or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Can America afford Universal Health Care?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can America afford Universal Health Care?

post #1 of 77
Thread Starter 
I think it is a fair to face reality and ask a very important question facing Americans. Can America afford Universal Health Care?

The following video is not a lot of fun to watch. I for one like the idea of Universal Health Care as my family feels the pain of out of control health care costs.

However...

What if America can't afford Universal Health Care..

Then we better have a plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGpY2...elated&search=

Fellows

Please weigh in with your thoughts.
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #2 of 77
If it is run by government, it will be an expensive failure.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #3 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski View Post

If it is run by government, it will be an expensive failure.

The idea that Government is not as efficient as Private Business is not always true.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768

In Saskatchewan we have had free medical ( no premiums, co-pays or other charges) since 1962.
Removing the cost of health care from business would allow American Industry to become more competitive in world markets. Knowing that I would have free medical for the rest of my life allowed me to retire at the age of 53.
post #4 of 77
If it is run by our government, it will be an expensive failure.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #5 of 77
I suspect that the major problem with American health care is private insurers. The beaurocrats that run our health care do not get multi-million salaries, corporate jets, stock options, country club memberships, forgivable loans or other perks.
These beaurocrats, like others of their kind, tend to think that the money they are spending belongs to them. So it is in their interest to purchase items at the cheapest price possible and to have the patient cured as soon as possible. The more money that passes through the hands of private insurers means that these companies have more chances to make a profit. For example: How much profit can be made from a tablet of Aspirin if it costs $0.05 or $1.00. They upcharge a certain percentage, say 20%. so they would bill $0.06 or $1.20. It is easy to see which makes them more money. There is a built in preference to keep costs high=more money/profit for them.

These high costs are then passed on to their customers. If people complain, So what? get your health care from someone else! The shareholders of those 'other companies' are asking for the same (or better) returns on investment so the same pressure exists across the industry.

The profit motive has been removed from our system. Also advertising, political contributions, ego (My corporate headquarters are better than yours.)

I think that any legislator (of whatever jurisdiction) should look at what is done in other locations to see what can be adapted to their situation. I think that the US is fortunate that so many governments has instituted their own systems that the US can see what works and will not work.
post #6 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROFF View Post

I suspect that the major problem with American health care is private insurers.

There are two root problems in the U.S. health market.

First, government regulation, interference and distortion of the market in ways that reduces competition and reduces the availability of products and services. That is the government's interference reduces supply.

Second, because the consumer of products and services (patients) are not the payer of those products and services (the insurance companies are), for many medical services, the price goes to zero (or nearly so) for the patient. As prices for products ans services go toward zero, the demand for them increases.

Combine these two and you have a recipe for higher prices. Furthermore, because government interference is limiting supply, product and service providers cannot move quickly (or perhaps at all in some cases) to expand available supply to take advantage of the high demand at higher prices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROFF View Post

The profit motive has been removed from our system.

The profit motive, when coupled with true, free-market, competition (which does not exist in the U.S. health market) would produce the incentive to create better products at lower costs for more customers. History has shown that market after market that has these conditions has demonstrated this to be true.

Look at the markets for other essential goods (food, drink, clothing, shelter, transport). In these markets there exists an amazing array of product and service choices at a wide range of prices from very affordable for almost anyone to very very expensive for those willing to pay more.

Even better, look at the markets where there is almost no regulation and incredibly vibrant competition. The consumer electronics industry is a great example. Wow! Look at the amazing innovation, quality improvements, technological improvements, price deflation and expansion of choices in that industry!

It is the "markets" where there's either limited competition or no profit motive, or both (See: government education systems) where you see the most inefficiency, very limited choices, higher prices, lower quality, worse service and so on.

As far as the experiences in the system of your country, I strongly suspect that there are costs that you simply don't recognize or are being paid for in ways that you simply don't see.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROFF View Post

If people complain, So what? get your health care from someone else!

This would be far worse under government run health systems since your options have been eliminated.
post #7 of 77
Your post says absolutely nothing about the problems, economic or otherwise, facing U.S. health care.
post #8 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROFF View Post

The idea that Government is not as efficient as Private Business is not always true.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768

In Saskatchewan we have had free medical ( no premiums, co-pays or other charges) since 1962.
Removing the cost of health care from business would allow American Industry to become more competitive in world markets. Knowing that I would have free medical for the rest of my life allowed me to retire at the age of 53.

And how many illegal immigrants are flocking to Saskatchewan these days? It tends to put a little extra burden on the system when a good deal of the public is unable to pay for services rendered.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #9 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

And how many illegal immigrants are flocking to Saskatchewan these days? It tends to put a little extra burden on the system when a good deal of the public is unable to pay for services rendered.

True. And, while she probably wasn't illegal , here's one example of someone "immigrating" to the U.S. (from Canada) for her health.
post #10 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROFF View Post

free medical for the rest of my life

Free medical care, unicorns, leprechauns.

It's not free.. someone, somewhere, has to pay for it. That's what the proponents in this country refuse to talk about. Nothing, especially something like health care, is "free."
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #11 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Free medical care, unicorns, leprechauns.

It's not free.. someone, somewhere, has to pay for it. That's what the proponents in this country refuse to talk about. Nothing, especially something like health care, is "free."



Tax the Rich!
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #12 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski View Post

Tax the Rich!

Yea, fuck them for being successful! How dare they!
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #13 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski View Post

Tax the Rich!

Tax the rich, feed the poor
'Til there are no rich no more
post #14 of 77
There are other benefits to the Canadian system that most people do not think about.

-No one goes bankrupt or is hounded by collection agencies.
-Doctors and hospitals get paid for services. There is no need to raise fees to cover those that can not pay.
-The government has a vested interest in your health. I am a diabetic. Two weeks ago my Doctor's office phoned. He wanted to check my micro-albumin levels to see if I had any kidney damage. This is part of a Government program about those with a chronic disease. It is cheaper to stop problems now than to wait for a kidney transplant.
-I retired early partly because i knew that I would not have to look for health care insurance.
-12 person years (in my case) were made available.
-Peace of mind. I cannot stress this enough. To know that my wife and I can receive care and treatment for the rest of our lives when we need it is something that I cannot put a price on.

No program/policy designed by humans is ever perfect*. Saying that, I am quite satisfied.

*Problems
-If I purchase an American manufactured vehicle, I am paying the health care for someone else.
-Our population density is about one tenth of the US. This means that some people are not near health services.
-Smaller community hospitals may not be as well equipped.
post #15 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROFF View Post

-I retired early partly because i knew that I would not have to look for health care insurance.
-12 person years (in my case) were made available.

I find this part of your story quite interesting. Basically you're touting the fact that you are able (and willing) to chose to be unproductive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ROFF View Post

I am quite satisfied.

No doubt. If someone else was paying for my stuff (health care or otherwise) I suppose I might be quite satisfied too.
post #16 of 77
More often that not, the Canadian health care system is the butt of jokes rather than a model.

Public health care is not a good idea. Everywhere it's applied, the average quality of care is reduced, and the average costs are increased. If would be a major tax burden for businesses and consumers. It's not like the tax cost to business is going to magically go away; it will be pushed onto consumers.

The US health system, however bizarre it may be, is the best in the world. I don't see why there's cry for change.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #17 of 77
Ah, splinemodel's here. Expect this to be a long and drawn out flame war.

ROFF. Good points. Don some fireproof clothing though, it'll get hot in here.
post #18 of 77
Thread Starter 
I wonder what the US would need to trim so that we might invest in health care and not go broke in doing so.

I was looking at how health care costs almost did GM in save for the latest agreement with the UAW. If it was tough for GM to foot health care costs in a global economy how much worse or better would it be for the US government to try out Health Care?

Is there a way the US can have a Universal Health Care system without going broke and in debt in the process?

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #19 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Is there a way the US can have a Universal Health Care system without going broke and in debt in the process?

Nope.*

*Not without severely limiting the health care products and services.
post #20 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

I find this part of your story quite interesting. Basically you're touting the fact that you are able (and willing) to chose to be unproductive.

No doubt. If someone else was paying for my stuff (health care or otherwise) I suppose I might be quite satisfied too.

First, retirement does not equal unproductive. I have been called back to consult from time to time. I also work on special projects that require experience. I was in building maintenance for 11 locations.
Second, you have no idea how our plan is paid for. It is funded through a sales tax, the GST (Goods and Service Tax). So far this year, the Federal Government is running a 13 Billion Dollar surplus. Food and essentials are not taxed.
post #21 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROFF View Post

I have been called back to consult from time to time. I also work on special projects that require experience.

Then you aren't retired.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROFF View Post

It is funded through a sales tax, the GST (Goods and Service Tax).

I thought it was "free".
post #22 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Ah, splinemodel's here. Expect this to be a long and drawn out flame war.

Well, thanks for starting it. So far, there has been no flaming in this thread. . . I don't take pleasure in that you insist there should be.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #23 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

Well, thanks for starting it. So far, there has been no flaming in this thread. . . I don't take pleasure in that you insist there should be.

Quote:
More often that not, the Canadian health care system is the butt of jokes rather than a model.

This.

and also sslarson:

Quote:
I find this part of your story quite interesting. Basically you're touting the fact that you are able (and willing) to chose to be unproductive.

I'll let you two self-appointed experts continue. I'll find my own information elsewhere.
post #24 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

This.

and also sslarson:



I'll let you two self-appointed experts continue. I'll find my own information elsewhere.

I drew focus to what ROFF himself said...that he'd retired* (withdrawn from productive work) and was able to do so because his health care was "free" (someone else was paying for his health care).

I happen to find that to be an interesting consequence.

*He has since indicated that he is actually not retired (and, also, that the health care is not free...though perhaps it is to him). I'm not sure what to conclude from that.
post #25 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

No doubt. If someone else was paying for my stuff (health care or otherwise) I suppose I might be quite satisfied too.

I can't understand this argument.

If you already pay insurance and don't use it, aren't your premiums being used to help pay for someone else's care?

And if you choose not to have insurance, you are still covered according to your president.
Go to the emergency room, and if you can't pay, it's free.
post #26 of 77
Something to consider is do we have a health care crisis or a health crisis?

The former would mean that we cannot get quality health care even with stop gap measures like Medicare/caid, emergency rooms, free clinics, etc.

The latter would mean that we as a people are making such bad choices with regard to lifestyle and diet that no number of pills or doctor visits will cure us.

I see the latter, not the former. More importantly while I desire the former for everyone, knowing that we currently have the latter means something needs to change before I can endorse the former for everyone.

This is most true when we consider that most changes in our national health level have occurred because we have the boomer generation getting ready to go into those needy retirement years in worse health than the previous generation.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #27 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

More often that not, the Canadian health care system is the butt of jokes rather than a model.

Public health care is not a good idea. Everywhere it's applied, the average quality of care is reduced, and the average costs are increased. If would be a major tax burden for businesses and consumers. It's not like the tax cost to business is going to magically go away; it will be pushed onto consumers.

The US health system, however bizarre it may be, is the best in the world. I don't see why there's cry for change.

The US system is a cause for a lot of misery for those with serious health costs.
Denial of coverage leading to bankruptcy being prevalent.

Businesses are moving away from covering employees forcing, if they choose, to pay the costs which in turn, leaves them with less spending power.

It may be the best, but only for those that can afford it.

The idea that your okay, so why change it is totally selfish and underlines the perception that the right doesn't care and Libertarians are even worse when it comes to compassion.
post #28 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

I drew focus to what ROFF himself said...that he'd retired* (withdrawn from productive work) and was able to do so because his health care was "free" (someone else was paying for his health care).

I happen to find that to be an interesting consequence.

*He has since indicated that he is actually not retired (and, also, that the health care is not free...though perhaps it is to him). I'm not sure what to conclude from that.

He put in his time, now he does what he wants with one less burden he never had to worry about.
If you get laid off, fired, whatever, you don't lose your health care.
What happens in the US?

Everyone chips in through taxes and it's considerably less than what he, we, would have to pay on our own.
post #29 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Something to consider is do we have a health care crisis or a health crisis?

The former would mean that we cannot get quality health care even with stop gap measures like Medicare/caid, emergency rooms, free clinics, etc.

The latter would mean that we as a people are making such bad choices with regard to lifestyle and diet that no number of pills or doctor visits will cure us.

I see the latter, not the former. More importantly while I desire the former for everyone, knowing that we currently have the latter means something needs to change before I can endorse the former for everyone.

This is most true when we consider that most changes in our national health level have occurred because we have the boomer generation getting ready to go into those needy retirement years in worse health than the previous generation.

Nick

What exactly would you change?
Deny health care to those that let themselves go?

What do you mean by characterizing retirement years as "needy"
You're anti old folks?
post #30 of 77
I take it that a fair question to ask would be: What is the true cost (per capita) of the Canadian health care system?

Unless this question can be answered, discussion is pointless.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #31 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I take it that a fair question to ask would be: What is the true cost (per capita) of the Canadian health care system?

Unless this question can be answered, discussion is pointless.

From here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_canada

Per Capita Expenditure

Canada 2,669
US 5,711

Life Expectancy

Canada 80.5
US 77.5

Health Care Costs as a Percentage of GDP

Canada 9.9
US 15.2

And more
post #32 of 77
From here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_..._United_States

Quote:
Uninsured Americans are less likely to have regular health care and use preventive services. They are more likely to delay seeking needed care, resulting in more medical crises and emergency hospitalizations, which are more expensive than ongoing treatment for such conditions as diabetes and high blood pressure. Uninsured patients are twice as likely to visit hospital emergency rooms as those with insurance; burdening a system meant for true emergencies with less-urgent care needs.[27]

Which may explain lifestyle choices trumptman brought up.

Quote:
Shared costs of the uninsured
The costs of treating the uninsured must often be absorbed by providers as free care, passed on to the insured via cost shifting and higher health insurance premiums, or paid by taxpayers through higher taxes.[28]

So you end up paying for someone else anyway.

Quote:
Administrative costs
The health care system in the U.S. has a vast number of players there are hundreds, if not thousands, of insurance companies in the U.S.[29][30] This system has considerable administrative overhead, far greater than in nationalized, single-payer systems, such as Canada's. An oft-cited study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 31 percent of U.S. health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs, nearly double the administrative overhead in Canada, on a percentage basis.[31]

Quote:
Coverage gaps
Enrollment rules in private and governmental programs result in millions of Americans going without health care coverage, including children. The most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that 47 million Americans (about 15.8% of the total population) had no health insurance coverage during 2006.[3] Most uninsured Americans are working-class persons whose employers do not provide health insurance, and who earn too much money to qualify for one of the local or state insurance programs for the poor, but do not earn enough to cover the cost of enrollment in a health insurance plan designed for individuals. As health insurance rates rise and the population ages, those seeking to purchase health insurance directly are finding it increasingly difficult to do so, because some insurers are managing their risk by denying directly purchased coverage to individuals who have pre-existing conditions, some of them minor.[32]

Denying coverage because you are sick.
That's sick.
post #33 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

What exactly would you change?
Deny health care to those that let themselves go?

What do you mean by characterizing retirement years as "needy"
You're anti old folks?

Actually this is exactly what is happening in many countries with socialized medicine. They are starting to deny certain procedures based off lifestyle, which in my view is about as terrifying as you can get.

Also as for being anti-old folks, do you deny the fact that certain extreme lifesaving measures would probably be chopped out of a socialized medicine program due to their extreme cost with regard to return?

Are we really going to give all the 80 year olds hip replacements for example?

Just so we are clear, I'm not making this up.

Old folks are needy with regard to health care. I've actually pondered universal health care simply because it likely will deny service for certain procedures as opposed to just green lighting everything and raising premiums next year.

A bit more...

Telegraph

Dailymail

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #34 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

The US system is a cause for a lot of misery for those with serious health costs.
Denial of coverage leading to bankruptcy being prevalent.

Businesses are moving away from covering employees forcing, if they choose, to pay the costs which in turn, leaves them with less spending power.

It may be the best, but only for those that can afford it.

The idea that your okay, so why change it is totally selfish and underlines the perception that the right doesn't care and Libertarians are even worse when it comes to compassion.

Where do you get this information? Fiscally, the major problem du-jour with the US health care system is that illegal immigrants are breaking hospitals, which must guarantee service. Illegals can't get covered, yet work for US businesses. That problem isn't going to change without immigration reform policies, or pending the complete de-regulation of health care and disbanding of medicare. Those, however, are different topics. There's also the impeding crisis of the retiring boomer generation. Right now is a bad time to introduce public health care.

Even when taking a bleeding-heart philosophy, it's just hard to see the value of public health care, which promises the public health care to the poor with the price of making good health care too expensive for the middle class. You argue that it's "totally selfish" for the middle class to avoid the poor. I argue that it's "totally selfish" for poor people to expect coverage at the expense of the middle class. It's not that the right doesn't care, it's that they care about the middle-class -- typically their largest voter-base. Libertarians have an entirely different ethos, although you can't say it's not compassionate. Compassion is, and has always been, "teach a man to fish." Compassion doesn't enter into this discussion, except possibly on the side of health-care reform.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #35 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Actually this is exactly what is happening in many countries with socialized medicine. They are starting to deny certain procedures based off lifestyle, which in my view is about as terrifying as you can get.

Also as for being anti-old folks, do you deny the fact that certain extreme lifesaving measures would probably be chopped out of a socialized medicine program due to their extreme cost with regard to return?

Are we really going to give all the 80 year olds hip replacements for example?

Just so we are clear, I'm not making this up.

Old folks are needy with regard to health care. I've actually pondered universal health care simply because it likely will deny service for certain procedures as opposed to just green lighting everything and raising premiums next year.

A bit more...

Telegraph

Dailymail

Nick

The politician in the first link really thought out his proposal huh?

Quote:
Yet while the Health Miles Card would award points for giving up smoking and losing weight, it could penalise those who are already fit and well because they would receive no benefits under the scheme.
Also, the NHS already demands that obese patients lose weight before receiving hip replacements.

The other articles aren't about denying coverage per say, but telling them to, for eg. don't smoke for a month before heart surgery or, you gotta lose some weight before a hip or knee replacement.
That's been done for years here and in the States.

Certain live saving procedures are being denied all the time in your system because it's profit based.

If you can find an instance of this in Canada, let us know.

If the 80 year old wants it and is in good health, why not.
post #36 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

Where do you get this information? Fiscally, the major problem du-jour with the US health care system is that illegal immigrants are breaking hospitals, which must guarantee service. Illegals can't get covered, yet work for US businesses. That problem isn't going to change without immigration reform policies, or pending the complete de-regulation of health care and disbanding of medicare. Those, however, are different topics. There's also the impeding crisis of the retiring boomer generation. Right now is a bad time to introduce public health care.

Even when taking a bleeding-heart philosophy, it's just hard to see the value of public health care, which promises the public health care to the poor with the price of making good health care too expensive for the middle class. You argue that it's "totally selfish" for the middle class to avoid the poor. I argue that it's "totally selfish" for poor people to expect coverage at the expense of the middle class. It's not that the right doesn't care, it's that they care about the middle-class -- typically their largest voter-base. Libertarians have an entirely different ethos, although you can't say it's not compassionate. Compassion is, and has always been, "teach a man to fish." Compassion doesn't enter into this discussion, except possibly on the side of health-care reform.

Didn't you say this?
Quote:
The US health system, however bizarre it may be, is the best in the world. I don't see why there's cry for change.

Now it's the illegal immigrants fault.

Bleeding heart huh?
Have you read anything I posted with regards to what it's costing you to insure a percentage of your population.
I would bet a large percentage of that percent have only basic coverage with a fee for use.

Where do I get this information?
C'mon, it's the internet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/wa...rssnyt&emc=rss

Quote:
Most Americans in the poll said they were satisfied with the quality of their health care, but there was widespread concern about costs. Nearly half of those with insurance said their employer had cut back on benefits or required them to pay more for their benefits in recent years. A quarter of those with insurance said someone in their household had gone without a medical test or treatment because insurance would not cover it. Six in 10 of those without insurance said someone in their household had gone without care because of the cost.

That level of concern helps explain the striking support for substantial change: Nearly two-thirds said the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans. They were then asked, What if that meant that the cost of your own health insurance would go up? Forty-eight percent said they would still support it.
post #37 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

The politician in the first link really thought out his proposal huh?

Well that is sort of the point, do you want the idiots determining your health.

Quote:
The other articles aren't about denying coverage per say, but telling them to, for eg. don't smoke for a month before heart surgery or, you gotta lose some weight before a hip or knee replacement.
That's been done for years here and in the States.

It goes deeper than that. If I feel motivated, I'll find more links.

Quote:
Certain live saving procedures are being denied all the time in your system because it's profit based.

If you can find an instance of this in Canada, let us know.

I believe the Canadian Supreme Court found several when they ruled that outlawing private insurance amounted to a human rights violation.

Quote:
If the 80 year old wants it and is in good health, why not.

Why not is often because it is a $25,000+ procedure per side and in a system of limited resources, that $50,000 could buy a lot more true health care for younger patients. In the instance of hip replacement, we are not talking about life or death health care, but quality of life health care for example.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #38 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Where do I get this information?
C'mon, it's the internet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/wa...rssnyt&emc=rss

The Times, simply put, is not a viable source of news anymore. If the poll they used came from a respectable third-party, I might honor it, but it doesn't. Regardless, only 30% (48% of 60%) of the biased poll participants supported the measure, so it's likely that within the electorate very few people actually want public health care.

For the record, I have read you other content, I just don't have all the time in the world to respond to the bits I find tangential. For example, the amount my company and I pay for medicare and health benefit may be high, but it's admitted to be less than what universal public health would require. That's why Hillary suggests repealing tax cuts. If you expect me to be like trumptman and reference all of your points, both relevant and tangential, I'm afraid that's too much to ask of me.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #39 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

The Times, simply put, is not a viable source of news anymore. If the poll they used came from a respectable third-party, I might honor it, but it doesn't. Regardless, only 30% (48% of 60%) of the biased poll participants supported the measure, so it's likely that within the electorate very few people actually want public health care.

How is the poll "biased?" It was a "nationwide telephone poll... conducted Friday through Tuesday with 1,281 adults, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points." Are you saying telephone polls are necessarily biased these days? I'm not sure whether the polls include cell phone users who more often than not these days forgo a landline. Perhaps there's potential for bias there. Regardless, on what grounds did you consider the poll "biased?"
post #40 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

The Times, simply put, is not a viable source of news anymore. If the poll they used came from a respectable third-party, I might honor it, but it doesn't. Regardless, only 30% (48% of 60%) of the biased poll participants supported the measure, so it's likely that within the electorate very few people actually want public health care.

For the record, I have read you other content, I just don't have all the time in the world to respond to the bits I find tangential. For example, the amount my company and I pay for medicare and health benefit may be high, but it's admitted to be less than what universal public health would require. That's why Hillary suggests repealing tax cuts. If you expect me to be like trumptman and reference all of your points, both relevant and tangential, I'm afraid that's too much to ask of me.

By dismissing it out of hand and claiming the participants are biased without any proof says what, it's just your opinion.

How do know that universal health care would cost more than what your company pays now?
Just an opinion again.
And biased at that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Can America afford Universal Health Care?