The universal health care debacle: you will now be fined

I agree with you, but many Americans are ardently against helping others, be it through healthcare reform or being witness to a crime and doing nothing.

Hot-Tamale

This is sheer nonsense. People have no problem helping others. We'd just appreciate it if it weren't done via coercion with a gun to our heads. Your matter of fact context here is appalling. It's easy to be big-hearted when you're doing it with other people's money. Ever heard of private charities?

Considering the fact that humans are social animals, and research into the human brain done by prominent psychologists, it has been concluded that individualism is unnatural, unhealthy, and most of all, unnerving. The Libertarians/Republicans who are against all forms of supporting their societies, and therefore their countries, are stuck in the past, and unfortunately contradict themselves to a disturbing degree. They call themselves 'individualists,' but then go online and engage in groupthink on their conservative discussion forums - supporting each others lopsided, deluded thinking. That's collectivism, the opposite of individualism. Conservatives/Libertarians just won't face the facts, and it saddening to see such a large gap between the rich and poor as a result. I just don't want the United States, which had such promise, to turn into a third world country, where the poor live in slums with no government benefit programs to help them through their daily struggle, as the fat cats on Wall Street continue to rake in the cash. :?

Hot-Tamale

Aren't generalities and stereotypes fun? Oh yeah, I love how you lump Conservatives and Libertarians together. As if other points of view don't exist?:lol: Prominent psychologists? Like who? Post the links. I like seeing fradulent "experts" further discredited.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

I've never encountered a waiting list on any health plan I've ever paid into.:|

So you get to see your doctor the same day you call? I don't. Appointments are made weeks in advance when I'm lucky.

My dad had to wait three months to see a cancer specialist for cancer that was on the verge ofmetastasizing.

Edit: I just remembered this....

My brother got married in England. After his wedding (and before he left on his honeymoon), he got sick. He called a doctor in England late in the morning and was seen that day. He was not charged for the visit or the prescription, got better, and enjoyed his honeymoon. While I can see a doctor the same day, I have to call in at 8AM and pray the lines aren't bussy. If all the emergency appointments are taken up for the day, I'm out of luck. Granted there are a shortage of doctors, but that's the point. It's the number of doctors available in an area that will determine the waiting period, not the health plan.

Great, now our government want's to be in the insurance business. After what they did with their Fannie Mae entity I'm sure their insurance entity will also turn into a massive failure, at the tax payers expense of course (just like Fannie Mae).

So if I wasn't responsible and neglected to acquire insurance, I'd be fined by the federal government, and then by my state government (to the tune of $1,068 per year)? Why don't I just send my entire paycheck to the Feds and then they can tell me what I can and can't do?FragStains

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

I agree with your position on health care, but considering the fact that our hc system has been based on treating the symptoms instead of preventative care (unlike Europe) for so long, we have become a nation of overmedicated sick people. When health care does pass, we ARE going to be seeing some long lines, unfortunately. But, after a generation of preventative care, then the waiting lines will evaporate. Considering the fact that the U.S. is jumping on the bandwagon so late, we may have some distribution problems ahead, and the Republicans/Libertarians will be ready to declare the entire universal hc system a failure the moment one person is put on a waiting list.

Hot-Tamale

That's because, by Pelosi's and Reid's own words, it will be. They claim that no one will be put on waiting lists, and yet in all the comparable programs in Europe and Asia thousands are put on government waiting lists for operations that could save their lives or save a lot of pain and agony. If even one person is put on a waiting list, then by the leading Democrats own words, it will be a failure.

And, not to mention, that when those long lines do form, it won't matter if they last for a year, a week, or even a day. If the general population sees them, they'll cry foul, lowering the already falling public opinion for universal health care. And, as history should have taught us, the more a population dislikes a policy the more they'll complain until finally the government is forced to stop it once and for all.

Incorrect. Only 15% of those using Britains's national health care system are put on wait lists of over 6 days. In the United States, it's 25%. I realize that Canada is the example that many conservatives cite as having lackluster care (the wait times are supposed to be at 33%), but we're not talking about doing what Canada's doing. Obviously, the number of wait lists will increase once we get everyone covered, but only temporarily. The livelihood of 46 million Americans, remember, is more important than money (in my opinion...yours may differ).

Even though, according to a BBC article, the majority of British people sorely underestimate the time they would be on waiting lists for operations?

Not to mention that, according to the UK Department of Health (follow the links on the provided page for the spreadsheet files), the number of people put onto waiting lists, both for inpatient and outpatient treatment, has been steadily rising since this past April.

Furthermore, an UK organization states that it can often take upwards of four weeks for people diagnosed with cancer to begin radiotherapy because of a shortage of the machines and personel required to operate them.

Can you really deny these figures? What you've said doesn't challenge my point, that being according to Pelosi's and Reid's own words if even one person is put on a government waiting list for treatment the program will be a failure. They think they can make lead into gold when not even the examples they hold in high regard are able to do so.

The livelyhood of 46 million may be important, but the livelyhood of 300 million is even more important. Whether temporarily or not, putting the lives of every single man, woman, and child deliberately at risk is unacceptable, and if these waiting lines to appear (as I predict they will), that is exactly what will happen.

Not to mention that, generally speaking, those 46 million uninsured Americans seem to be doing just fine without insurance. Why should those who don't desire insurance have to pay for it? Because the government mandates it?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

So how do you explain the scenario with the bankers? The executives there didn't care, so why should the insurance executives be more altruistic?

Why must we keep the private insurers? To give people a choice. As soon as the government starts to step in and outright refuses to give people a choice, or by making the choice so undesirable the average person goes along with what the government wants, the society becomes less free.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

The essential liberty, in this case, being the freedom to choose what coverage one desires, whether public or private.

tycoonmike

The ability to choose whether or not you want to go with company A, B, or C, the government plan, or no plan at all. Why, after all, should a government force people to do something to their lives (buy into health insurance or forcibly put them on a government plan) that they don't wish to so long as it isn't infringing on the rights of others? In all of the other health care systems of the developed world, you're either forced to pay for the system with taxes, like in the United Kingdom, or by making the system mandatory thus forcing people below a certain income limit to buy into it and subsidizing the cost of private insurance, like in Germany. In either case, you're forced to pay into the system.

In reading up on the various systems (though granted I've had very limited time to do so, and as such can only get a faint glimpse into their inner workings), in every single Western European nation with a public option I was able to read about, as well as every single Pacific Rim nation (including the PRC) with either a public option or government subsidies, you are forced to pay, through a variety of means (most popularly through direct taxation) for the public option. The only nation I have been able to find, insofar, that seems to be able to have a reliable public option while still retaining private options is Switzerland, and even then the Swiss government subsidizes the cost of the private insurers. Where do you suppose they get the money from? To me, that strikes a major tyrannical chord, being forced to pay for a system one may not want.

Now, I'm not about to say that the American system is perfect. Indeed, from my own experience I can tell you it isn't. Our system definitely needs reform, but in the present situation, with military presences in damn near every developed nation on Earth, and sometimes in developing nations, and two unpopular wars being fought, we simply cannot afford it.

just copy yourCanadan neighbours with slight modifications so you cant say you just copied

just copy yourCanadan neighbours with slight modifications so you cant say you just copied

BlackTragedy

Uh, yes we can absolutely afford it, I see no reason why we cannot. And what is this talk about "forcing people to pay for a system one may not want" - everyone needs health insurance whether they realize it or not. People shouldn't have their lives ruined by mountains of debt just because of ignorance - and you really cannot reform health care without mandating insurance.

-Sun_Tzu-

Pshaw, what's another trillion?:roll: We'll just print more! People shouldn't have other people's burdens forced upon them just because of arrogance.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

From the mouth of the Congressional Budget Office:

(You'll have to follow the link provided in the CBO Blog, it's a .pdf file)

Page Two:

According to CBO's and JCT's assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a
net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
That estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill's insurance coverage
provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO
estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions
that JCT estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those
10 years.

How do you suppose they'll increase federal revenues by a half a trillion dollars? Tax hikes? Cuts to other, well-deserving programs? Cutting bureaucracy down? My bet is the first two. At what cost should universal health care come to when people realize just how expensive it is going to be for this country?

tycoonmike

Simple: I can't. The only countries we could be compared to have a far smaller population than we do, thus ultimately spend far less on health care than we would have to by default. Hell, the nearest comparison, Japan, has less than one-half our population. I highly doubt we'd be able to reach a level of savings that most western European or Pacific rim nations are able to simply because of our larger population. Indeed if the ultimate conclusion should arise, that being everyone on the government system, I could guarantee it.

i hate whe npeople try to use this aginst universal health care. dude, we have more people, but also more money.

Country Pop. GDP(PPP)
Japan 127,590,000 4.354 trillion
UK 61,113,205 2.230 trillion
germany 82,060,000 2.910 trillion
france 65,073,482 2.086 trillion
US 307,348,000 14.264 trillion

us - Japan 2.41 pop of Japan
us - UK 5.02 pop of UK
US - Germ 3.75 pop of Germany
us - Fra 4.72 pop of France

us - Japan 3.28 GDP of Japan
us - UK 6.20 GDP of UK
us - Germ 4.90 GDP of Germany
us - Fra 6.84 GDp of France

we have more money per person than all of those countries, they have better health care, despit us spending alot more on it.

ranks in health care

US- 37

Germany -25

UK - 18

Japan - 10

France- 1

your point that we have more people is completely invalid and doesnt mean a thing.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Uh, yes we can absolutely afford it, I see no reason why we cannot. And what is this talk about "forcing people to pay for a system one may not want" - everyone needs health insurance whether they realize it or not. People shouldn't have their lives ruined by mountains of debt just because of ignorance - and you really cannot reform health care without mandating insurance.

MarcusAntonius

Pshaw, what's another trillion?:roll: People shouldn't have options and burdens forced upon them just because of arrogance.

If this country is willing to waste trillions in useless tax cuts, is willing to give so many tax payer dollars to big pharma , spend 2.4 trillion annualy on health care - and yet at the same time, not be willing to spend 1 trillion dollars over ten years (must of which, is already paid for as of now, and the rest is probably going to be paid for soon - there are already a few porposals in congress, it's just that one hasn't been chosen yet), then there is something fundemantaly wrong with the political culture in this country.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Uh, yes we can absolutely afford it, I see no reason why we cannot. And what is this talk about "forcing people to pay for a system one may not want" - everyone needs health insurance whether they realize it or not. People shouldn't have their lives ruined by mountains of debt just because of ignorance - and you really cannot reform health care without mandating insurance.

MarcusAntonius

Pshaw, what's another trillion?:roll: We'll just print more! People shouldn't have other people's burdens forced upon them just because of arrogance.

we are ranked 37th in health care and spend 13.9% of our GDP 14.264 trillion( so 2.1trillion on health care)

france ranked 1st in health care spend only 9.4% of their GDP 2.086 trillion ( so only about 200billion)

we have 5.02 times teh POP that france has, so 200million times 5.02 = 1.004 trillion. we are spending more than 2 times what we would have to, 2 times on health care that is inferior

france spends about 4000$ per capita on HC, that alot less then the 13000$ some one said for the US.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Uh, yes we can absolutely afford it, I see no reason why we cannot. And what is this talk about "forcing people to pay for a system one may not want" - everyone needs health insurance whether they realize it or not. People shouldn't have their lives ruined by mountains of debt just because of ignorance - and you really cannot reform health care without mandating insurance.

-Sun_Tzu-

Pshaw, what's another trillion?:roll: People shouldn't have options and burdens forced upon them just because of arrogance.

If this country is willing to waste trillions in useless tax cuts, is willing to give so many tax payer dollars to big pharma , spend 2.4 trillion annualy on health care - and yet at the same time, not be willing to spend 1 trillion dollars over ten years (must of which, is already paid for as of now, and the rest is probably going to be paid for soon - there are already a few porposals in congress, it's just that one hasn't been chosen yet), then there is something fundemantaly wrong with the political culture in this country.

Sorry, those examples didn't work for Michael Moore, and they won't work for you either. Law enforcement is an entirely different entity from health care, supply and demand don't even come into play. Why people continue to think the police/fire/education, examples are some sort of slam dunk points in the health care debate is beyond me. Your points are logically incoherent dare I say irrational, so what are you trying to say?:?

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Uh, yes we can absolutely afford it, I see no reason why we cannot. And what is this talk about "forcing people to pay for a system one may not want" - everyone needs health insurance whether they realize it or not. People shouldn't have their lives ruined by mountains of debt just because of ignorance - and you really cannot reform health care without mandating insurance.

SamusFreak

Pshaw, what's another trillion?:roll: We'll just print more! People shouldn't have other people's burdens forced upon them just because of arrogance.

we are ranked 37th in health care and spend 13.9% of our GDP 14.264 trillion( so 2.1trillion on health care)

france ranked 1st in health care spend only 9.4% of their GDP 2.086 trillion ( so only about 200billion)

we have 5.02 times teh POP that france has, so 200million times 5.02 = 1.004 trillion. we are spending more than 2 times what we would have to, 2 times on health care that is inferior

france spends about 4000$ per capita on HC, that alot less then the 13000$ some one said for the US.

So we have nothing else to pay for and we're a bigger population? You're spitting out stats without really trying to make a point about them.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

Pshaw, what's another trillion?:roll: People shouldn't have options and burdens forced upon them just because of arrogance.

MarcusAntonius

If this country is willing to waste trillions in useless tax cuts, is willing to give so many tax payer dollars to big pharma , spend 2.4 trillion annualy on health care - and yet at the same time, not be willing to spend 1 trillion dollars over ten years (must of which, is already paid for as of now, and the rest is probably going to be paid for soon - there are already a few porposals in congress, it's just that one hasn't been chosen yet), then there is something fundemantaly wrong with the political culture in this country.

Sorry, those examples didn't work for Michael Moore, and they won't work for you either. Law enforcement is an entirely different entity from health care. Your examples are logically incoherent, so what are you trying to say?:?

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Okay, so then we shouldn't mandate police coverage, because we all know how much of a burden that police protection is. I mean, I live in a good neighborhood and I have my own protection from any intruders, why do I need to pay for the police, what are they going to do for me? The same with the fire department - I'm responsible, I'm never going to have a house fire - why does my own money have to go to the fire department - why can't I just "play the odds"? The sheer arrogance of society, forcing me, against my will to finance these inherently tyrannical institutions.

If this country is willing to waste trillions in useless tax cuts, is willing to give so many tax payer dollars to big pharma , spend 2.4 trillion annualy on health care - and yet at the same time, not be willing to spend 1 trillion dollars over ten years (must of which, is already paid for as of now, and the rest is probably going to be paid for soon - there are already a few porposals in congress, it's just that one hasn't been chosen yet), then there is something fundemantaly wrong with the political culture in this country.

-Sun_Tzu-

Sorry, those examples didn't work for Michael Moore, and they won't work for you either. Law enforcement is an entirely different entity from health care. Your examples are logically incoherent, so what are you trying to say?:?

Now you're comng back at me with hyperbole. Paying for what one takes, a novel concept indeed. You can always work payments out, this is pretty well known. Law enforcement is required by the Judiciary Branch of government to enforce our laws. The fact that I need to explain how this differs from health care is troubling to me. Unless you're of the opinion that healthcare is a right, then that would explain everything.

[QUOTE="SamusFreak"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

Pshaw, what's another trillion?:roll: We'll just print more! People shouldn't have other people's burdens forced upon them just because of arrogance.

MarcusAntonius

we are ranked 37th in health care and spend 13.9% of our GDP 14.264 trillion( so 2.1trillion on health care)

france ranked 1st in health care spend only 9.4% of their GDP 2.086 trillion ( so only about 200billion)

we have 5.02 times teh POP that france has, so 200million times 5.02 = 1.004 trillion. we are spending more than 2 times what we would have to, 2 times on health care that is inferior

france spends about 4000$ per capita on HC, that alot less then the 13000$ some one said for the US.

So we have nothing else to pay for and we're a bigger population? You're spitting out stats without really trying to make a point about them.

those other nations have other programs as well, your saying that it is special for them cause they are smaller, im saying that we have more money per person than they all do so that is mute. they are all far more socialist that we are. im sure there are other stats were they spend less on better programs than we do. you realize we waste alot of monet on alot of crap right? take alittle bit from each of them( a chunk from a bunch of programs so that they each still have crap loads of funding afterwards) and vola! we could take 1,4 or hell, even half of teh spendings we do on defense and still spend tons and tons more than the other nations spend on defense

edit- you dont get it, we could cut what we already ARE spending on health care in half, and have supiorer health care to what we half now

Law enforcement is an entirely different entity from health care, supply and demand don't even come into play.MarcusAntonius

Um, they absolutely do. You don't know what you are talking about.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

Sorry, those examples didn't work for Michael Moore, and they won't work for you either. Law enforcement is an entirely different entity from health care. Your examples are logically incoherent, so what are you trying to say?:?

MarcusAntonius

Now you're comng back at me with hyperbole. Paying for what one takes, a novel concept indeed. You can always work payments out, this is pretty well known. Law enforcement is required by the Judiciary Branch of government to enforce our laws. The fact that I need to explain how this differs from health care is troubling to me. Unless you're of the opinion that healthcare is a right, then that would explain everything.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

Law enforcement is an entirely different entity from health care, supply and demand don't even come into play.-Sun_Tzu-

Um, they absolutely do. You don't know what you are talking about.

I've noticed you like to say that whenever you're unable or unwilling to counter someone in an argument.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] And how exactly is law enforcement different? You can say that they are logically incoherent, that doesn't make it so. My house gets set on fire, I dial the fire department and they come, rescue me from a potentially fatal injury. I have a stomach ache but don't have insurance, I have to deal with it. Eventually that stomach ache gets to the point where I can no longer take the pain and I eventually go to the emergency room, where I discover I have diabetes and need to be pumped with drugs for two weeks and have a limb amputated, and not only that but I am buried for the rest of my life with medical debt.-Sun_Tzu-

Now you're comng back at me with hyperbole. Paying for what one takes, a novel concept indeed. You can always work payments out, this is pretty well known. Law enforcement is required by the Judiciary Branch of government to enforce our laws. The fact that I need to explain how this differs from health care is troubling to me. Unless you're of the opinion that healthcare is a right, then that would explain everything.

Heh, I was expecting something like this. You're splitting hairs simply for the sake of attempting to make a point. I'm not going to bother to indulge you any further, I think my points stand pretty firm.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

Law enforcement is an entirely different entity from health care, supply and demand don't even come into play.MarcusAntonius

Um, they absolutely do. You don't know what you are talking about.

I've noticed you like to say that whenever you've been debunked in an argument.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] And how exactly is law enforcement different? You can say that they are logically incoherent, that doesn't make it so. My house gets set on fire, I dial the fire department and they come, rescue me from a potentially fatal injury. I have a stomach ache but don't have insurance, I have to deal with it. Eventually that stomach ache gets to the point where I can no longer take the pain and I eventually go to the emergency room, where I discover I have diabetes and need to be pumped with drugs for two weeks and have a limb amputated, and not only that but I am buried for the rest of my life with medical debt.-Sun_Tzu-

Now you're comng back at me with hyperbole. Paying for what one takes, a novel concept indeed. You can always work payments out, this is pretty well known. Law enforcement is required by the Judiciary Branch of government to enforce our laws. The fact that I need to explain how this differs from health care is troubling to me. Unless you're of the opinion that healthcare is a right, then that would explain everything.

fire department is actually very important, most people dont know this but( at least in New York) the fire department actaully does alot of other things than put out fires, something like 80% of their calls are medical reasons, or rescues or what not. they do a wide range of tasks. I would say they are fairly important.

now I will argue that we should turn alot of what is done by the National military over too PMC's. look at Executive Outcomes missions in Angola and Soyo( in serria Lenoa) about a hundred professional soldiers did what 17000 un peace keepers couldn't do after they were forced to leave( teh international community didnt like a PMC group being more effective than them) look at Iraq, there are an estimated 100,000 PMC operatives doing all sorts of tasks in Iraq. you know those fancy UAV drones you see in the air force commercials? PMC guys operate most of them. The PMC industry is a growing one, it is worth about 200 billion and growing annually.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

Now you're comng back at me with hyperbole. Paying for what one takes, a novel concept indeed. You can always work payments out, this is pretty well known. Law enforcement is required by the Judiciary Branch of government to enforce our laws. The fact that I need to explain how this differs from health care is troubling to me. Unless you're of the opinion that healthcare is a right, then that would explain everything.

MarcusAntonius

Heh, I was expecting something like this. You're splitting hairs simply for the sake of attempting to make a point. I'm not going to bother to indulge you any further, I think my points stand pretty firm.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

Law enforcement is an entirely different entity from health care, supply and demand don't even come into play.-Sun_Tzu-

Um, they absolutely do. You don't know what you are talking about.

I've noticed you like to say that whenever you've been debunked in an argument.

Um yeah, tax dollars, next?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

I've noticed you like to say that whenever you've been debunked in an argument.

MarcusAntonius

Um yeah, tax dollars, next?

Uh, yes we can absolutely afford it, I see no reason why we cannot. And what is this talk about "forcing people to pay for a system one may not want" - everyone needs health insurance whether they realize it or not. People shouldn't have their lives ruined by mountains of debt just because of ignorance - and you really cannot reform health care without mandating insurance.

-Sun_Tzu-

Maybe I should be clearer, then. In the condition we are in now, with a massively inflated planetary military presence and fighting two unpopular wars, we can't afford it. But then again, with the money raised by cutting defense spending (an unwise choice, in my opinion, but that's another story) couldn't we help bolster our school systems and our crap infrastructure? There are so many worthy programs that are berefit of funding that health care should take a back seat while we try to fix our roads and schools.

I agree, people shouldn't have to live in debt. That's the risk you take in not buying insurance. If people are willing to accept the risk, then who am I to argue? Indeed, who are you to tell me what I need? Isn't that the definition of a tyrannical government: one that tells us what we need and gives it to us whether we want it or not?

Uh, yes we can absolutely afford it, I see no reason why we cannot. And what is this talk about "forcing people to pay for a system one may not want" - everyone needs health insurance whether they realize it or not. People shouldn't have their lives ruined by mountains of debt just because of ignorance - and you really cannot reform health care without mandating insurance.

-Sun_Tzu-

i hate whe npeople try to use this aginst universal health care. dude, we have more people, but also more money.

Country Pop. GDP(PPP)
Japan 127,590,000 4.354 trillion
UK 61,113,205 2.230 trillion
germany 82,060,000 2.910 trillion
france 65,073,482 2.086 trillion
US 307,348,000 14.264 trillion

us - Japan 2.41 pop of Japan
us - UK 5.02 pop of UK
US - Germ 3.75 pop of Germany
us - Fra 4.72 pop of France

us - Japan 3.28 GDP of Japan
us - UK 6.20 GDP of UK
us - Germ 4.90 GDP of Germany
us - Fra 6.84 GDp of France

we have more money per person than all of those countries, they have better health care, despit us spending alot more on it.

ranks in health care

US- 37

Germany -25

UK - 18

Japan - 10

France- 1

your point that we have more people is completely invalid and doesnt mean a thing.

SamusFreak

The problem with your theory is threefold:

1. None of the countries named has nearly the same size of a military presence on Earth. China's military may be larger, but they hardly are able to mount an effective land assault, let alone an amphibious assault. They have no projection power.

2. There are a notinsignificant amount of other programs towards which this money could be geared that are in a more dire state than our health care industry. Education and infrastructure being two of the prime candidates. Are you suggesting that health care is more deserving than education or our infrastructure?

3. OK, so we spend more per capita. You honestly think that makes a difference? How has Obama proposed to pay for this trillion dollar project? By raising taxes and "cutting down on bureaucracy." He hasn't mentioned, to my admittedly finite knowledge, that he would make budget cuts to pay for it to things like, say, defense. Indeed, he's advocated we continue the "War on Terrorism" in Afghanistan. If he indeed has said nothing of the sort, then with the budget as it is now we cannot afford it. Period.

If it does work the way Pelosi and Reid would have us think it will work without screwing over the private insurers, I'll be the first one on here to apologize for being wrong. If we live in the real world, however, I'll be expecting apologies from every single one of you who says it will work.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Uh, yes we can absolutely afford it, I see no reason why we cannot. And what is this talk about "forcing people to pay for a system one may not want" - everyone needs health insurance whether they realize it or not. People shouldn't have their lives ruined by mountains of debt just because of ignorance - and you really cannot reform health care without mandating insurance.

tycoonmike

Maybe I should be clearer, then. In the condition we are in now, with a massively inflated planetary military presence and fighting two unpopular wars, we can't afford it. But then again, with the money raised by cutting defense spending (an unwise choice, in my opinion, but that's another story) couldn't we help bolster our school systems and our crap infrastructure? There are so many worthy programs that are berefit of funding that health care should take a back seat while we try to fix our roads and schools.

I agree, people shouldn't have to live in debt. That's the risk you take in not buying insurance. If people are willing to accept the risk, then who am I to argue? Indeed, who are you to tell me what I need? Isn't that the definition of a tyrannical government: one that tells us what we need and gives it to us whether we want it or not?

which is why I mentioned PMC's, which I believe would be a better choice for multiple reasons.

I don't think that really applies here. the people have been convinced that Public health care, among others things are terrible when they really aren't. they have bee nconvinced by the news they watch( controlled by rich corporations) who are basically lieing to people to protect themelves.

all you got to do to see that public health care and other social programs are great is look at europe, and statistics.

[QUOTE="SamusFreak"]

i hate whe npeople try to use this aginst universal health care. dude, we have more people, but also more money.

Country Pop. GDP(PPP)
Japan 127,590,000 4.354 trillion
UK 61,113,205 2.230 trillion
germany 82,060,000 2.910 trillion
france 65,073,482 2.086 trillion
US 307,348,000 14.264 trillion

us - Japan 2.41 pop of Japan
us - UK 5.02 pop of UK
US - Germ 3.75 pop of Germany
us - Fra 4.72 pop of France

us - Japan 3.28 GDP of Japan
us - UK 6.20 GDP of UK
us - Germ 4.90 GDP of Germany
us - Fra 6.84 GDp of France

we have more money per person than all of those countries, they have better health care, despit us spending alot more on it.

ranks in health care

US- 37

Germany -25

UK - 18

Japan - 10

France- 1

your point that we have more people is completely invalid and doesnt mean a thing.

tycoonmike

The problem with your theory is threefold:

1. None of the countries named has nearly the same size of a military presence on Earth. China's military may be larger, but they hardly are able to mount an effective land assault, let alone an amphibious assault. They have no projection power.

2. There are a notinsignificant amount of other programs towards which this money could be geared that are in a more dire state than our health care industry. Education and infrastructure being two of the prime candidates. Are you suggesting that health care is more deserving than education or our infrastructure?

3. OK, so we spend more per capita. You honestly think that makes a difference? How has Obama proposed to pay for this trillion dollar project? By raising taxes and "cutting down on bureaucracy." He hasn't mentioned, to my admittedly finite knowledge, that he would make budget cuts to pay for it to things like, say, defense. Indeed, he's advocated we continue the "War on Terrorism" in Afghanistan. If he indeed has said nothing of the sort, then with the budget as it is now we cannot afford it. Period.

If it does work the way Pelosi and Reid would have us think it will work without screwing over the private insurers, I'll be the first one on here to apologize for being wrong. If we live in the real world, however, I'll be expecting apologies from every single one of you who says it will work.

has I have said twice now we should greatly expand our use of PMC's like we have the past decade in afganastan and iraq.

as I also said above, going by those stats^ it would cost about 1trillion dollars to have the same health care as France, we are already spendingd around 2 Trillion a year on our inferior health care. most of which comes from taxes.

education is very lacking, its better in( suprise europe) where ( guess again!) its cheaper, where we spend more here for crappier education( I see a trend...)

Obama possed several good ways to take care of our crumbling infrastructure( sadly none of which have happened yet) but the people to work on it. we will improve our infrastructure and give poeple jobs at the same time. 2 birds with one stone as it were

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Uh, yes we can absolutely afford it, I see no reason why we cannot. And what is this talk about "forcing people to pay for a system one may not want" - everyone needs health insurance whether they realize it or not. People shouldn't have their lives ruined by mountains of debt just because of ignorance - and you really cannot reform health care without mandating insurance.

tycoonmike

Maybe I should be clearer, then. In the condition we are in now, with a massively inflated planetary military presence and fighting two unpopular wars, we can't afford it. But then again, with the money raised by cutting defense spending (an unwise choice, in my opinion, but that's another story) couldn't we help bolster our school systems and our crap infrastructure? There are so many worthy programs that are berefit of funding that health care should take a back seat while we try to fix our roads and schools.

I agree, people shouldn't have to live in debt. That's the risk you take in not buying insurance. If people are willing to accept the risk, then who am I to argue? Indeed, who are you to tell me what I need? Isn't that the definition of a tyrannical government: one that tells us what we need and gives it to us whether we want it or not?

If health care is given a back seat, there will no longer be any more money for defense, there would no longer be any more money for education, there would no longer be any more money for our infrastructure- because all the money will be going to health care, not because of an aging population on medicare, but because of the rise in health care costs. Our population could be getting younger and it wouldn't make one damn difference. That's why we cannot literally afford to point health care to the back seat, because the more we wait, more people die for no real reason, more people go file for bankruptcy because of medical bills, more people are denied coverage, and the closer we will move to fiscal hell where the federal budget is dedicated to nothing but health care.

A tyrannical government is one that limits freedom. Real freedom, not pseudo freedom like the ability to choose one crappy insurer over another crappy insurer, or to needlessly be in debt for the rest of ones life because of a stupid mistake made at a young age, but the freedom to be able to change jobs, without having to worry about health coverage. The freedom to go see a doctor when they are sick and not have to go the emergency room 3 years later and find out they have some disastrous chronic disease because of the cost of health insurance.

Cops stalk the roads for drunk drivers because they might get in an accident and take someone elses life or their own life. The justice system sends criminals to jail, to punish and/or reahbilitate them yes, but to first and forremost get them out of society for the time being because they indanger it. Why shouldn't the government mandate health insurance, not only because of the risks that it poses on themselves but the risks that it poses on everyone who is entwined in the health care system.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Uh, yes we can absolutely afford it, I see no reason why we cannot. And what is this talk about "forcing people to pay for a system one may not want" - everyone needs health insurance whether they realize it or not. People shouldn't have their lives ruined by mountains of debt just because of ignorance - and you really cannot reform health care without mandating insurance.

SamusFreak

Maybe I should be clearer, then. In the condition we are in now, with a massively inflated planetary military presence and fighting two unpopular wars, we can't afford it. But then again, with the money raised by cutting defense spending (an unwise choice, in my opinion, but that's another story) couldn't we help bolster our school systems and our crap infrastructure? There are so many worthy programs that are berefit of funding that health care should take a back seat while we try to fix our roads and schools.

I agree, people shouldn't have to live in debt. That's the risk you take in not buying insurance. If people are willing to accept the risk, then who am I to argue? Indeed, who are you to tell me what I need? Isn't that the definition of a tyrannical government: one that tells us what we need and gives it to us whether we want it or not?

which is why I mentioned PMC's, which I believe would be a better choice for multiple reasons.

I don't think that really applies here. the people have been convinced that Public health care, among others things are terrible when they really aren't. they have bee nconvinced by the news they watch( controlled by rich corporations) who are basically lieing to people to protect themelves.

all you got to do to see that public health care and other social programs are great is look at europe, and statistics.

I look at Europe and I see governments that are forcing their people to pay for health systems with their taxes that they may not want and are consistently producing long waiting lines (see my links for the NHS in a previous post), or are seeing a rapid increase in the cost of health care to the government (eg. France, Germany, link).

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Uh, yes we can absolutely afford it, I see no reason why we cannot. And what is this talk about "forcing people to pay for a system one may not want" - everyone needs health insurance whether they realize it or not. People shouldn't have their lives ruined by mountains of debt just because of ignorance - and you really cannot reform health care without mandating insurance.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Uh, yes we can absolutely afford it, I see no reason why we cannot. And what is this talk about "forcing people to pay for a system one may not want" - everyone needs health insurance whether they realize it or not. People shouldn't have their lives ruined by mountains of debt just because of ignorance - and you really cannot reform health care without mandating insurance.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="SamusFreak"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

Maybe I should be clearer, then. In the condition we are in now, with a massively inflated planetary military presence and fighting two unpopular wars, we can't afford it. But then again, with the money raised by cutting defense spending (an unwise choice, in my opinion, but that's another story) couldn't we help bolster our school systems and our crap infrastructure? There are so many worthy programs that are berefit of funding that health care should take a back seat while we try to fix our roads and schools.

I agree, people shouldn't have to live in debt. That's the risk you take in not buying insurance. If people are willing to accept the risk, then who am I to argue? Indeed, who are you to tell me what I need? Isn't that the definition of a tyrannical government: one that tells us what we need and gives it to us whether we want it or not?

tycoonmike

which is why I mentioned PMC's, which I believe would be a better choice for multiple reasons.

I don't think that really applies here. the people have been convinced that Public health care, among others things are terrible when they really aren't. they have bee nconvinced by the news they watch( controlled by rich corporations) who are basically lieing to people to protect themelves.

all you got to do to see that public health care and other social programs are great is look at europe, and statistics.

I look at Europe and I see governments that are forcing their people to pay for health systems with their taxes that they may not want and are consistently producing long waiting lines (see my links for the NHS in a previous post), or are seeing a rapid increase in the cost of health care to the government (eg. France, Germany, link).

I have seen many links to terrible situations. I have heard many good things from peopel I actually know. there are horrors stories everywhere, including the US. my brother is one of them. he had Viral Meningtious( I know that isnt spelled right) and the idiots at the hospitol we went to wrongly diagnosed him and blue it off basically. he was 16 hours from dieing. our doctor( we were on vactaion in missouri when it happened) recongized it right away. and lucky sazed his life.

the euorpean health systems are not perfect. but they are better than the **** that we have. we pay taxes for many things that we dont use ourselves( I have never ever had use or need for the police or fire departments, but there jobs are invaluabe and help many many people every day) I am not a greedy basterd and have no problem putting money foruth to help others. thts the problem with the corporations that you think should controll our health care. they are greedy. they care for profit. they dont give a single damn thing about you ro me or anyone else.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Adults make choices in life. At some point they know that health care will be an issue. If they don't want to buy it...then debt is their choice.

LJS9502_basic

well for starters, when they run to the ER without it, it ends up costing lik e2,3 maybe even 4 times what it would have. which we pay with our taxes( not saying that we wouldnt wit hsocialized, but we pay more now)

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] But as I have already said, them not having health insurance negatively impacts everyone who is responsible and buys insurance. SamusFreak

well for starters, when they run to the ER without it, it ends up costing lik e2,3 maybe even 4 times what it would have. which we pay with our taxes( not saying that we wouldnt wit hsocialized, but we pay more now)

[QUOTE="SamusFreak"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]In what way are you referring?LJS9502_basic

well for starters, when they run to the ER without it, it ends up costing lik e2,3 maybe even 4 times what it would have. which we pay with our taxes( not saying that we wouldnt wit hsocialized, but we pay more now)

tahts what he is saying above^ fine the people who dont buy it, so it doesnt cost us 2-4 times the bills in taxes

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="SamusFreak"]

well for starters, when they run to the ER without it, it ends up costing lik e2,3 maybe even 4 times what it would have. which we pay with our taxes( not saying that we wouldnt wit hsocialized, but we pay more now)

SamusFreak

tahts what he is saying above^ fine the people who dont buy it, so it doesnt cost us 2-4 times the bills in taxes

well for starters, when they run to the ER without it, it ends up costing lik e2,3 maybe even 4 times what it would have. which we pay with our taxes( not saying that we wouldnt wit hsocialized, but we pay more now)SamusFreak

Health care is less worthy? Obviously our school systems and infrastructure are in dire need of attention, but health care is just as worthy, if not more, not only because health care literally deals with life and death, because of the immediate economic hell that would be brought upon this country if health care did take a back seat.

If health care is given a back seat, there will no longer be any more money for defense, there would no longer be any more money for education, there would no longer be any more money for our infrastructure- because all the money will be going to health care, not because of an aging population on medicare, but because of the rise in health care costs. Our population could be getting younger and it wouldn't make one damn difference. That's why we cannot literally afford to point health care to the back seat, because the more we wait, more people die for no real reason, more people go file for bankruptcy because of medical bills, more people are denied coverage, and the closer we will move to fiscal hell where the federal budget is dedicated to nothing but health care.

A tyrannical government is one that limits freedom. Real freedom, not pseudo freedom like the ability to choose one crappy insurer over another crappy insurer, or to needlessly be in debt for the rest of ones life because of a stupid mistake made at a young age, but the freedom to be able to change jobs, without having to worry about health coverage. The freedom to go see a doctor when they are sick and not have to go the emergency room 3 years later and find out they have some disastrous chronic disease because of the cost of health insurance.

Cops stalk the roads for drunk drivers because they might get in an accident and take someone elses life or their own life. The justice system sends criminals to jail, to punish and/or reahbilitate them yes, but to first and forremost get them out of society for the time being because they indanger it. Why shouldn't the government mandate health insurance, not only because of the risks that it poses on themselves but the risks that it poses on everyone who is entwined in the health care system.

-Sun_Tzu-

I'm not saying health care isn't a worthy cause, I'm saying that there are other causes out there that one could make the argument are just as worthy, if not worthier, than health care.

The problem with your theory is that health care costs are rising all over the world, not just in the US. Indeed, in one of the later links I provided (link), there are powerpoint presentations and other such documents that list several of the problems with European health systems, chief among which is the rising costs of insurance and care. Germany, especially, is called out for having an incredibly expensive system in place.

What problems? We've had this system for at least 25 years and haven't had any major problems with it (or at least none I can make out) until Obama got elected. Indeed, when I joined this forum, it didn't seem like there were threads upon threads for health care reform. It was all about how Bush was an idiot. That and the neverending religious threads. Why now, all of a sudden, is health care a major issue when it hadn't been before Obama? Perhaps because it never was a major issue to begin with? Now, don't get me wrong, there are definite problems with our system. Universal health care isn't the solution, given what our situation is, though.

And by restricting that choice, you restrict freedom. Restriction of choice, whether as mundane as choosing one "crappy insurer over another" or as serious as choosing one presidential candidate over another, simply opens up the floodgates for the government to curtail freedoms, "in our best interests." To use our liberties against our liberties. Case and point: the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act allowed for the government to do such things as tap our phone lines without a warrant, even if you had no prior criminal record, in the name of our liberties. What would stop the government from deciding what's best for us? The Constitution? Nothing more than a 250 year old piece of parchment that would be fairly easily amended with a supermajority. The military? Under the command of the government. The people? Possibly, if not for the fact that we wouldn't stand much of a chance against an Abrams tank.

Simple: in the examples you gave, it's one person causing harm to another. If I were to crash my car into a tree without harming anyone else but me, and I don't have health insurance, that was my risk to take, not yours. I took that risk, knowing (or not knowing, as the case may be) that I could easily end up destitute because of medical bills.

In what way are you referring?LJS9502_basic

well for starters, when they run to the ER without it, it ends up costing lik e2,3 maybe even 4 times what it would have. which we pay with our taxes( not saying that we wouldnt wit hsocialized, but we pay more now)

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="SamusFreak"]

well for starters, when they run to the ER without it, it ends up costing lik e2,3 maybe even 4 times what it would have. which we pay with our taxes( not saying that we wouldnt wit hsocialized, but we pay more now)

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] They need to get tough with those that don't pay....LJS9502_basic

I have seen many links to terrible situations. I have heard many good things from peopel I actually know. there are horrors stories everywhere, including the US. my brother is one of them. he had Viral Meningtious( I know that isnt spelled right) and the idiots at the hospitol we went to wrongly diagnosed him and blue it off basically. he was 16 hours from dieing. our doctor( we were on vactaion in missouri when it happened) recongized it right away. and lucky sazed his life.

SamusFreak

Then you didn't bother reading the link. It links you to a site that, albeit briefly, provides additional links to articles that summarize the systems of several major European nations as well as the United States. No horror stories to invoke an emotional response, just plain facts.

That sir is IMMORALsSubZerOo

[QUOTE="SamusFreak"]

I have seen many links to terrible situations. I have heard many good things from peopel I actually know. there are horrors stories everywhere, including the US. my brother is one of them. he had Viral Meningtious( I know that isnt spelled right) and the idiots at the hospitol we went to wrongly diagnosed him and blue it off basically. he was 16 hours from dieing. our doctor( we were on vactaion in missouri when it happened) recongized it right away. and lucky sazed his life.

Then you didn't bother reading the link. It links you to a site that, albeit briefly, provides additional links to articles that summarize the systems of several major European nations as well as the United States. No horror stories to invoke an emotional response, just plain facts.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] YEah you know they should start kicking out people rushed to the ER dieing.. Screw them they don't have insurance so we should just have them die on the curb of the road.. And you call your self a Christian...sSubZerOo