in your response.

The plan is as an "individual mandate" plan that requires you to have health insurance comparable to a requirement to have auto insurance.

The devil is in the detail and I really dont know the enforcement mechanism. I do know it provides many options for individuals to select the plan that best suits their needs.

Of course its more complex than I implied, but its equally simplistic to characterization it as "socialized medicine" as others (not you) have suggested.

And now I am done here too. :)

I like the smug response. Do you get off on making other people's lives miserable?

I eat organic and work out and rarely have to go to the doctor. Yet you still want me to buy insulin for some obese idiot who can't figure out high fructose corn syrup is killing him, or the smoker with lung cancer, or anyone else who has no regard for their health. I guess that's perfectly acceptable in your world.

Forcing me to participate in this BULLSHIT is so uneverving. It's as bad as forcing religion on someone.

Healthcare is not about being healthy or getting well, it's about a continuing dependecy on the system. Socialized healthcare will just make this worse. I won't be visiting your Mengele offices or hospitals. No thanks.

There's two types of people, those who want to be left alone and those who won't leave them alone. I think we both know where we stand.

Yep....that explains it.

Each man (or woman) left to himself (herself) and fuck everybody else. It a shame you can't see how this attitude will ultimately will come around to affect you anyway, in either your pocketbook, your workplace or other social interactions.

I think even your man Ron Paul, with all his libertarian leanings, understands that much.

WTF is that....talk about smug.

Now I will leave you alone :)

You promote a system that benefits from people getting sick and staying sick. That is the attitude that is fucking everyone. Try telling people their food supply is poison and their medicine is killing them if you really want to help.

Ron Paul ran a doctors office with an external payment drop box and never accepted medicare/medicaid. If someone couldn't afford to pay no questions were asked. The reason he stopped his practice and ran for congress is because governmental intrutions made it increasingly difficult to run his practice how he saw fit.

The sponsors of this bill do not have the outstanding character of Ron Paul, but they do have the payoffs from big pharm. I'm sure Hillary will get elected and you'll have all the healthcare you want.

Hillary is bought and paid for. I doubt we'll see single payer health care under her. We'll probably get something better than we have now, but that's not saying much.

As I understand it, the wait times are due to there not being enough doctors, but graduates in medicine in Canada and Western Europe have steadily been on the rise for the past two years. If the trend continues, waiting times will become less and less of a problem.

As for paying for someone else, no man is an island. Sometimes we need to lean on people for help, and sometimes they need to lean on us. That's what society means. All of us, collectively, are interdependent. We have to do our best to make sure the health care system won't make people complacent and dependent, but to deny someone health care because they might not have 100% healthy habits is deeply cruel and inhuman. Universal healthcare is about equality and sympathy, two ideals I hold in very high regard.

To Samcol, is it bullshit that you pay for roads or police? Would you opt out of them and simply not use them? I see medical care as being just as necessary if not more so than any other governmental system or program be it as big as military or as small as regulating for safe baby food. It's alright to admit that sometimes corporations can't get the job done because they're too profit driven.

How about this for a healthplan:

All you fat, smoking, drinking buggers get no insurance or healthcare, period. If you don't get at least 3 hours of exercise a week, no doctor for you. You die (hopefully failing to propogate) leaving the rest of the universe with affordable health coverage, provided either by the state or privately?

Probably would save about a trillion dollars or so ...

:)

That'd be nice, but if people were asked to be responsible, they'd revolt. Saying "you have to go out and exercise, or else" would lead to revolution.

We could give the Repubs a Hillary punching bag.

BTW, I'm all for single payer, but I dont see how we get from here to there without something in between.

Exactly, and that's where we are headed with health care. No smoking, no fast food, you must exercise etc. Employers are already fining people on their health policy for smoking and such. Socialized healthcare is leading down the wrong road.

By your own admition it's a failed program it seems. A: We pay more money to support the healthcare of these unhealthy individuals or B: We begin outlawing anything perceived by masses as unhealty. Both are bad, people should be able to smoke or be fat and lazy if they want, but I shouldn't have to pay for it.

I just don't understand why people won't let me make my own decisions about something as critical as my health. It's mind boggling.

Let's not forget the government will get to decide what is or isn't covered. You want the same government that sends us to needless war and destroys civil liberties to take care of us. You can't possible believe they won't royally fuck healthcare up too.


p.s.
And no, I don't believe healthcare falls in the same category as roads and police, especially at a federal level.

I don't really understand how trying to stop people from smoking is such a horrible thing. Smoking is a form of suicide and it's addictive. People who smoke should have to pay more. People who refuse to exercise should pay more. People who eat at McDonald's every day should pay more. That hardly negates the whole thing, though.
I must have missed my admission about how it's a failed program. We pay more in private healthcare than any country pays in socialized or partially socialized medicine, and we still have 45,000,000 people who aren't even covered. Imagine how much more we'd pay if those 45m could afford it. Even if we had the same tax level for everyone, be they healthy or not, we'd all be paying a lot less. Insurance and malpractice are extremely high drains on the whole process. Without them, and without the drive for profit and to appease investors, the system becomes substantially cheaper.
It's not a 'decision' not to have health coverage. It's just ignorance. It amazes me that people discuss healthcare as being a decision to make, as if your deciding on what color of car you want. Without healthcare, you're in deep shit. Something "as critical as [your] health" should be important enough for you to be covered. That's the whole idea.
Military is in the process of being privatized. Private contracts, mercenaries on the ground, and bought and paid for politicians. Socialized medicine flies in the face of that trend. Socialization is about moving the control from the hands of the proven irresponsible corporations and private interests.
It doesn't yet, but it would under socialization. My point is that I don't see anyone complaining about the government controling things like roads and police. I don't see anyone calling for privatized police (imagine paying $200 a month in case you need to call the police and if you don't pay... no one will protect you) or privatized roads (don't pay your transportation insurance? Good luck getting to work...).

It's not bad to try and pursuade someone from smoking, but if someone wants to that's their choice and who are you to outlaw it. I guess won't be able to drive my motorcyle either since they are more dangerous than cars. I do a high risk job, should I pay more too? Seriously, that slope never ends.
So...I can't sue for malpractice when the doctor screws me up with a system I didn't even want in the first place. That's outstanding. Don't you believe in redress of grievances?
It is a decision, not everyone feels the way you do. This nationalized healthcare garbage is just like Roman Catholic church of years ago. Everyone must follow the king's religion, no freedom.

The other huge problem that we aren't even talking about is how bad the actual 'care' is. The FDA allows horrible things to pass (GMOs, pesticides, fertalizers, antibiotics, growth hormones all in the food supply that makes us sick so we can buy their cool new pill) while trying to ban natural cures. This is the system you are supporting and now you want to force me to participate. It's bad.:grumpy:
Yes, the same politians who are bought and paid for by the mercs are likewise bought and paid for by pharma. They surely will save us all with their healthcare. I expect great things.
hmm...$200 a month for police? I think ill pocket that cash and just keep my revolver handy. Come to think of it, if I never had to deal with harrasment from a police officer while I was minding my own business that would be fine too.

Prohibition of ciggys is a good idea. I've suspected for years that's the direction California is heading. I guess we'll have to wait and see. BTW, cigarettes aren't transportation. They only have a simple function: they're a method of taking in addictive drugs. While tobacco is actually a decent product and can be used to make useful things, cigarettes have no positive health value whatsoever. At least McDonald's hamburgers have protein.
I believe in reasonable reparations. Suing for $35m is a gross misuse of the justice system. I believe that if a doctor screws up, he should have to be forced into school and relearn how to be a doctor, and that the person who was wronged should be made well if possible. If the doctor slips and cuts the wrong thing? They fix it and provide coverage for that.
What about no equality? What about the $12,000 you'd have to pay to get your finger put back on? That's a magnificent drain. What about the freedom to not have to be sick or injured because you're poor? There's your loss of freedom: poverty.
And what makes you think that any universal health care will run like the FDA? Because some governmental agencies aren't working, none can work? Slippery slope.
Pharma is declawed under socialized medicine. Insurance companies go out of business, and thus can't affoed to have politicians in back pockets.
So you can hold an investigation when a loved one is murdered when you're at work? Do you have access to databases with fingerprints? Do you have access to criminal records? Don't follow in suit with DK in thinking you could be your own police officer just because you have a gun. Being a police officer is a lot more than being a marksman.

Again, so because people CHOOSE to harm themselves or be in higher risk, I get to assume that risk. The people you say should be charged more are some of the same people that cannot afford it in the first place.

So that heart you have in your body, what dollar value to you give it? your legs? what do you do if the doctor accidentally cuts off your leg or arm? He goes back to school, they give you a prostetic and pat you on the head and send you on your way? WTF is that?

Because so far I have not in my lifetime ever seen a government agency in the United States work to my advantage. Understand what I said, work to my advantage. As an aside the deregulation of utilities has lead to more money out of my pockets than ever before for the same electricity and telephone. So I also don't see corporations being the end all either. A blend of the two I'm happy to live with in some capacity to prevent things like Enron, Tyco, MCI.

Insurance companies going out of business? So then where is my choice you touted I would have if I didn't want to get the Universal coverage? Where's the choice? If Insurance companies don't exist then where is the competition?
You are now touting a monopoly by the government, when earlier you suggested that people will still have choices.

Then with this view, you're saying that socialism isn't about personal freedom and liberty at all, but about a government body making rules and laws on how you will live your life because they know whats best for you, right?

name one program that the federal government has built that runs efficiently....on its own.

do you truly think that the government, through OUR taxes, is going to be able to foot the bill for ALL medical care? Will, you are much smarter than that.

I believe he's simply referring to having the ability to prevent violent crimes upon your own person, not investigating crimes that have already happened.

You know what's best for yourself, but that doesn't stop you doing it. People should be responsible for themselves. It has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with responsibility.
How about I name 10?
ACHP
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigations Board
Federal Maritime Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
National Archives and Records Administration
National Council on Disability
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
National Institute of Mental Health
National Park Service

I can name a lot more.
I am pretty smart. I'm smart enough to do my homework on the issue. How much would we be paying per person if we had the same system as the UK, in taxes? I know the answer to this question. How much do we pay in our current system?
So the police don't investigate crimes? We were talking about the police, not separating out specific functions of the police. Of their full list of responsibilities, that which you'd have to pay for if it was privatized, includes investigation of crimes.

Oy vey. For the millionth time, a public system of health is always cheaper than a private system. And not just in health. Look at prisons. Look at military. Look at anything. It's always cheaper when it's public. So even if people are asked to pay a bit more because they smoke or don' exercise, they're still pay a lot less than they would be paying into a private medical service.
What if a doctor accidentally cuts off my arm? Seriously? That's going to be your argument? Give me a break. Most malpractice suits are about mistakes. A sutcher is left in place, a vein is nicked, or some gauze is left in the body. Most of those cases can be resolved 100%. In the rare cases that's not true, other arrangements can be made. If, for some ludicrous reason, someone were to cut off your leg (wtf?), then that person shouldn't be practicing medicine. He should be a butcher or something.

Really, though, I was expecting a better argument than that. Jeez.
Lol... so when was the last time you ate a can of tuna and died from mercury poisoning? Or is death an advantage? More hyperbole, exaggeration, and appeals to ignorance.
Only a freshman economy student thinks that competition is always necessary. And only someone who's too stubborn to admit he or she is wrong would stick to an argument like "freedom is always 100% right". Freedom is not only subjective, but it's relative. There's no freedom for me to have 100% free healthcare. There's no freedom for people who are broke to get any health care. What about their freedom?
The government is not a corporate entity, and it's not profit driven.

yet you feel that the government should outlaw smoking, maybe drinking, or at least anything else that you feel is bad for people? are you confused maybe?

we still have chem spills, hazardous material issues, pirates and boating accidents, the presidents brain is missing, handicapped people still get dismissed, what arts, what humanities, how many thousands of mentally ill people go without medical care, and the park service? what a mess. nice try though.

I repeat, the gov is NOT going to foot the entire bill for medical care as it rises because more people will abuse the 'free' universal health care and go to doctors for having a cold or a rash instead of being sensible. They WILL utilize a select group of health insurance companies, most likely the ones that contributed to the campaign funds of those who supported universal health care, who will then raise rates to cover costs so they make a huge profit off of the gov, who will raise OUR taxes to cover what they pay to insurance companies. It's a mad, mad, mad circle I tell ya.

you're obfuscating the issue by saying that everyone pays for and utilizes ALL police functions because they can't fend for themselves, yet no police department has ever been held liable for failure to protect an american citizen. What is it we're paying for again?


You know not what you speak of. I had military health and dental care and 16 years AFTER, I still have the holes they drilled in my molars that they just didn't fill. Military medicine sucks ass. Prison medical care is better because a wacko liberal group decried the prison system for letting violent criminals waste away in their cells. Medicare and Medicaid, public health systems BTW, continue to drop their coverages while raising their rates and fees. Stop looking through the beer bottles at universal health care.


Will said doctors be getting malpractice insurance through the gov? If they do, you won't see a dime if something were to happen to you.

The ONLY thing that keeps costs down is competition in the market and that is NOT just a freshman view. ALL of history shows that whenever you have a monopoly, or a select few providing said service, prices go up because they can demand AND expect it, for where else will you obtain such service?

In this you are right, however, the government isn't interested in profit, they are only interested in spending humongous amounts of money that they take from US. It has been that way throughout history, still.

No, it's a horrible idea. Prohibition on alcohol and drugs have been great success. Everyone knows cigs are bad, that's not the issue. It's about having the freedom to smoke or not.

It's not the federal governments job to give welfare or healthcare to the poor. It's not even a federal issue. Why can't we leave some things to states like it's supposed to be.

Uh, healthcare and the FDA and pharma are all directly related. How will the crap the FDA allows not be in universal heatlhcare? I mean it's already there, but with universal care I'll have to use it.

Pharma declawed? Not sure how you made that huge leap. The FDA and Pharma are still making the drugs and poisoned food for you to eat and lobbying the proponents of this healthcare package.

The executive branch has the authority to enforce the law.

You're coming up with some pretty crazy 'what ifs' and conclusions that have no evidence to support them (like pharma being declawed :confused: ).

I don't remember naming alcohol. Cigarettes are addictive, therefore those who smoke them are by definition entrapped, or NOT FREE. If you smoke, you're not free. If you don't smoke you are free. See? Simple.
You're right! Those completely unsubstantiated claims negate the effiency and effectiveness of all of the federal organizations I named!

Nice try, indeed.
Go down to the police station and ask them. Ask them how many of their fellow officers died trying to protect someone. Go down there and ask how many criminals they've helped to apprehend. Go down and ask how many crimes they could have prevented because they were able to stop a criminal from striking again.

That's what we pay for, and as someone who lives in the safest large city in the whole country, I know this.
You know not what you read. I was not talking about military or prison health care. Please reread what I said. Privatization of the military (google Blackwater) and privatization of prison systems has led to massive corruption and is tremendously expensive.
You're right. Some people actually graduate having actually only taken econ 101. It's sad. The point is that they didn't do any work outside of that one class on the subject. The idea that everything is black and white in economics is actually something one might think before econ 101. The market is a living thing, and the nuances are amazingly complex. In this case, it's a waste of time to just say, "Competition is great! Go team free market!" It's no where near that simple.
Some members of the government are interested in spending a lot (Republicans in the white house) and some aren't (Democratic Senators). We live in strange times.

ah, so nobody CHOOSES to have a cigarette, they are simply addicted and can't function correctly anymore, so we MUST help them, cause it's bad, mmkay? please.

are you trying to say we've NEVER had a chem or hazardous material incident? is NOT JFK's brain missing from the archives?



yes yes yes, of course they will TRY, but it's NOT their job to protect YOU as an individual. If you think it is, you might read 'Castle Rock v. Gonzalez' and prepare for an eye opener.

Then you better tell Bloomberg he's a liar, because he's said that NYC is the safest large city in the country.

my bad, I did indeed misread your statement, but to even further prove my point, these 'privatized' orgs are getting paid BY THE GOV, so I'm still right. Things run by the gov or paid by the gov, simply suck ass and money.

If the market is a 'living' thing, then why on earth would you want to take the life out of it by regulating it to death?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, dems aren't big spenders? BWAHAHAHAHA

Addiction is the opposite of freedom. Would you want someone to have the freedom to go to prison?
I was ther when you found that case like a year ago, no need to lecture. It doesn't change the fact that they do protect.
Please
Murder rate per 1,000 residents:
San Jose - 0.0285
NYC - 0.0664
violent crimes rate per 1,000 residents:
San Jose - 3.8351
NTC - 6.7305
They are run privately.
I don't want to be mean, but that's the worst argument I've ever read.
They were 7 or 8 years ago. Not so much now, compared to $500 billion for a war. Sorry to have to break it to you. The Republicans are the spenders now.

really quickly before i head home...

My statement isn't to evoke hyperbole but to state, malpractice happens, people don't do 100% great jobs all the time. Mistakes happen. You're for fix it right up and send them on their way.

Really? Then why the warnings about pregnant women not eating fish??? Becuase there is some risk there... Again, I'm comfortable with some regulations that govern how the business is allowed to run, that's not being ignorant and exaggeration. It's simple facts. Cal OSHA makes sure you have a safe plae to work right?
Really? Then we shouldn't have deregulated airlines, utilities, charter school systems because the government should know better and performs better.

I think you don't realize that most cities and counties are incorporated. They are corporate entities, they may not be profit driven, but they are still corporate entitities.

But where does there money come from? hence the reason I said those run by or paid by the gov.

yet, so very true. What you are wanting to do with universal health care is remove health care completely from a free market environment, placing it in the hands of a government agency for the sole purpose of regulating prices, which will regulate treatment, which will stifle new discoveries in medicine, which will drive med professionals who WANT to make money, out of the trade, thereby regulating the health industry in to a slow agonizing death.

schumer, kennedy, biden, clinton, and pelosi/feinstein have never met a spending bill they didn't like, unless it was thought up by republicans. THEN the only reason they opposed it was they wouldn't get credit for it.

Yes Malpractice happens. Massive settlements also happen. Those are what I take issue with. If there was policy to guide malpractice instead of litigation, the whole thing would become cheaper.

As for the fish, yes, there is could be a small amount, but it's only dangerous to a fetus. It's not going to kill you. That's because of the FDA.

Some cities are incorporated, but not the Federal government.

Discoveries in medicine happen at the same rate in the UK and France as they do in the US, therefore socialization does not stifle progress.

How much have the Dems spent in the past 15 years? Now how much has the GOP spent? The GOP spends more.

Hillary and Barak proposed a "policy guide to malpractice" in 2005 and its also included in Hillary's plan.

Its called the Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation (MEDiC) Act. Its explained pretty well in this article by Clinton and Obama in the New England Journal of Medicine.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2205

Cyn--what's your opinion of the Icelandic health care system?

I've not spent much time paying attention to it. I can only say what little I know is based on the small demographic that it has to encompass. Since the entire population of Iceland is just over 300,000 it is an unfair model to compare since it may not scale very well into the millions.

Taxes are quite high based on what I read an know. I'm not sure how much of that gets redirected to healthcare coverage, but the $104 paid into the Eldery Construction Fund doesn't appear to include the healthcare costs, but just the construction and operation of the facility.

I do have a pair of friends in Aukureryi who work in hospitals and I don't recall ever having a conversation about the healthcare system itself. We've discussed the technology and logistics of the hospitals, but not how the system pays for itself.

What is great about a free market enviornment for health care, as seen today? The way it has stagnated has left with prices beyond their reach. Similarly while those with coverage, are alarmingly finding their prices out of reach and being unfairly denied. Healthcare is a bit too tricky for free market economics to work. There is an unfair balance of information within the system. It is not something where information about prices is disclosed easily. A consumer cannot simply choose which will be "cheaper" for him very easily as he does not know what ailments he will have down the line, and which provider option will help him out the most. Competition, as many people see in a free market works best to help the consumer when price information is easily found and transparent, thus leading to actual choices. The way the current health care works, has very little practical information for a consumer to make a choice, hiding many details in the fine print while luring people with clever marketing. Competition is great, when it is transparent, not inherently obscure as it is with health care.

I just found something I recall reading the other day

in the Iceland Review:
euro.who.int
Please note the LAST words here, opting out is not possible. You MUST contribute to the fund. I also see that one pays about 60%+ in taxes to the state contribution.

One of the links that I read puts Icelandic healthcare as 40% of the national budget.

The problem here is that todays healthcare system isn't based on free market. It's based on insurance rates of profit and loss. Theres absolutely no medical thought put in to the process and with the insurance industry 'controlling' costs, prices rise due to the limited venue in which medical care can be obtained.

Thanks for the info, Cyn. The question is, would you live here, given what you know about the Icelandic health care system and how much of your income would be going to fund it? Personally, based on the health care system alone, I'd rather live here than in the US... and I wouldn't mind seeing something like the Scandinavian system implemented in the US, either. Yes, Iceland is small, but the other Nordic countries are not so small, and they do manage their health care just as well (in my opinion). Just a thought.

I'd love to live in Iceland, not based on the healthcare system available and not because of the promiscuous hot Icelandic women. It is strictly because of the locale.

As an American citizen the problem with living in another country (expatriation) is that I am liable to pay US taxes and the taxes of the expatriating country. So it is a double tax hit.

My choices for living places are based more on my ability to have quality of life and disposable income. Healthcare is only a factor if I'm not gainfully employed by a company that provides healthcare benefits to their employees, that is a slim to none proposition. I'm quite selfish when it comes to spending the money that I earn. I'm happy to give it to friends and family as needed with no expectation of reciprocity, but strangers on the other hand, I'm not so fast in giving it out.

I know this is off topic, but expatriate US citizens only have to pay tax in the US if they earn over a certain amount (I believe this year it is $85,000), and if they do they only pay tax on the excess.

You might want to reconsider that statement!

:lol:

More on Iceland's healthcare system from today's Iceland Review: "people who suffer from long-term diseases often have difficulties paying for medicine, even though the disease isn’t fatal.” It may not be a perfect system but it doesn't seem like it's "cheap" either.

Cynthetiq....the results are in.....and your politics seem to contribute to conditions that benefit the few, to the detriment of the many....Denmark's stats are on the right....and they seem to indicate that....when government defers to free markets to "sort out" the distribution of wealth....wealth simply buys sufficient power and influence to control the government and the "free" market.

The UK, US, and Mexico, end up being much harsher places to live than in Denmark or in France....it doesn't have to be that way....but the wealthiest won't permit the status quo to be any other way....in the case of attempts by government to more equitably distribute health care....or any other "wealth", it is the controlling group who have the money to produce and distribute the "Harry and Louise" ads...... which work to undermine the effort.


https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../da.html#Intro
Because of high GDP per capita, welfare benefits, a low Gini index, and political stability, the Danish living standards are among the highest in the world. A major long-term issue will be the sharp decline in the ratio of workers to retirees.

<b>Denmark's stats are on the right</b>
GDP - per capita (PPP):
$37,100 (2006 est.) France =$31,200 (2006 est.) United Kingdom = $31,800 (2006 est.) USA= $43,800 (2006 est.) Mexico= $10,700 (2006 est.)

Unemployment rate:

3.8% (2006 est.) France =8.7% (December 2006 est.) United Kingdom = 2.9% (2006 est.) USA= 4.8% (2006 est.) Mexico= 3.2% plus underemployment of perhaps 25%

Population below poverty line
N/A .......... France = 6.2% (2004) United Kingdom = 17% (2002 est.) USA= 12% (2004 est.) Mexico= 40% (2003 est.)

Household income or consumption by percentage share:

lowest 10%: 2% France = 3% United Kingdom = lowest 10%: 2.1% USA= lowest 10%: 1.8% Mexico= lowest 10%: 1.6%

highest 10%: 24% (2000 est.) France =24.8% (2004) United Kingdom = 28.5% (1999) USA= highest 10%: 30.5% (1997) Mexico= highest 10%: 35.6% (2002)

Distribution of family income - Gini index:
23.2 (2002) France =26.7 (2002) United Kingdom = 36.8 (1999) USA= 45 (2004) Mexico= 54.6 (2000)
Inflation rate (consumer prices):
1.8% (2006 est.) France = 1.5% (2006 est.) United Kingdom = 3% (2006 est.) USA= 2.5% (2006 est.) Mexico= 3.4% (2006 est.)

Investment (gross fixed):
22.2% of GDP (2006 est.) France =20% of GDP (2006 est.) United Kingdom = 17.2% of GDP (2006 est.) USA= 16.6% of GDP (2006 est.) Mexico= 20% of GDP (2006 est.)

Public debt:

28.1% of GDP (2006 est.) France =64.7% of GDP (2006 est.) United Kingdom = 42.2% of GDP (2006 est.) USA= 64.7% of GDP (2005 est.) Mexico= 20.7% of GDP (2006 est.)

Current account balance:
+$4.941 billion (2006 est.) France = -$38 billion (2006 est.) United Kingdom = -$57.68 billion (2006 est.) USA= -$862.3 billion (2006 est.) Mexico= -$400.1 million (2006 est.)

Exports:
$93.93 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.) France =$490 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.) United Kingdom = $468.8 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.) USA= $1.024 trillion f.o.b. (2006 est.) Mexico= $248.8 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.)

Imports:
$89.32 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.) France =$529.1 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.) United Kingdom = $603 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.) USA= $1.869 trillion f.o.b. (2006 est.) Mexico= $253.1 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.)

It's good to have you back.

Denmark's taxes are some of the highest in the world. A ceiling put in place to not exceed 59% of income. So for each $1 I earn I get taxed $.59??? Fuck that and the rest of the people.

Put this into dollars and cents and look at how many hours you have to work in order to purchase something. I look at things like American Tax Freedom day where every year we work MORE days to pay our taxes than less. In 1990 23-Apr was Tax Freedom day with taxes at 30.80%. In 2007 30-Apr is the day with taxes at 32.69%. A whopping WEEK extra I have to work for a 2% increase.

Sorry, no thank you. As I continue to raise my standard of living by increasing my wages, I don't want some asshole who sits at home playing Xbox because he doesn't feel like working to benefit more from it.

I would think that more vaccines and cures would come out of a government run system that wasn't driven on keeping people dependant on their patented medicines.

Both parties are big spenders. And I don't like the idea of high taxes to pay for healthcare either.

But everyone needs some level of healthcare, even if it is the catostrphic type. It shouldn't cost too much (under $10/month, free if you are poor), and most people would never use it. But if they get into a car crash, get shot, or cut off a finger, then they would be protected from the multi-thousand dollar hospital bill. You never know when it will happen or who it will happen to, and nobody would want it to happen to them. If you work or have some money, then you could get better coverage.

But I doubt a universal health insurance policy would include different tiers for people to choose which level of care they need. I can choose which level of car insurance I have, but I am required to carry it to protect the other guy at a minimum. I don't see why it would be different with healthcare, you can't choose to be healthy or not. If you could then no one would be in the hospital.

While the current health car system sucks. I am so totaly against this. Having dealt with "universal health care" in the military, I see what kind of service you get under this system. It's shit. for every good doctor you see, you end up seeing 10 that are fucking clueless. And then there is Tricare, the insurance provider. You find 2 kinds of doctors with Tricare. Those that don't take it, and those that stopped taking it because Tricare doesn't pay it's bills. We need to get off this universal health care bullshit, and find a third option.

Funny, every retiree I know is very happy with Tricare. That said, we have a large Canadian contingent on this forum that takes every opportunity to tell the US how great their single-payer system is. Ontario has even made it illegal to pay for private health care. Sounds great, doesn't it? It certainly fits the desire of the OP, i.e. someone else is tasked to pay for his health care.

Here is one man's experience with that system:

You know, this is never a debate about which system is "better" - it comes down to how one views their society.

In Canada, and in virtually every western nation, societies have made the decision that everyone will contribute via their tax dollars so that everyone receives good healthcare.

In the US, society has made the decision that if you can afford high end healthcare, you should pay for it yourself, and if those less able to afford it get lesser quality or no healthcare, so be it.

Arguing over whether one system is "better" is futile - the debate is not about the quantifiable merits of each system, it is about society as a whole.

Actually, the free market does work with health care, we just don't happen to have it, and haven't had a free market in health care for several decades. Health care is intensely regulated, health insurance is intensely regulated. There hasn't been any thing even remotely approximating a free market for health care since Medicare was enacted back in the mid-60s, and probably even earlier, back to WW2, when the only way an employer could raise compensation in an era of price controls was to provide non-wage comp in the form of (among other things) health insurance. If anything, health care is your quintessential example of screwing everything up by getting in the way of the free market, and then keeping on tinkering to the point that it's so complicated no normal person can understand it - which just opens avenues for slick operators to take advantage.

I remain convinced that we should outlaw third party payments for routine health care. In other words, make everyone uninsured. That would bring prices down so fast it would make your head spin - people simply won't stand for the bullshit pricing structures we see now if they had to pay for it out of their own pockets. Right now there is no pricing discipline because people don't pay for their own care. And prices of pharma would go down too, for the same reason. Health insurance should be true insurance, i.e. for unforeseen/unforeseeable disasters. Routine stuff should be paid out of people's own pockets, just like their rent and phone and cable. ("Benefits" are a form of compensation, which means that if this plan was enacted, pretty much all of what your employer otherwise spends on your health insurance would end up in your pocket as wages.) I know we'd need to have some sort of co-op bulk buying program for people with chronic conditions that require regular medication. But net, net, everyone except the insurance companies would benefit. And it won't require another Rube-Goldberg-style government program, either.

A few years ago, I wanted to have my family go "naked" on health insurance - cover only catastrophic, and pay for doctor visits and medicine out of our own pockets. I had calculated that we would come out ahead by some huge amount of money. My wife wouldn't hear of it.

That is what my wife and I have done. Insurance with $10,000 deductible for catastrophic with minor stuff paid with HSA account or out of pocket. This is not easy to do since price comparison is difficult for many procedures and deciding what medical care is really necessary and which is not. The system seems to be set up for people with co-pay who do not care how much things cost and how many tests, drugs, etc are provided after their deductible. I suspect that many tests, prescriptions, etc.. are not really necessary. Also the system is not set up for competitive price shopping and in an emergency or bad accident you are in no position to get quotes.

I understand what you're saying, but I was speaking relatively. If one were to compare the systems of healthcare between the US and another western power, ours would relatively be very capitalist. Yes, it's regulated, but it's far less regulated than systems that seem to be doing much, much better. France is so regulated it's basically socialist, but it's considered by not only the WHO, but it's almost universally recognized as the best health care system on the planet (unless you're a millionaire, in which case the US does just fine).

Speaking briefly on the subject of regulation, I've been speaking with a friend of mine who's father has been a doctor for decades and has been involved not only in medicine but administration. His complaints about the government regulation were seemingly unlimited. I asked him to show his father Sicko, but he refused calling it socialist propaganda. Heh. While the current government regulation of the medical industry may not be ultimately beneficial, it's hardly responsible for all of the problems. The government hardly asks the insurance companies to turn down people for life saving surgeries. The government doesn't make the private health care community lobby and bribe, though accepting the bribes certainly doesn't help. The government doesn't make the technology extremely expensive. The government doesn't require the drug companies to have thousand percent profit margins.

[QUOTE=ASU2003]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296997,00.html

But if they could give good health care coverage to every American for that much money, it sounds like a good plan. Espesicaly considering that I spend $840/year for Medicare right now, and I see nothing of that myself.

[/QUOTE

WELL here's my idea; since we are never going to see a dime of the money we are putting into Medicare, and since it is all going to a generation that is wringing the system dry without a thought to their children, other than that they hate our whole generation for not being them, I say we put that money towards the taxes for a national health-care system. :devious: It's not like it could be anymore crooked than Medicare, and it might help people live healthier in their old age. Ah, who am I kidding. Nothing the government sticks it's hands in will ever help the average joe's quality of life. But I'd rather have the lesser of two evils, thank you! Definately not both!!!

Willravel, I suspect there is a very big state to state difference in health care costs, and that the differences will be very closely related to the degree and kind of regulation. This isn't my area of expertise - I'm more of a well-read amateur here, so I can't get my fingers on my sources quickly - but I seem to recall that here in NY, where Local 1199 pretty much owns the Legislature, it is pretty much illegal to offer low-cost, few-featured health care policies. IIRC, the justification is that it's not right for some people to get significantly better coverage than others for something as important as health care. In other words, rather than offer choices of Chevys, Buicks, Toyotas and Audis, everyone has to drive a Mercedes or BMW whether they want to or not. Typically asinine NY law, with the result that Medicaid is now out of control, because the slack has to be picked up somewhere. I wish I could remember where I read that.

Part of the problem with the claim that we can do French-style health care here is that the US has a different culture. We are very individualistic, and all of us think we're important enough to deserve the best. There's nothing stoic or fatalistic about Americans. That means many denials of benefits will result in litigation, with the results that there will be lots of settlements, and ultimately costs will go blasting through any estimates. You'll have everyone travelling business class in no time, because no one will feel they are footing the bill themselves.

It's the convergence of a bunch of factors that makes single payer health care problematic in the US. And that's before even considering the philosophical issues, which I think you and I will probably disagree about, but which ultimately are matters of taste more than anything else.

I suspect that a vast majority agree that the current system should not continue. It's the solution we disagree on. I'd like everyone to be able to get a Mercedes and BMW at the price of a Kia. I can't see that happening in a capitalist system not only because they're profit driven, but more specifically because there are 45 million people who have no car who would still be running the risk of not being covered under a more free market-esque system. A lot of why I'm fighting so hard for single payer has less to do with those who are covered and more to do with those who aren't.
I can think of 45,000,000 people alive right now and 18,000 people a year who aren't alive who may be able to look past their philosophical views on individualism in order to get what they need. It'd be nice if profit driven corporations couldn't get politicians in their back pockets, or couldn't turn down people who needed life saving treatment, but the reality is that our health is too important to risk on corporations, even the non-profits. And when you do cross the pond and take a look at the French system, they're all flying first class for less than we're paying over here and are shocked that we aren't riding first class, too.

I'm not saying it's going to be an easy transition, but if there's a reasonable chance we can have a system on par with France for every man, woman, and child in the US, isn't it worth giving a shot?
I'm willing to throw my philosophy out if it has no place in reality. I'm not religious about my philosophy, after all. I only hope that other people would make the same claim.

<br>Geez, that sounds like something I would say, to look at what works rather than what's appealing.

Take a look at Tennessee's experience with something akin to single payer, TennCare. I believe they were unable to control the costs. That's an example of why single payer won't work well in the US.

I still think getting rid of most health insurance is the most feasible, equitable and sane way to get costs under control and improve access for everyone. And for the poor, a medical care equivalent of food stamps. The rest of this huge lumbering Rube-Goldbergesque system should be put to sleep. As I said before, no one but the insurance companies will miss it.

Then I'm on the right track. Or you're on the right track.
You know, I'd be willing to settle with ending insurance and instigating a "medical stamp" policy. I think the following are reasonable to want from the medical industry:
1) Affordability for a vast majority of people, at least on some level.
2) No more lobbyists, ever, ever. Get your greedy paws out of government or be run by them. Either or.
3) Something to help out those in need. Some people won't be able to afford basic medical care. They need some assistance in case of an emergency.

Willravel: "Get your greedy paws out of government or be run by them. Either or."

See, that's the problem with govt involvement in almost anything. Your choice is either having opportunities for corruption (veiled or otherwise) or else curtailing freedom of expression. Neither one is very attractive.

There shouldn't be career lobbyists or career politicians, really, as they tend to bring the authenticity out of the process, but that's another thread.

As for government involvement in medicine, I still can't get over how well it works in France compared to the US. Yes, it's not perfect, but in comparison it's absolutely breathtaking. And more importantly, it's what the people wanted, thus dealing with the curtailing of freedom issue. If we could get off our asses and do some homework, collective homework (what a concept!), I suspect this could get solved. There'd also probably be a revolution. Heh.

Sadly, John Adams thought he could be a noncareer politician and rise above petty partisan sniping, much as George Washington did in his first term. It didn't work for Adams, and he was booted after one term in what may have been the nastiest presidential election in US history.

Willravel, like much else about ideal setups, having no career politicians just won't work. The world, and life, is what it is, and we have to make the best of it.

Jesse "The Body" Ventura impressed a lot of people, myself included. He served one term and then left.

yeah, but he didn't run for re-election. And I don't recall whether the reason was that he thought he probably would lose - do you recall?

That reminds me of a story. I used to have a client, Russian expat, who imported steel from mills in Russia (he has since returned to Russia and we lost touch). I took him to lunch one day during the Russian presidential election campaign between Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Zhirinovsky (whom you may remember as a xenophobic, antisemitic, right-wing Russian nationalist). The polls for a while showed Yeltsin trailing badly, and I asked the client (Sasha) about it. Sasha stopped a second, looked at me with this very level look, and said "Eef Yeltsin iz having un elekshun, eet's becawz he vill vin. Odervize dere vood be no elekshun." And Sasha was right - Yeltsin won in an amazing comeback. That was a very very interesting piece of cultural education that I learned, about what having an election means in other parts of the world. Which should give us all some appreciation for how great this country is.

He stated before running he'd only serve one term. I think it's damn near heroic to take that position on being a politician, and I wish Bush had done it when he was governor. One term representing your home, then retire.

That's an interesting story. After hearing Kasperov speak on Bill Maher this week, I feel like I've neglected Russian politics as of late.

if Ventura did that, then good for him. Doing what one says one will do is honest, which is way too rare.

if Ventura did that, then good for him. Doing what one says one will do is honest, which is way too rare.

I have this type of plan as well. Mainly because I am healthy.

I did get a prescription for some allergy medicine last week, and the doctor didn't care about the cost because she thought my insurance would pay for it. I went to the pharmacy and they told me it was $154 for 30 days of pills. I picked the $5 DEA regulated allergy medicine instead. Yes, there was one different chemical between the two, and maybe one works better than the other. But, when I have to pay out of my own money versus having insurance or the government pay for it, money matters.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think a system like this, run by a non-profit would be best. Although, if the big insurance companies were regulated a little more, and could earn more profits when Americans were healthier, I wouldn't care too much. You give everyone an HSA account so if you really need medical care you won;t have to pay more than the $1,000 - $3,000 deducible. There should also be no fees or experation dates on a HSA account. If you don't use your money, you won't lose it. If you have the money, you can buy better healthcare. If you don't have money, you will still have access to basic healthcare. It is your choice and you can get the advice of a doctor in making your decision.

This is my point exactly, and why I think we should outlaw all third-party payments other than for catastrophic events. The idea that "cost shouldn't matter" is ridiculous, because someone is always paying for it, even if not the patient, and other people's money should be respected too. If you respect your own, you should spend your own.

I agree.

I'm happy to give freely from my own pocket, just stop sticking your hands in there and taking what you want.

ASU - Kaiser is a non-profit, that doesn't stop it from turing down life saving surgeries and overcharging. It doesn't stop it from dropping off uninsured patients on the street. It doesn't stop it from lobbying.

Cynthetiq - stop pretending like people are trying to steal from you. If you pay less under socialized medicine, as I've already demonstrated, then you're paying less. That's actually the opposite of stealing.

Willravel, I'd be very hesitant to just assume that a government-sponsored program will yield cost benefits. FWIW, I find this post by Megan McArdle persuasive (excerpt follows): My own way of putting this is slightly different: people don't stop being people, and begin being angels, just because they are in the government. As the economist James Buchanan pointed out, people and groups who work in government have incentives and agendas just like everyone else, and those may or may not coincide with the "public interest" broadly defined. I'd be very reluctant to sign over everyone's health care to the tender mercies of government programs without being damn sure about what the tradeoffs are and what we're giving up by doing it. Speculative cost benefits aren't enough.

will, I live in a city that takes quite good care of it's own community. the local community board impacts my day and nights MORE than President Clinton or Bush could ever do. They have more impact on my quality of life because they can be concerned about the localized issues. Why should I pay for YOUR sidewalk? Why should I care about if there is a bar 200 yards from the next one in YOUR neighborhood? Why should I be paying for roads and highways (not federal roads) in YOUR neighborhood?

will, YES you are sticking your hands into MY pockets.

Will, you've only demonstrated the theory behind it. These things aren't going to appear from thin air. Taxes will be levied in some fashion, and it will be paid for. I've demonstrated that other countries that have these socialized programs have much much higher taxes to pay for such things like socialized healthcare.

Liquitur - If you look at socialized programs, they do yield cost benefits. They all pay way less per person than we do because the administrative, malpractice, and insurance costs virtually disappear. So if we model our system on one of the other systems, hopefully France, we should see prices drop for everyone. Even Cynth.

Cynth - if you want to live in a city state, that's your call. We have federal issues here in the USA. We have state issues here in the USA. That's how it works here. When you pay taxes, you're paying for sidewalk that *gasp* someone else will walk on, and it may not even be in your community. I know it pains you greatly to pay for something someone else will use, but you do.

You open your pockets by being a citizen. You do, no one else. If you don't want to pay for things like sidewalks or police, then there are plenty of desert islands in international waters that you could inhabit.

You don't recall that YOU stated you don't differentiate the differences between local and federal government. You lump them all together.

Again, I do open my wallet as needed, but there's no need for me to pay for someone's police force in San Jose. It's not relevant to my life nor is it any consequence for you to pay for the New York City Housing that's just a few blocks from where I live. Now if you'd like to do that with all things, hey that's your perogative. I don't like paying more taxes. You may not like and loathe the monies you earn, I don't.

If I recall you have stated you have a daughter. I don't want to pay for your daughter's education. I'm stuck paying for basic education, but when it comes to higher education? No. I'm not interested in that. You choose to have a child, not me. YOU pay for her higher education.

Or should it be another one of your socialized programs because everyone should have higher education?

It would be convenient for you if this was even close to true. The reality, of course, is that I call the whole government the US government, the state governments the state government, the county, etc. I was using a descriptive term for the whole government when you misunderstood me.
You need to pay for medical care for people in your neighborhood and they you. Collectively, you'll get better care and you all end up paying less per person in taxes than you are currently in insurance. Sounds like a no brainer.
I wasn't aware it took tax dollars to pay for home schooling. I hope to get my checks soon. I hope we can fix the public school system so that it caters to creativity and education instead of assembly line useless fact cramming.
In 20 years when almost all of the decent jobs in the US are gone and the dollar has dropped below the peso, I suspect people may look back and wish that we ad the foresight to make better educations more available to everyone.

:sniff: :sniff:

I seem to have stepped in some bullshit. You may recall we were talking about STATE government.
LINK

Am I the only one that gets a chuckle out of the unintended humor in the NSFW tag in the title?

Willravel, I remain to be persuaded that the cost benefits you're touting are likely to materialize (the French system runs deficits, for example), particularly outside the very short term. But even assuming that in terms of cash outlays, there will be some reduction of overall cost, at a certain point the rigidity built into the system will almost certainly affect it negatively, as it does almost every single government program ever invented - and severely degrade it after a relatively short adjustment period (certainly less than 10 years). Govt bureaucracies simply are not flexible, not adaptable, and highly resistant to being made so. Ever has it been so, ever will it be - which was the point of my post up above in #263.

I do, but then I remember why it's nsfw.
I demonstrated through verifiable sources that we pay more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country. I believe it was the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development that held the study on health care expenses of the industrialized nations including the US. The amount of GDP that is spent on healthcare in the US is staggering, dwarfing even France who has the best health care in the world according to the massive WHO study released a few years back (and nothing has changed since then).

exactly well stated and pointed out in my own post about Icelandic healthcare #230

One can easily look at the shiny exterior of the program, but peel away the veneer and you'll see it's just as mechanical, complex, and expensive as any other.

We do spend more. Ever asked why? As I said up above, it's cultural.Any program to be enacted in America has to fit Americans. I'm sure health care would be quite cheap in, say, Guinea-Bissau, but programs appropriate for that culture wouldn't be appropriate for the US. And that's one of the several clear places where your argument breaks down. You're assuming it's purely attributable to there being some (restricted) scope for the operation of market in the US. Not so. It's at least equally attributable to the distortions of the market by poorly conceived regulation and through the separation of use from payment through insurance and benefits. Throw in the cultural aspects of how Americans use the health care system, and you'll see that your argument breaks down fairly drastically. That's why I think we have to eliminate third-party payment as the most equitable solution.

I wish he had asked the french the same question. But here's something, the Canadians pay less and get higher rated care. They're only 11% less likely to get a second opinion?

BTW, did they ask uninsured people if they'd get a second opinion? I mean that's 1/6 the population of the US or about 15%. It's hard to say that their vote doesn't count on the issue, if we're going to use those statistics as a part of a discussion about universal health care.

Canadians who don't like it have the option of crossing the border to get what they want. And many do.

How many Canadians cross the border for health care vs. how many Americans cross the border for Canadian health care?

I don't have the numbers, though there have been plenty of stories about Canadians suing to get reimbursed for the cost of going to Buffalo to get treated, after their requests for domestic treatment got buried in the health care bureaucracy. There also was a Quebec Supreme Court decision a few years ago holding that it's a violation of basic human rights for the provincial government to make it illegal to get private medical care. I assume the numbers are get-able, and will consist mainly of people who need non-routine things but have been put on intolerably (to them) long waiting lists to get them.

I don't know of Americans who cross the border to get medical care, though it certainly is possible. The main Canadian health-care import is price-regulated drugs, which are cheaper north of the border, for a congeries of reasons I won't go into here.

I continue to follow the Icelandic Health Care system since it is a socialized system and I have a keen interest in living in Iceland at some point in time.

So if the system is paying for itself and the costs are cheaper, why do they carry an $18M debt?

Unfortunately I cannot get more information since the other papers are written in Icelandic.

As interesting as the Icelandic health care system might be, I would rather compare Hillary's plan against, say a Bush plan?

Wait....Bush has never sent any comprehensive health care plan to Congress in the last 6 years.

How about a plan from the Repubs in Congress when they had control for 6 years?

Nope....cant find any plans there either.

The Republican candidates for President?

Nothing as detailed as Hillary's, Obama's, or Edwards' respective plans.

Help!!! Has any Republican proposed anything comprehensive (not just talking points)?

The only way I would support a universal system is if it could never get into debt.

Meaning that either taxes would get raised if more people got sick or would fall if less people used health serviices.

I don't think anyone has come up with the right way to fix healthcare, even if it can be fixed at all.

As a registered republican (chosen so I can vote in primary elections since I align myself more to the republicans than to the democrats) I don't care about universal healthcare. I don't give a shit about giving up more to those who don't wish to or can't help themselves and want the government to help themselves. So I don't expect any Republican candidate to come forward to debate point for point on a healthcare plan.

Since I choose to work full time for an employer that provides healthcare benefits, I don't give a crap about giving universal healthcare to those that don't work full time by choice or by issue.

Cynthetiq.....that seems very short-sighted to me, but I hope you never leave your current place of employment... or your current employer is not like most and increases the employees share of premiums by 7-10% every year.... or you have a family member who with a pre-existing condition and your employer suddenly changes providers (to save money) to a provider that wont cover you.

I have left my employer before. I was even laid off twice.

But the choices were simple, my wife signed up for her plan. So long as there is no break in coverage, no pre-existing condition exists. I recently changed plans but not providers, my costs increased slightly since the company I worked for was 50,000 employees worldwide to only 10,000.

My employers have changed providers, and increases are passed on, this year it was 4% of the previous year premiums, to which many ignorant people said, "But I only got a 3% increase how can you allow it to be raised by 4%, 4% is more than 3%." They don't know how to do math when the increase is to the premium has NOTHING to do with the increase in the salary, but it's a good number to point at and demonize the system.

Had I to go on COBRA during the times I was laid off, it would have been expensive. That's okay with me. I don't NEED 125 cable channels with HBO, Showtime, Starz, and Encore. I don't NEED a cellphone. I don't NEED high speed internet. I don't NEED to own a car in a city with good public transportation, in fact on a nice day I can walk to work if I choose.

I have NEVER heard of a company changing providers that exclude members of their full time employment. If that's the case for some places, then so be it. I'll move to an employer that does provide me coverage.

Sorry, scare tactics are not something that I care to debate. Talk to me about facts.

I NEED to take care of my health. Those things *I* need to take care of, *NOT* the Federal government.

So far, the Icelandic government seems to be in debt covering it's 300,000 citizens, 175,000 of which live in Reykjavik which is where this $18M debt is being described as originating.

Seems to me like it doesn't work as advertised or touted. I don't want to buy a pig in a poke, and I'm definitely not interested in being sold a bill of goods.

Not scare tactics....facts of life for many.

Health care is the second most important 08 election issue for many Americans. Its not unreasonable to expect to see the issue addressed with substantive proposals from potential candidates and the Repubs have offered very little that I can see.

But i didnt expect to change your mind :)

edit: a study released today:
scare tactics or facts?

More Icelandic Healthcare coverage
Of note here is that there are waiting lists for surgery, in a country of 300,000 there are still waiting lists for surgery. What kind of surgery is uncertain and unknown from the article.

This is from page 5 from a publication dated Feb., 2005:
Contrast Iceland's universal health care benefit with the US system that bankrupts even some who require medical treatment and believed themselves to be adequately insured. The crisis of more than 45 miliion uninsured, a number that is growing, and the burden of monthly insurance payments of a large number who pay premiums for individual coverage, is in the US, not in Iceland.

I cannot fathom what your point is, Cynthetiq? Is it simply that "you've got yours", so that indicates "anyone can get their's?"

Someone asked me if I knew anything about the Icelandic healthcare system since it is supposed to be a great system and I have a desire to live there one day. But if you look at the fact that Iceland cannot provide great coverage for 300,000 people as highlighted by large debt and waiting lists from the articles I posted.

And yes, isn't that part of the American Dream? that people can strive to achieve and earn more and better their lives than previous generations? Seems to be working for me as a 1st generation immigrant. Seems to be working for my wife who grew up below the poverty line.

You don't know how frustrating it is to read your posts on this thread, thinking as I do, that you do not have a clue. You forage for flaws in Iceland's admirable universal healthcare effort, while these parasites suck our "system" dry, for their own selfish gain, using questionable or illegal methods...the Frists took HCA public, at huge ancillary expense, and then, again at huge expense for fees to m&a lawyers and investment bankers, they took HCA private again, just recently:

<h3>...and in a state with less than 9 million people with 1.7 million unisured, this is what is happening to the most important hospital in a metro area of 5 million residents, as a consequence of caring for the uninsured:</h3>

One sympathizes.

Cynth, do you really, honestly think that our healthcare system is better than Iceland? Is that your honest informed opinion? Because it strikes me as a desperate last stand in a losing battle.

Don't worry, the frustration is reciprocated not just in this thread but in many of your long quotations and diatribes. I try my best and that's all that I can do.

I didn't say that it was. Please learn2read because nothing stated it as such.

I've only stated that I got mine and I don't give a shit about those lazy fuckers and other people who make choices and don't want to suffer the consequences of their choices.

I'm pointing out simply that for 300,000 people they seem to have the same flaws that people complain about in the UK and other socialized systems of debt and waiting lists.

I didn't say you said it was. I was asking if you do. Do you believe the American system of healthcare is better than Iceland's?
"Fuck the poor" is an attitude usually reserved for the uber-rich. I don't know you to be a neocon, so it's surprising.

Why the vague attack and the reference to "other threads"? If you could see yourself, here. It would come off like this:

"I'm, young, healthy, well educated, but...I'm "self made", so that entitles me to not alter my perspective to consider the circumstances of anyone else who seeks affordable medical insurance coverage who is NOT young, healthy and well educated..."

I attempted to point you in the direction of your lack of perspective and empathy regarding the issue of affordable health care coverage, and you respond with:
The "long quotations" are intended to break through the "wall of denial", and the information "void" that is the buiding material of the wall....

Host, I can see myself. I have an opinion that is formulated by my actions and experiences which differ than yours. You don't like that. Pretty plain and simple.

will, fuck the poor that don't help themselves. Does that clarify it better? As for the USA vs. Iceland healthcare system, I don't think that Iceland's healthcare system can scale to cover the amount of Americans. I don't know much about the Icelandic Healthcare system, abaya asked me what I thought of it and I have posted my findings as I find them here. To asnwer your question directly, yes, I feel that the American system is fine in comparison to the Icelandic system. I don't ever expect something for nothing since I don't expect the government to ever take care of me.

That reads as "all poor that aren't insured don't help themselves, so fuck them". Unless you have anything at all besides cruel baseless judgments of the poor, that sentiment seems rather useless. Obviously not all poor people without healthcare are in that situation by choice. Most of them CAN'T HELP IT. They work twice as hard as you or I and get half as much, and yet there you are judging them. It'd be fascinating if it weren't so disappointing.

Stop acting as if
1) You're better than people because you were fortunate enough to get opportunities to live comfortably.
2) All poor people are lazy.

Both ideas are inane at best, and deeply ignorant and judgmental at their core.

....hmmm
 

Where does the negativity towards the poor...the powerless come from?

Is it not much more reasonable to direct the negativity at money churners like the Frists of HCA...the fraudulant billers assaulting medicare and the lax enforcement that permitted it to occur...the healthcare insurance and pharma lobbies who convince our congress to vote in the industry interests instead of ours...

Good god! Resentment of the poor would not even make my list. It is a tribute to those who paid for the campaigns to convince people to focus their vitriol on the least powerful and influential that to any extent it seems to have worked....especially because it seems to make no sense to lash out at those with least power and resources.

edit

Interesting how you fail to mention the insane malpractice law suits such as those which HURT WOMEN AND COST THEM THEIR LIVES in the case of John Edwards, but since the litigation lawyers donate almost exclusively to democrats I can see where you think this isn't a problem even though its chasing OB/GYN's out of my democrat controlled state so they can practice without fear of losing everything to a frivolous lawsuit.

You know host if you want to get on that bully pulpit, you need to be consistent in how you approach an issue, otherwise you get to be our Anne Coulter, only without the fuckability factor.

"a state of mind"? What are you talking about?

If we could sometime have an actual discussion here...plain talk without the eyerolling and innuendo....and the vague incoherent attempts to defend the indefensible....

No wonder the "six questions" thread is bringing em all out of the woodwork....it is apparantly the best we are going to see on here.

Are you saying you want to have sex with John Edwards? If not, what the hell are you talking about?

edit