Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on September 17, 2007, 11:17:51 AM
-
Socialism for everyone. So her plan raises taxes on some and cuts taxes for other. Typical liberal class warfare.
Clinton unveils mandatory health care insurance plan
. . .
"To help pay for the plan. Clinton would also eliminate the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 and limit the amount employers can exclude from taxes for health care benefits paid for those making over $250,000.
In her plan, Clinton said families would receive tax credits to help pay for coverage. The tax credit would be designed to limit the premiums to a percentage of a family's income."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html
-
We are the only modern industrialized western country without universal healthcare.
The other countries are starting to laugh at us.
Why yesterday I thought I heard Canada holding back on a wheezing chuckle.
We can't have other countries laughing at us, can we?
And what's wrong with a little socialism if it helps the vast majority of people?
-
We are the only modern industrialized western country without universal healthcare.
The other countries are starting to laugh at us.
Why yesterday I thought I heard Canada holding back on a wheezing chuckle.
We can't have other countries laughing at us, can we?
And what's wrong with a little socialism if it helps the vast majority of people?
What countries are laughing at us? Would it be those same countries whose people keep flooding our borders?
I'd hardly look to Canada as an example. I've heard about numerous problems with that system. For instance, people having to travel hundreds of miles for treatment. And they get taxed up the wazoo.
Part of the problem with socialism is contained in Hillary's plan: raise taxes on some, give the proceeds to others. I don't want the government redistributing wealth in that fashion. We (the tax payers) already pay for county hospitals, clinics, Medicare, Medicaid, state programs, etc. I don't want the government creating another bureaucratic monster, particularly when it will be funded in part on the backs of some tax payers.
Socialism is also antithetical to capitalism. It is capitalism that is partly responsible for the greatness of this country.
When has socialism ever produced a vibrant, healthy country where the people thrive – and aren’t trying to flee?
-
What countries are laughing at us? Would it be those same countries whose people keep flooding our borders?
I'd hardly look to Canada as an example. I've heard about numerous problems with that system. For instance, people having to travel hundreds of miles for treatment. And they get taxed up the wazoo.
Part of the problem with socialism is contained in Hillary's plan: raise taxes on some, give the proceeds to others. I don't want the government redistributing wealth in that fashion. We (the tax payers) already pay for county hospitals, clinics, Medicare, Medicaid, state programs, etc. I don't want the government creating another bureaucratic monster, particularly when it will be funded in part on the backs of some tax payers.
Socialism is also antithetical to capitalism. It is capitalism that is partly responsible for the greatness of this country.
When has socialism ever produced a vibrant, healthy country where the people thrive – and aren’t trying to flee?
Agreed!!!
The gov't just needs to do a better job of handling the money that taxpayers already submit. And if you quote Canada as a source for how well universal healthcare works, then it might be a good idea to look elsewhere. There's alot of information out there that paints a much different picture, personal testimonies, etc.
-
...Socialism is also antithetical to capitalism. It is capitalism that is partly responsible for the greatness of this country.
When has socialism ever produced a vibrant, healthy country where the people thrive – and aren’t trying to flee?
What you refer to as 'Socialism' is really a moderated form of Capitalism. Pure Socialism would be something like an ESOP where employees own the means of production.
Here's where socialism has produced a vibrant, healthy country where people thrive: Britain.
Britain has a form of Universal healthcare that, in terms of availability/access, quality and outcome, is superior to the privatized system in the US. And it costs 40% less per person. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678
So there you are. Better care through universal care at almost half the cost.
Unless you like to pay the feudal lords of privatized medicine for their corporate headquarters, CEO compensation, corporate jets, PGA tour sponsorships, and on and on. The privatized system is not working.
Remember where our privatized system of Healthcare has gotten us:
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
-
Agreed!!!
The gov't just needs to do a better job of handling the money that taxpayers already submit. And if you quote Canada as a source for how well universal healthcare works, then it might be a good idea to look elsewhere. There's alot of information out there that paints a much different picture, personal testimonies, etc.
I had britain in mind as having the superior system. I picked canada b/c how on earth could I hear Britain laughing at us? What with the Atlantic Ocean and all.
-
I had britain in mind as having the superior system. I picked canada b/c how on earth could I hear Britain laughing at us? What with the Atlantic Ocean and all.
LOL
-
Health Care is a service like anything else.
-
What you refer to as 'Socialism' is really a moderated form of Capitalism. Pure Socialism would be something like an ESOP where employees own the means of production.
Here's where socialism has produced a vibrant, healthy country where people thrive: Britain.
Britain has a form of Universal healthcare that, in terms of availability/access, quality and outcome, is superior to the privatized system in the US. And it costs 40% less per person. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678
So there you are. Better care through universal care at almost half the cost.
Unless you like to pay the feudal lords of privatized medicine for their corporate headquarters, CEO compensation, corporate jets, PGA tour sponsorships, and on and on. The privatized system is not working.
Remember where our privatized system of Healthcare has gotten us:
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
What? :o One of the top 10 healthcare systems in the world might not be worth all it's hype? ???
Far East illustrates the limitations and dangers of universal health care
By Drs. Michael A. Glueck & Robert J. Cihak
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com (http://www.JewishWorldReview.com) | If we in California and the United States had wings and an infinite monies we could fly the best available healthcare to everyone here, there and everywhere.
The ideological concept of "universal care" looks right, sounds moral and feels good. California Governor Arnold deserves some credit for trying something bold. The problem is that history shows these programs do not work. They have failed in Canada, Great Britain, and other European countries (France, Germany, and Sweden). Coverage has become too costly in Massachusetts in less than a year.
The etiology of healthcare fever is always insufficient funds. The Governor's plan is estimated to cost 12 billion a year. But if you believe that number we have a long wide concrete bridge over Newport Bay to sell you for twenty- three bucks.
When the level of money injected into the blood sinks too low the medical outcomes are rationing and restraint accompanied by chronically high moral dilemmas. Medical care will be rationed, one way or another, so long as the government has finite resources and so long as people keep confusing insurance with fee-for-service.
JAPANESE UNIVERSAL CARE FAILING
Now, according to a recent release by the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, it is failing in Japan.
If universal care were the genuine cure-all, the one country where it should work is Japan. They have a homogenous population, healthier lifestyle, eat more fish and soy, more vegetables and far less obesity than here. If universal care does not work there why should it work anywhere?
According to Japanese legislator Takashi Yamamoto, who was just diagnosed with cancer, "abandoned cancer refugees are roaming the Japanese archipelago." Patients are told they¹ll never get better, even when treatments exist, and many are not even informed of their diagnoses. Cancer mortality rates in Japan have been steadily climbing and are now more than 250 per 100,000, while U.S. rates are now around 180 per 100,000.
Japanese public television showed the stark contrast. In the U.S., multiple specialists meet to discuss a cancer patient¹s care. In Japan, a single doctor usually makes the diagnosis and carries out treatment with minimal consultation.
THREE HOUR WAIT FOR THREE MINUTE VISIT
While Japanese patients want American-style treatment, their policymakers are alarmed. With a huge national debt and corporations worried about higher taxes, they say Japan can¹t afford to pour money into treatments that can¹t extend life span by very much.
"America did too much of this and that¹s why their medical costs have grown," said Masaharu Nakajima, a surgeon and former director of the Health Bureau at the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.
Since Japan enacted universal health insurance in the early 1960s, the emphasis has been on a minimum standard of care for all. People must pay a monthly health-insurance fee, and large companies pay also. Coverage decisions, doctors¹ pay, and other rules are set by the central government.
Japanese doctors complain that they have no time to spend with patients. The experience of seeing a doctor is summarized as "a three-hour wait for a three-minute visit."
"Our rights as individuals are not being recognized," stated lung cancer patient Hidesuke Hashimoto. Mr. Hashimoto, a former math teacher, undertook to study his options on his own, moving along to a different hospital when told there was nothing more that could be done, and sometimes paying out of pocket (Landers, Wall Street Journal 1/11/07).
SHOULD THE STATE OWN YOUR BODY?
Commenting on the WSJ article, Craig Cantoni, a columnist in Scottsdale, Ariz., writes: "Like nationalized health care in other countries, the Japanese system is based on the premise that the state owns your body." Therefore, "the state can dictate what medical care can be withheld from you, either by policy or by making you wait so long for care that you die in the mean time. ŠNor is [this] justified by the fact that Japan spends about half as much per capita on health care as the United States, or by the fact that the Japanese have a longer life expectancy."
TWO MINUTE WARNING
If rights are seized for reasons of cost or efficiency, no right is safe from do-gooders and busybodies, from lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats, and from the tyranny of the majority.
If the universal healthcare system is failing in Japan it will fail in California, just as in Massachusetts or any other state that experiments with it.
Editor's Note: Michael Arnold Glueck,M.D. wrote this week's commentary
-
Japan is ranked #10 on the list. If that's failing, then where does the US, at #37, stand?
How about the fact that the US spends 40% more on healthcare, on a per person basis, than Great Britain but offers poorer service/results?
Here in the US we pay almost twice as much for less!
You can't really hang your hat on that.
-
Japan is ranked #10 on the list. If that's failing, then where does the US, at #37, stand?
How about the fact that the US spends 40% more on healthcare, on a per person basis, than Great Britain but offers poorer service/results?
Here in the US we pay almost twice as much for less!
You can't really hang your hat on that.
yeah I read stories everyday about people going to britain to get the care they can't get here...maybe that's backwards....oh maybe it was the story about americans having to wait 17 days for an appointment so they crossed the canadian border for health care...no no I think that is backwards also, oh I give up
-
yeah I read stories everyday about people going to britain to get the care they can't get here...maybe that's backwards....oh maybe it was the story about americans having to wait 17 days for an appointment so they crossed the canadian border for health care...no no I think that is backwards also, oh I give up
No, you've read about people around the world seeking emergency/specialty healthcare. The US is the best in that department. That's a fact.
Universal Healthcare cuts off those ailments before they become giant tumors or pneumonia.
-
I've actually had experiences with Health care in England and they were excellent. Not to say because of that they aren't problems.
But i hope we can all agree that our health care system, private or otherwise, in America is over bloated with malpractice phobia and prices for services and drugs that are way too high.
I don't like Clinton's plan, but there has to be a better answer.
-
I've actually had experiences with Health care in England and they were excellent. Not to say because of that they aren't problems.
But i hope we can all agree that our health care system, private or otherwise, in America is over bloated with malpractice phobia and prices for services and drugs that are way too high.
I don't like Clinton's plan, but there has to be a better answer.
Agreed
-
Ummm... We had the reverse opposite story on the BBC news here in London, England today. It's rare we get a story here about healthcare in the US. But we know all about it already, we learnt it from ER (George Clooney?) You don't get treated in America unless you've paid expensive insurance.
Today on the BBC headlines (I guess they're trying to divert us from the massacre going on in Burma and also having to cull all the cows in England yet again), there was a story about a little boy in America who died aged 12 from an infected tooth because his mother wasn't poor enough to qualify for medicare because she worked and yet was too poor to afford to have the tooth pulled. Couldn't keep up with the story, they were showing senators standing up with 8 foot by 10 foot photos of dying Deamonte and his crying mother.
Have you got an election coming up? We may have, but I doubt it, not here till at least next year.
To explain the British system: we have the NHS: National Health Service, set up immediately after the Second World War, by a Labour (socialist) government. It is like a social umbrella, or that's what I was taught as a child. From cradle to grave or from womb to... can't remember, I should look it up. It's part of our (extremely high) income tax.
It's far bigger than our defense budget.
I also lived in Canada for 17 years and there, it was an affordable important insurance you paid (on top of income tax and that was 27% or something, even higher than here), or you got a good job with an employer who paid your HIP Health Insurance Plan for you. That worked very well too.
All of the cash and all of the nurses and doctors here are now running out though. The NHS is floundering. They have nasty killer diseases in the hospitals from people not having time to wash their hands or something or allergies or global warming or the influx of foreigners and what about Doctors travelling abroad to get better pay? Nurses are the lowest paid workers (practically) in this country and while we're at it can we sort out the striking monks in Burma?
And I've just re-read your previous and can confirm, yes, there must be an election coming up.
This could and should be a war about prices and currencies and also about paying for health and every other kind of care for everyone on this gorgeous earth. I've just decided that the whole election will be decided on how they sort out the price of drugs. Maybe, just maybe, it's about drugs and not about oil.
Last night I watched a fab debate show where they were suggesting threatening to boycott the Beijing Olympics, which was something to do with talking to China whist sorting out Russia &/or Iraq and the US, or something, I couldn't keep up. Maybe it was about sport. (You probably didn't know that one of the biggest news stories ever is that the Olympics are coming to London in 2012 and that that will cost each and every taxpayer in this country quite a bit for very many years to come...
Today I saw the most amazing daytime TV, they were doing a 10-year thing about Princess Diana and how after 4 coroners, they're finally doing it again. Al-Fayed's solicitors are going to go full-force at the British Royal Family and accuse them of murder, this will be fascinating.
I'm just talking about our royal family because I assume you're talking about Hilary? I haven't followed US politics lately because I can't understand Bush.
& they're also doing a live web-link with Arnold Swartzican'tspellitwhatshisnamenegg er from California direct to the Tory (Conservative, the party not-in-power) conference broadcast here next week.
I can't wait to hear what he has to say about mandatory-health-care. But I'm not sure whether I'll be able to understand his accent either.
-
I can get to France in an hour for £20.
But Italy isn't much further and I prefer the food there.
xL
(joke?
-
so true!!!!
“Governments are not empowered to grant rights; governments can only limit, or extinguish rights. Governments can, however, bestow gifts upon its citizens. But in order to do so, governments must first take resources from those who have earned them, and redistribute those resources to others. Hillary-care, Obama-care, Edwards-care, and every other form of socialized medicine, is inherently fraught with fraud, abuse, and corruption... If the federal government is to be involved in health care, it should be looking toward encouraging, and providing incentives for private medical care that is determined between the patient and provider. The problem is complex, and cannot be solved by any government program. Health care is certainly one of the primary areas where the principles of freedom should be observed and advanced. Any candidate, or politician, who thinks government can solve the problem better than a free market, should be rejected.” —Henry Lamb
-
so true!!!!
“Governments are not empowered to grant rights; governments can only limit, or extinguish rights. Governments can, however, bestow gifts upon its citizens. But in order to do so, governments must first take resources from those who have earned them, and redistribute those resources to others. Hillary-care, Obama-care, Edwards-care, and every other form of socialized medicine, is inherently fraught with fraud, abuse, and corruption... If the federal government is to be involved in health care, it should be looking toward encouraging, and providing incentives for private medical care that is determined between the patient and provider. The problem is complex, and cannot be solved by any government program. Health care is certainly one of the primary areas where the principles of freedom should be observed and advanced. Any candidate, or politician, who thinks government can solve the problem better than a free market, should be rejected.” —Henry Lamb
That's a nice rhetorical statement for private health insurance.
But government does grant all of our rights. The Founders stated that our rights are inalienable meaning they cannot be sold or transferred meaning that the King of England has no say re our rights under the constitution.
Every right you enjoy in the US is b/c of the rights guaranteed in the US Constitution--a social contract. Without the constitution you have no right to property, life or liberty....not to mention happiness.
"...socialized medicine, is inherently fraught with fraud, abuse, and corruption..." What a nice conclusion. Where's the factual support?
I can show you many many cases of private health insurance companies scamming the system.
http://healthinsuranceinfo4u.com/Health_Insurance_Fraud.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/insfraud.html
-
so true!!!!
“Governments are not empowered to grant rights; governments can only limit, or extinguish rights. Governments can, however, bestow gifts upon its citizens. But in order to do so, governments must first take resources from those who have earned them, and redistribute those resources to others. Hillary-care, Obama-care, Edwards-care, and every other form of socialized medicine, is inherently fraught with fraud, abuse, and corruption... If the federal government is to be involved in health care, it should be looking toward encouraging, and providing incentives for private medical care that is determined between the patient and provider. The problem is complex, and cannot be solved by any government program. Health care is certainly one of the primary areas where the principles of freedom should be observed and advanced. Any candidate, or politician, who thinks government can solve the problem better than a free market, should be rejected.” —Henry Lamb
Yes. I agree.
-
Just wondering Beach Bum, how often do you take your head OUT your azz to come up for air ?
Everyday, but it can get very tricky. How about you?
-
Everyday, but it can get very tricky. How about you?
No, but if you ever need help, let me know. ;)
-
No, but if you ever need help, let me know. ;)
Whoa Nellie. No thanks. :)
-
I can show you many many cases of private health insurance companies scamming the system.
And your solution is to entrust health insurance to the government, who's not corrupt, yes? :-\
-
And your solution is to entrust health insurance to the government, who's not corrupt, yes? :-\
Now granted, oversight has been lost during the Bush administration and corruption has been vast. But under a normal administration, the GAO and other governmental checks and balances act to review any corruption.
By and large, the government is NOT corrupt. You'll see stories of some small time administrative pencil pusher trying to abscond with a few hundred thousand dollars.
But the main part of governmental waste comes from private coprorations exploiting governmental contracts.
Remember the $700 hammers...or any sweetheart no-bid (or not) contract granted by the Bush administration to a number of its cronies.
So the dynamic is: Government exploited by corrupt private interests.
-
Now granted, oversight has been lost during the Bush administration and corruption has been vast. But under a normal administration, the GAO and other governmental checks and balances act to review any corruption.
By and large, the government is NOT corrupt. You'll see stories of some small time administrative pencil pusher trying to abscond with a few hundred thousand dollars.
But the main part of governmental waste comes from private coprorations exploiting governmental contracts.
Remember the $700 hammers...or any sweetheart no-bid (or not) contract granted by the Bush administration to a number of its cronies.
So the dynamic is: Government exploited by corrupt private interests.
have you seen the list of politicians who are personally bankrupt, have criminal records, lost their licenses, etc? sorry, Deck, i'm not buying it. where there is money, there is an insatiable drive to possess it, thus we'll always have corruption. i say we minimize it to individuals rather than to entrust it to the gov't.
-
have you seen the list of politicians who are personally bankrupt, have criminal records, lost their licenses, etc? sorry, Deck, i'm not buying it. where there is money, there is an insatiable drive to possess it, thus we'll always have corruption. i say we minimize it to individuals rather than to entrust it to the gov't.
Government is a vessel...an edifice. It has no ego. It is not corrupt. The people that occupy the offices of government can be corrupt or become corrupted. There are systems for checking the exercise of power. That's how we learn of the cases to which you refer.
I'm saying that we cannot trust our health care to private, profit driven, interests. The general cycle for this sort of market driven provision of services is this:
1. private competition drives down the price of service and raises the level of quality.
2. Private companies start to win out over other private companies
3. Competition is reduced.
4. In an effort to cut prices and improve the bottom line, the Larger companies slash quality
5. In an effort to improve the bottom line, the larger companies overtake the smaller competitors until only a few giant organizations exist
6. These giant organizations start to raise prices while the quality stays in the crapper and the bottom line stays large.
7. These giant organizations then endear themselves to the lawmakers so that things stay the same: corrupt.
Cable TV, Telephone services or Microsoft or Intel.....
Let me know if I got that list 1-7 wrong.
-
Government is a vessel...an edifice. It has no ego. It is not corrupt. The people that occupy the offices of government can be corrupt or become corrupted. There are systems for checking the exercise of power. That's how we learn of the cases to which you refer.
I'm saying that we cannot trust our health care to private, profit driven, interests. The general cycle for this sort of market driven provision of services is this:
1. private competition drives down the price of service and raises the level of quality.
2. Private companies start to win out over other private companies
3. Competition is reduced.
4. In an effort to cut prices and improve the bottom line, the Larger companies slash quality
5. In an effort to improve the bottom line, the larger companies overtake the smaller competitors until only a few giant organizations exist
6. These giant organizations start to raise prices while the quality stays in the crapper and the bottom line stays large.
7. These giant organizations then endear themselves to the lawmakers so that things stay the same: corrupt.
Cable TV, Telephone services or Microsoft or Intel.....
Let me know if I got that list 1-7 wrong.
so then you just remove the lobbyists and rename them to something else, because you're STILL going to have the SAME players involved in putting money in the lawmaker's pockets. universal healthcare isn't going to change what's happening now.
Let me know where I'm wrong, bro.
-
so then you just remove the lobbyists and rename them to something else, because you're STILL going to have the SAME players involved in putting money in the lawmaker's pockets. universal healthcare isn't going to change what's happening now.
Let me know where I'm wrong, bro.
See there are non-partisan watchdog groups like the GAO which account for the efficacy and dollars spent of governmental programs. If they don't get a bang for the buck, then something is done.
Where are the checks and balances for privatized healthcare?
-
See there are non-partisan watchdog groups like the GAO which account for the efficacy and dollars spent of governmental programs. If they don't get a bang for the buck, then something is done.
Where are the checks and balances for privatized healthcare?
So you're saying these same non-partisan watchdog groups can't do the same for privatized health care? C'mon, Deck! We live in an age where we're all about "bustin' chops" out in the open when public figures mess up. I want you tell me how a government-run (by the people we elect who are or are prone to become corrupt) health care system is the answer.
-
So you're saying these same non-partisan watchdog groups can't do the same for privatized health care? C'mon, Deck! We live in an age where we're all about "bustin' chops" out in the open when public figures mess up. I want you tell me how a government-run (by the people we elect who are or are prone to become corrupt) health care system is the answer.
It's not that they can't do it, it's that they have no authority to do it.
Here is how the gov-run health care system will be better than a privatized type:
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
The bureaucracy that we ridicule the federal government for is really pretty good at administrative efforts.
Social Security is the single largest domestic program we have and the administrative cost of the entire enterprise is less than 1% (.7%) of total expenditures.
Private Insurance companies run between 11 and 15% for those same costs. Why? Profit motive, advertising, corporate jets, corporate pay, sponsorship of PGA tournaments, and more.
-
It's not that they can't do it, it's that they have no authority to do it.
Here is how the gov-run health care system will be better than a privatized type:
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
The bureaucracy that we ridicule the federal government for is really pretty good at administrative efforts.
Social Security is the single largest domestic program we have and the administrative cost of the entire enterprise is less than 1% (.7%) of total expenditures.
Private Insurance companies run between 11 and 15% for those same costs. Why? Profit motive, advertising, corporate jets, corporate pay, sponsorship of PGA tournaments, and more.
Er, uh... can you use a better example than social security? :-\
HEY!!!! >:( I got no beef with the sponsored PGA tourneys. :P ;) ;D
-
Government is a vessel...an edifice. It has no ego. It is not corrupt. The people that occupy the offices of government can be corrupt or become corrupted. There are systems for checking the exercise of power. That's how we learn of the cases to which you refer.
I'm saying that we cannot trust our health care to private, profit driven, interests. The general cycle for this sort of market driven provision of services is this:
1. private competition drives down the price of service and raises the level of quality.
2. Private companies start to win out over other private companies
3. Competition is reduced.
4. In an effort to cut prices and improve the bottom line, the Larger companies slash quality
5. In an effort to improve the bottom line, the larger companies overtake the smaller competitors until only a few giant organizations exist
6. These giant organizations start to raise prices while the quality stays in the crapper and the bottom line stays large.
7. These giant organizations then endear themselves to the lawmakers so that things stay the same: corrupt.
Cable TV, Telephone services or Microsoft or Intel.....
Let me know if I got that list 1-7 wrong.
Yes this happens, but no. 1 happens a lot too ("private competition drives down the price of service and raises the level of quality."). Many companies who produce inferior products and services suffer.
But when you are the government, you are god. Your service can suck, your products can stink, and there is really nothing the consumer can do about it. Who hasn't had an awful experience dealing with government workers?
When you remove the competition and accountability, you get complacency, bloat, sloth, and lousy service.
-
Yes this happens, but no. 1 happens a lot too ("private competition drives down the price of service and raises the level of quality."). Many companies who produce inferior products and services suffer.
But when you are the government, you are god. Your service can suck, your products can stink, and there is really nothing the consumer can do about it. Who hasn't had an awful experience dealing with government workers?
When you remove the competition and accountability, you get complacency, bloat, sloth, and lousy service.
Generally I agree with your assessment which I think is consistent with my analysis--competition in the marketplace is a good thing (which is why we have anti-trust laws). But healthcare is not a car or cable television. However the marketplace has failed horribly.
We can already see in black and white that universal healthcare is cheaper and more effective than our outdated privatized version--the US is ranked 37th best in the world and Britain is ranked 17 or 18 and Britain's per person cost for healthcare is 40% of that for the US.
We are removing competition on a limited basis insofar as paying one's doctor bills is concerned (choice of doctors, under most versions will still be available), but accountability will be present. There are people for that in the government too. That's how we find out about the $700 hammers and such.
-
Generally I agree with your assessment which I think is consistent with my analysis--competition in the marketplace is a good thing (which is why we have anti-trust laws). But healthcare is not a car or cable television. However the marketplace has failed horribly.
We can already see in black and white that universal healthcare is cheaper and more effective than our outdated privatized version--the US is ranked 37th best in the world and Britain is ranked 17 or 18 and Britain's per person cost for healthcare is 40% of that for the US.
We are removing competition on a limited basis insofar as paying one's doctor bills is concerned (choice of doctors, under most versions will still be available), but accountability will be present. There are people for that in the government too. That's how we find out about the $700 hammers and such.
We agree on the marketplace and the necessity of antitrust laws.
I tend to agree with Benfun who said earlier that "Health Care is a service like anything else."
Is socialized medicine cheaper? I can't see how, when you look at a place like Canada that takes about half of what you earn when you start to become successful. That's really punitive, particularly for those who don't use healthcare services much.
I really don't see a plausible scenario where putting the feds in charge of a newly created government healthcare agency will not cost us more money. Democrats are already admitting this will be paid for on the backs of the people who already pay most of the taxes in this country. It's a monster waiting to happen. Remember this? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051418/ That's what a new government agency like this will do: eat and continue to grow.
-
We agree on the marketplace and the necessity of antitrust laws.
I tend to agree with Benfun who said earlier that "Health Care is a service like anything else."
Is socialized medicine cheaper? I can't see how, when you look at a place like Canada that takes about half of what you earn when you start to become successful. That's really punitive, particularly for those who don't use healthcare services much.
I really don't see a plausible scenario where putting the feds in charge of a newly created government healthcare agency will not cost us more money. Democrats are already admitting this will be paid for on the backs of the people who already pay most of the taxes in this country. It's a monster waiting to happen. Remember this? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051418/ That's what a new government agency like this will do: eat and continue to grow.
The Blob....hahahah. It costs this country more to cover the catastrophic illnesses of 44 million uninsured people under a privatized scheme than it does to cover them in the first place.
Universal healthcare will cost money but having a healthy society is like having an educated society--it pays dividends far beyond the investment.
I still can't get over the superior system in the UK--40% cheaper than the US w/ much better results.
It costs less than our system but has much better results.
-
What countries are laughing at us? Would it be those same countries whose people keep flooding our borders?
I'd hardly look to Canada as an example. I've heard about numerous problems with that system. For instance, people having to travel hundreds of miles for treatment. And they get taxed up the wazoo.
Travelling hundreds of miles for treatment hat has to do with population density rather than inefficiency.
in a system like what you propose, there would be no medical services to be had, let alone travelled hundreds of miles for because the population in some parts is just too spread out to support it.
Part of the problem with socialism is contained in Hillary's plan: raise taxes on some, give the proceeds to others. I don't want the government redistributing wealth in that fashion. We (the tax payers) already pay for county hospitals, clinics, Medicare, Medicaid, state programs, etc. I don't want the government creating another bureaucratic monster, particularly when it will be funded in part on the backs of some tax payers.
How is that any different from what Bush has done... other than the fact that what Bush has done has been to raise taxes on those most ill-equipped to afford it? At least those upon whom Hilary would raise taxes are those who can afford it.
Socialism is also antithetical to capitalism. It is capitalism that is partly responsible for the greatness of this country.
And it's socialism that allows your fire departments, and police departments to do what they do in your respective communities.
When has socialism ever produced a vibrant, healthy country where the people thrive – and aren’t trying to flee?
{cough} Canada. While not entirely socialist, ...it does have some areas that tend towards socialism, providing a social safety net for those who fall through the capitalist cracks. It at least allows them to get back up in the game.
-
Travelling hundreds of miles for treatment hat has to do with population density rather than inefficiency.
in a system like what you propose, there would be no medical services to be had, let alone travelled hundreds of miles for because the population in some parts is just too spread out to support it.
How is that any different from what Bush has done... other than the fact that what Bush has done has been to raise taxes on those most ill-equipped to afford it? At least those upon whom Hilary would raise taxes are those who can afford it.
And it's socialism that allows your fire departments, and police departments to do what they do in your respective communities.
{cough} Canada. While not entirely socialist, ...it does have some areas that tend towards socialism, providing a social safety net for those who fall through the capitalist cracks. It at least allows them to get back up in the game.
Not saying I don't believe you, but I've heard contrary facts from far more credible Canadians.
When did Bush "raise taxes on those most ill-equipped to afford it"? Hillary wants to play class warfare. I'm not surprised you support her socialist agenda, given that you are a socialist.
You are comparing fire and police departments to socialized medicine? That's ridiculous. Police and fire are run by local governments, not a massive federal government agency.
You Canadians get fleeced by your government IMO. I wouldn't live anywhere that takes half or more of what I earn. There is no incentive.
-
Not saying I don't believe you, but I've heard contrary facts from far more credible Canadians.
But you do not know because you do not live here, and have no experience with it, so your "hearsay" is irrelevant.
When did Bush "raise taxes on those most ill-equipped to afford it"?
:o
Holy Cow, ...where have you been for the past 8 years? your comments are sometimes just too stupid to dignify.
Hillary wants to play class warfare. I'm not surprised you support her socialist agenda, given that you are a socialist.
I am no socialist, but I am a human being with compassion, ...and some things are just plain wrong.
How some people can turn a blind eye to them and play stupid is beyond me.
You are comparing fire and police departments to socialized medicine? That's ridiculous. Police and fire are run by local governments, not a massive federal government agency.
Whether local or federal, ...it is still a government provided service. Perhaps if your governments weren't always such colossal screw-ups that sodomized the public at every opportunity, you might not be as vehemently opposed to governments handling anything. Not all governments are as greedy, corrupt, or as inefficient as your own.
You Canadians get fleeced by your government IMO. I wouldn't live anywhere that takes half or more of what I earn. There is no incentive.
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/laughing_at_u.gif)
You say that like Bush & the neotaints have been paragons of virtue. You guys are beyond fleeced!
You've been screwed & tattooed! Sodomized without KY, ...and you don't even realize it!
Your butt-hole must have been so pre-stretched from so many previous buggerings you don't even notice anymore.
My government may have high taxes for those too ignorant to properly structure their affairs,
...but at least we get something of value for that money, ...like liveable cities, healthcare etc...
What have you gotten for all your taxes except dead soldiers, pillaged treasuries, a trashed constitution, global animosity, and trillions in debt for generations to come, bullshit upon more bullshit. You can't even travel the world and tell people you're American without running the risk of being spat on.
-
But you do not know because you do not live here, and have no experience with it, so your "hearsay" is irrelevant.
:o
Holy Cow, ...where have you been for the past 8 years? your comments are sometimes just too stupid to dignify.
I am no socialist, but I am a human being with compassion, ...and some things are just plain wrong.
How some people can turn a blind eye to them and play stupid is beyond me.
Whether local or federal, ...it is still a government provided service. Perhaps if your governments weren't always such colossal screw-ups that sodomized the public at every opportunity, you might not be as vehemently opposed to governments handling anything. Not all governments are as greedy, corrupt, or as inefficient as your own.
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/laughing_at_u.gif)
You say that like Bush & the neotaints have been paragons of virtue. You guys are beyond fleeced!
You've been screwed & tattooed! Sodomized without KY, ...and you don't even realize it!
Your butt-hole must have been so pre-stretched from so many previous buggerings you don't even notice anymore.
My government may have high taxes for those too ignorant to properly structure their affairs,
...but at least we get something of value for that money, ...like liveable cities, healthcare etc...
What have you gotten for all your taxes except dead soldiers, pillaged treasuries, a trashed constitution, global animosity, and trillions in debt for generations to come, bullshit upon more bullshit. You can't even travel the world and tell people you're American without running the risk of being spat on.
Yes, you are a socialist.
You live in lala land. Despite your America hatred, we still lead the world in immigration. People are still dying to come here. We are still the world's lone super power. We have a plethora of livable cities. I live in one. It has clean air, low crime, and beautiful people.
But you didn't answer my question: Keeping in mind that the president has no power to raise taxes (he can only sign or veto legislation in this regard), when did Bush "raise taxes on those most ill-equipped to afford it"?
-
Give me a break. Medicine is socialized already in America, who the hell do you think pays for the uninsured? The people who have insurance thats who, and that is why our rates are so high.
I don't know about her plan but this country needs one.
No it isn't. The government doesn't dictate my medical plan or my doctors.
We don't really know why rates are so. I've heard a number of theories, including medical malpractice lawsuits. My view is insurance companies are just greedy. The largest provider in Hawaii (HMSA) had a half billion dollar reserve and was still raising rates.
I know enough about Hillary's plan to know I don't like it.
-
You need to read before you post. We pay for them and we pay taxes so it's the same paychecks covering the bums. As for who dictates your medical plan it is the massive corporations who back the politicians the the people elect....ie the government.
Like I said socialized medicine is already here.
lol. You mean I need to agree with you before I post. Sounds like you have a different definition of socialized medicine. You are actually making an argument I've made on here several times: our tax dollars already pay for state and county hospitals, local clinics, Medicare, Medicaid and their state equivalents. Is that a form of socialized medicine? In a sense, because those who cannot afford to pay don't have many choices and the government controls those services.
But can I choose whichever health plan and/or doctor I want right now without government intervention? Yes. Even though I might go to the doctor about once every three years or so, I choose where I go, not the government.
-
lol. You mean I need to agree with you before I post. Sounds like you have a different definition of socialized medicine. You are actually making an argument I've made on here several times: our tax dollars already pay for state and county hospitals, local clinics, Medicare, Medicaid and their state equivalents. Is that a form of socialized medicine? In a sense, because those who cannot afford to pay don't have many choices and the government controls those services.
But can I choose whichever health plan and/or doctor I want right now without government intervention? Yes. Even though I might go to the doctor about once every three years or so, I choose where I go, not the government.
Which universal healthcare plan dictates what clinic or doctor you visit?
So if we already pay for emergency care for 'everyone', why should we continue to pad the profit margins of private insurers for healthcare?
Why not just eliminate/marginalize them and enable true UC which provides better per person results at 40% of the cost of the private system?
-
But you do not know
You can't even travel the world and tell people you're American without running the risk of being spat on.
...That's not hatred for Americans, that's the pure plain simple truth and we all feel so very sorry for you.
(I'm British, living in London, but I have an "American" accent (having lived in Canada for many years. So when people ask (always derisively) what part of America I'm from, I scream >>>Hello? CANADA!!! Of course, they've never met a Canadian before, noone in their right mind leaves that gorgeous country.
Whoever is attempting to sort out your health service ought to take the time to look at how it works in Canada and Britain.
But on the other hand, someone in my country ought to have a quick peek at how immigration is handled in North America. When my father applied to emigrate to Canada from Britain in the 1970s, we had to qualify. We even had to go to Canada House in Trafalgar Square and do a quiz on the names of the great lakes and the prime ministers.
(But Canada House is now a Texan steak restaurant)
History 101: Britain was once "the commonwealth" and because of that dominance we now owe the rest of the world.
So nowadays everyone can come here from everywhere and learn English and while they're at it, they can get brilliant free health care. The cost of living here is the highest on the planet and so are the taxes.