Label Yourself

[BigBallinStalin]

UN funding of Al Quaeda

[ViperOverLord]

Except Sym that you are being just as non-pragmatic in your arguments too, you call them fantasy land but ignore the reality of the US political landscape when you say "mimic these guys"....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... -care.html

Sym would actually like this article. It gives some credence to his notion that socialized health care is cheaper. But I'd point out that it's cheaper not by virtue of being socialized health care but b/c of strict price caps (something that could be done w/o socializing health care).

Also, this article does point out that it is a hybrid system with private sector insurance companies dominating. My rudimentary understanding is that that is way different than the UK, who have government fully entrenched in their health care.

Also__ Is it really socialized care if the govt. forces you to buy insurance? To me, that's you will use a brand of insurance. It's a way for govt/insurance companies to boost profits. To me if you're going to argue for socialized medicine, then it should come from general tax revenues and be a safety net instead of this compulsory system designed to get a significant portion of everyone's paycheck.

[Symmetry]

Except Sym that you are being just as non-pragmatic in your arguments too, you call them fantasy land but ignore the reality of the US political landscape when you say "mimic these guys"....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... -care.html

Sym would actually like this article. It gives some credence to his notion that socialized health care is cheaper. But I'd point out that it's cheaper not by virtue of being socialized health care but b/c of strict price caps (something that could be done w/o socializing health care).

Also, this article does point out that it is a hybrid system with private sector insurance companies dominating. My rudimentary understanding is that that is way different than the UK, who have government fully entrenched in their health care.

Also__ Is it really socialized care if the govt. forces you to buy insurance? To me, that's you will use a brand of insurance. It's a way for govt/insurance companies to boost profits. To me if you're going to argue for socialized medicine, then it should come from general tax revenues and be a safety net instead of this compulsory system designed to get a significant portion of everyone's paycheck.

Two things, first I was pointing out universal healthcare models that might be worth emulating, rather than necessarily socialised ones, although there can be overlap. Second the article says that the Japanese system is not socialised healthcare, so I'm not sure why it should be taken as evidence for socialised healthcare. It's an argument for a cheap and effective form of universal healthcare.

Israel has a similar system.

[ViperOverLord]

Except Sym that you are being just as non-pragmatic in your arguments too, you call them fantasy land but ignore the reality of the US political landscape when you say "mimic these guys"....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... -care.html

Sym would actually like this article. It gives some credence to his notion that socialized health care is cheaper. But I'd point out that it's cheaper not by virtue of being socialized health care but b/c of strict price caps (something that could be done w/o socializing health care).

Also, this article does point out that it is a hybrid system with private sector insurance companies dominating. My rudimentary understanding is that that is way different than the UK, who have government fully entrenched in their health care.

Also__ Is it really socialized care if the govt. forces you to buy insurance? To me, that's you will use a brand of insurance. It's a way for govt/insurance companies to boost profits. To me if you're going to argue for socialized medicine, then it should come from general tax revenues and be a safety net instead of this compulsory system designed to get a significant portion of everyone's paycheck.

Two things, first I was pointing out universal healthcare models that might be worth emulating, rather than necessarily socialised ones, although there can be overlap. Second the article says that the Japanese system is not socialised healthcare, so I'm not sure why it should be taken as evidence for socialised healthcare. It's an argument for a cheap and effective form of universal healthcare.

Israel has a similar system.

Price caps can be done in any system. That seems to be the best attributed reason I've found for the cheaper nature of Japanese health care.

[BigBallinStalin]

The price caps were on the wages of doctors, right?

[Symmetry]

Except Sym that you are being just as non-pragmatic in your arguments too, you call them fantasy land but ignore the reality of the US political landscape when you say "mimic these guys"....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... -care.html

Sym would actually like this article. It gives some credence to his notion that socialized health care is cheaper. But I'd point out that it's cheaper not by virtue of being socialized health care but b/c of strict price caps (something that could be done w/o socializing health care).

Also, this article does point out that it is a hybrid system with private sector insurance companies dominating. My rudimentary understanding is that that is way different than the UK, who have government fully entrenched in their health care.

Also__ Is it really socialized care if the govt. forces you to buy insurance? To me, that's you will use a brand of insurance. It's a way for govt/insurance companies to boost profits. To me if you're going to argue for socialized medicine, then it should come from general tax revenues and be a safety net instead of this compulsory system designed to get a significant portion of everyone's paycheck.

Two things, first I was pointing out universal healthcare models that might be worth emulating, rather than necessarily socialised ones, although there can be overlap. Second the article says that the Japanese system is not socialised healthcare, so I'm not sure why it should be taken as evidence for socialised healthcare. It's an argument for a cheap and effective form of universal healthcare.

Israel has a similar system.

Price caps can be done in any system. That seems to be the best attributed reason I've found for the cheaper nature of Japanese health care.

Universal healthcare has a lot of other benefits when it comes to price reduction, but two of the most important would be

a) Preventative treatment- essentially that there's no fear of seeing a doctor over something mild. Stuff gets caught early, requiring cheaper treatments than if you only see a doctor when its an emergency. Also you're more likely to have regular medical advice on your general state of health/ have access to simple things like advice on quitting smoking, healthy eating etc.

b) Less waste when it comes to how doctors treat patients. Apologies for mentioning your bro again, but like I said, anti-biotics don't treat a common cold- they won't even deal with the symptoms. Over prescription and over testing are a big problem in the American model. As counter intuitive as it might sound, it doesn't actually help in terms of health. Efficient regular monitoring does.

If you're interested in that second point, I've posted this article for a few people, but it's a really interesting take on what drives up healthcare costs in the US about one of the most expensive markets in the US for healthcare:

The Cost Conundrum: McAllen, Texas

It's not a short article though, but here's the important section:

Spoiler

At McAllen Medical Center, I saw an orthopedic surgeon work under an operating microscope to remove a tumor that had wrapped around the spinal cord of a fourteen-year-old. At a home-health agency, I spoke to a nurse who could provide intravenous-drug therapy for patients with congestive heart failure. At McAllen Heart Hospital, I watched Dyke and a team of six do a coronary-artery bypass using technologies that didn’t exist a few years ago. At Renaissance, I talked with a neonatologist who trained at my hospital, in Boston, and brought McAllen new skills and technologies for premature babies. “I’ve had nurses come up to me and say, ‘I never knew these babies could survive,’ ” he said.

And yet there’s no evidence that the treatments and technologies available at McAllen are better than those found elsewhere in the country. The annual reports that hospitals file with Medicare show that those in McAllen and El Paso offer comparable technologies—neonatal intensive-care units, advanced cardiac services, PET scans, and so on. Public statistics show no difference in the supply of doctors. Hidalgo County actually has fewer specialists than the national average.

Nor does the care given in McAllen stand out for its quality. Medicare ranks hospitals on twenty-five metrics of care. On all but two of these, McAllen’s five largest hospitals performed worse, on average, than El Paso’s. McAllen costs Medicare seven thousand dollars more per person each year than does the average city in America. But not, so far as one can tell, because it’s delivering better health care.
One night, I went to dinner with six McAllen doctors. All were what you would call bread-and-butter physicians: busy, full-time, private-practice doctors who work from seven in the morning to seven at night and sometimes later, their waiting rooms teeming and their desks stacked with medical charts to review.

Some were dubious when I told them that McAllen was the country’s most expensive place for health care. I gave them the spending data from Medicare. In 1992, in the McAllen market, the average cost per Medicare enrollee was $4,891, almost exactly the national average. But since then, year after year, McAllen’s health costs have grown faster than any other market in the country, ultimately soaring by more than ten thousand dollars per person.

“Maybe the service is better here,” the cardiologist suggested. People can be seen faster and get their tests more readily, he said.
Others were skeptical. “I don’t think that explains the costs he’s talking about,” the general surgeon said.
“It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.
“McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.

That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down?

“Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.

“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.

Which is also one of the reasons I'm sceptical about blaming the high costs in the US on malpractice.

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, after going through the past 3 pages, Sym has been Dodge King in this thread. Here's one I'd like him to address, if he would be so generous to do so:


TGD: "I don't think the Affordable Care Act will reduce healthcare costs - the government is essentially paying for peoples' health insurance. There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise? There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise?"

Symmetry, what do you think?

No idea, much as my critics in the thread have argued against what I'm saying, my point is that the US should look toward effective and cheaper healthcare systems as the models to follow.

Clearly the US status quo isn't great- it's expensive and doesn't cover a large number of people. It's also not that great at providing healthcare.

Now in examples where the government does pay for people's health insurance the cost as a percentage of GDP is lower, a greater number of people are covered, and satisfaction rates are higher. These are systems that work, are immensely popular, and cost less.

What am I dodging? I feel like the dodge here is from conservative posters who just want to say that somehow they cost more, don't work, and would be unpopular because they constitute some kind of tyranny, flying in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

BBS and I are not making those "conservative poster" arguments. You are dodging our arguments in favor of focusing on what you think our arguments should be. You believe we're saying universal healthcare is tyranny and neither of us have said that. As I indicated above, you're attempting to impose conservative Republican values on my statements, when such values don't exist. Time Magazine has given you 10 examples and I've given you 1 example (high military spending and high spending generally) why universal healthcare won't work in the United States. Unless and until you address my points and BBS's points without falling back on "dur, dur, you're conservative" statements, this is a pointless exercise, don't you think?

I think it's fairly pointless if your default position is a fantasy land free market. As I understand it, your Time magazine article points were related to the high cost of healthcare in the US rather than the impossibility of universal healthcare coverage. Some were pertinent, others largely irrelevant- the UK, for example having high rates of obesity, but also universal healthcare.

High military spending might be an excuse, but the US spends 4.7% of its GDP on its military. Israel spends 6.3%. Would it surprise you to know that Israel has universal healthcare? And it's only around 8% of their GDP?

Fantasy land free market?

Israel = the United States?

Are you just incapable of seeing anything that doesn't correspond to your worldview?

[Symmetry]

Yeah, after going through the past 3 pages, Sym has been Dodge King in this thread. Here's one I'd like him to address, if he would be so generous to do so:


TGD: "I don't think the Affordable Care Act will reduce healthcare costs - the government is essentially paying for peoples' health insurance. There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise? There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise?"

Symmetry, what do you think?

No idea, much as my critics in the thread have argued against what I'm saying, my point is that the US should look toward effective and cheaper healthcare systems as the models to follow.

Clearly the US status quo isn't great- it's expensive and doesn't cover a large number of people. It's also not that great at providing healthcare.

Now in examples where the government does pay for people's health insurance the cost as a percentage of GDP is lower, a greater number of people are covered, and satisfaction rates are higher. These are systems that work, are immensely popular, and cost less.

What am I dodging? I feel like the dodge here is from conservative posters who just want to say that somehow they cost more, don't work, and would be unpopular because they constitute some kind of tyranny, flying in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

BBS and I are not making those "conservative poster" arguments. You are dodging our arguments in favor of focusing on what you think our arguments should be. You believe we're saying universal healthcare is tyranny and neither of us have said that. As I indicated above, you're attempting to impose conservative Republican values on my statements, when such values don't exist. Time Magazine has given you 10 examples and I've given you 1 example (high military spending and high spending generally) why universal healthcare won't work in the United States. Unless and until you address my points and BBS's points without falling back on "dur, dur, you're conservative" statements, this is a pointless exercise, don't you think?

I think it's fairly pointless if your default position is a fantasy land free market. As I understand it, your Time magazine article points were related to the high cost of healthcare in the US rather than the impossibility of universal healthcare coverage. Some were pertinent, others largely irrelevant- the UK, for example having high rates of obesity, but also universal healthcare.

High military spending might be an excuse, but the US spends 4.7% of its GDP on its military. Israel spends 6.3%. Would it surprise you to know that Israel has universal healthcare? And it's only around 8% of their GDP?

Fantasy land free market?

Israel = the United States?

Surely it's comparable if your point was that universal healthcare isn't possible in the US because of high rates of military spending. It's a nation that spends more and has universal healthcare.

[ViperOverLord]

The price caps were on the wages of doctors, right?

Procedures/services. I recall seeing it reported that that this has led to hospitals being financially strapped and that most of them are in the red.

[thegreekdog]

Surely it's comparable if your point was that universal healthcare isn't possible in the US because of high rates of military spending. It's a nation that spends more and has universal healthcare.

That's not my point at all. I indicated that the United States is different than other countries were universal healthcare has been successful. I pointed out 10 Time Magazine examples and 1 example from me. I can most assuredly find other examples of ways in whcih the United States is different and thus may not be ripe for universal healthcare. Further, and more importantly to me, if there are problems with the current healthcare system in the United States (and there are) is universal healthcare the best answer given these extraneous factors. I don't think it is. Do I have other ideas? Sure. I guess those are the free market fantasy ideas you're talking about, but it's hard for me to disucss those ideas with you when you've labelled them as such.

[Symmetry]

Surely it's comparable if your point was that universal healthcare isn't possible in the US because of high rates of military spending. It's a nation that spends more and has universal healthcare.

That's not my point at all. I indicated that the United States is different than other countries were universal healthcare has been successful. I pointed out 10 Time Magazine examples and 1 example from me. I can most assuredly find other examples of ways in whcih the United States is different and thus may not be ripe for universal healthcare. Further, and more importantly to me, if there are problems with the current healthcare system in the United States (and there are) is universal healthcare the best answer given these extraneous factors. I don't think it is. Do I have other ideas? Sure. I guess those are the free market fantasy ideas you're talking about, but it's hard for me to disucss those ideas with you when you've labelled them as such.

The Times magazine examples were not, at least as you posted them, about the impossibility of universal healthcare, but rather about the high cost under the current system, which is not universal.

At least you're down to just one argument on your part, which I guess would be that the US government already spends a lot on stuff, if it is the military thing that's out of the way. I've made another topic on what happened in the UK with regards to a shift to private sector ownership.

No doubt, of course, it will be deemed irrelevant.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 8&t=165841

[patches70]

Israel has a similar system.....
Surely it's comparable if your point was that universal healthcare isn't possible in the US because of high rates of military spending. It's a nation that spends more and has universal healthcare.

Israel, a nation that is smaller than my home state of Virginia.
Israel, a nation that has fewer people living in it than my home state of Virginia.
Israel, a nation that receives the most US foreign aid of any other nation on the planet.
Israel, a nation that received in 2011 $1.2 billion in economic aid and $1.8 billion in military aid.
Israel, a nation that when it passed it's mandated healthcare laws in 1995 received over $5 billion in US foreign aid that year (not nearly all of that just military aid either).

The US has 40 million citizens who are 65 or older. Guess what segment of the population uses the most health care and most expensive health care services?

Compare that with UK's mere 7 million 65 or older.
Of those 40 million US citizens who are 65+ each and every one is eligible for government run health care in the US. It's expensive. Eats up half of the US budget each year. It's chock full of waste, abuse and fraud. I'm not saying it should be ended, our elderly especially need health care obviously. I'm just telling you how it is.

Sym doesn't understand the economic complexities of the US because she is so vast. In my state of Virginia alone there is a vast difference between the cost of living of Northern VA (the richest area in all of the US*), Southern Virginia and Western Virginia.

Sym- "Just mimic another nation's health care system, like Israel's. Derpa derpa!". Yeah. Genius.





*(By average median income)

[Symmetry]

Israel has a similar system.....
Surely it's comparable if your point was that universal healthcare isn't possible in the US because of high rates of military spending. It's a nation that spends more and has universal healthcare.

Israel, a nation that is smaller than my home state of Virginia.
Israel, a nation that has fewer people living in it than my home state of Virginia.
Israel, a nation that receives the most US foreign aid of any other nation on the planet.
Israel, a nation that received in 2011 $1.2 billion in economic aid and $1.8 billion in military aid.
Israel, a nation that when it passed it's mandated healthcare laws in 1995 received over $5 billion in US foreign aid that year (not nearly all of that just military aid either).

The US has 40 million citizens who are 65 or older. Guess what segment of the population uses the most health care and most expensive health care services?

Compare that with UK's mere 7 million 65 or older.
Of those 40 million US citizens who are 65+ each and every one is eligible for government run health care in the US. It's expensive. Eats up half of the US budget each year. It's chock full of waste, abuse and fraud. I'm not saying it should be ended, our elderly especially need health care obviously. I'm just telling you how it is.

Sym doesn't understand the economic complexities of the US because she is so vast. In my state of Virginia alone there is a vast difference between the cost of living of Northern VA (the richest area in all of the US*), Southern Virginia and Western Virginia.

Sym- "Just mimic another nation's health care system, like Israel's. Derpa derpa!". Yeah. Genius.

*(By average median income)

You seem to have shifted a little bit there, and gone from your state to the US as a whole on the numbers front. There's no need to manipulate stats like that. Just post realistic figures, and allow that other countries face similar issues and have universal healthcare that costs less.

Canada is pretty big too, you know. Heads up again- universal healthcare.

[patches70]

Israel has a similar system.....
Surely it's comparable if your point was that universal healthcare isn't possible in the US because of high rates of military spending. It's a nation that spends more and has universal healthcare.

Israel, a nation that is smaller than my home state of Virginia.
Israel, a nation that has fewer people living in it than my home state of Virginia.
Israel, a nation that receives the most US foreign aid of any other nation on the planet.
Israel, a nation that received in 2011 $1.2 billion in economic aid and $1.8 billion in military aid.
Israel, a nation that when it passed it's mandated healthcare laws in 1995 received over $5 billion in US foreign aid that year (not nearly all of that just military aid either).

The US has 40 million citizens who are 65 or older. Guess what segment of the population uses the most health care and most expensive health care services?

Compare that with UK's mere 7 million 65 or older.
Of those 40 million US citizens who are 65+ each and every one is eligible for government run health care in the US. It's expensive. Eats up half of the US budget each year. It's chock full of waste, abuse and fraud. I'm not saying it should be ended, our elderly especially need health care obviously. I'm just telling you how it is.

Sym doesn't understand the economic complexities of the US because she is so vast. In my state of Virginia alone there is a vast difference between the cost of living of Northern VA (the richest area in all of the US*), Southern Virginia and Western Virginia.

Sym- "Just mimic another nation's health care system, like Israel's. Derpa derpa!". Yeah. Genius.

*(By average median income)

You seem to have shifted a little bit there, and gone from your state to the US as a whole on the numbers front. There's no need to manipulate stats like that. Just post realistic figures, and allow that other countries face similar issues and have universal healthcare that costs less.

Canada is pretty big too, you know. Heads up again- universal healthcare.

Realistic numbers? What did I say that isn't realistic? There are 40 million American citizens who are 65 or older.
There are over 8 million people living in Virginia. A bit over 7 million Israelis.
Every dollar of foreign aid cited is what is published by official US government statistics and Israel does receive the most US foreign aid of any other nation on the planet.
What numbers have I cited that aren't realistic?
You better elaborate or you are just a shill spouting sophist and it's useless to even have a conversation with you. You are too blind.

[Symmetry]

Israel has a similar system.....
Surely it's comparable if your point was that universal healthcare isn't possible in the US because of high rates of military spending. It's a nation that spends more and has universal healthcare.

Israel, a nation that is smaller than my home state of Virginia.
Israel, a nation that has fewer people living in it than my home state of Virginia.
Israel, a nation that receives the most US foreign aid of any other nation on the planet.
Israel, a nation that received in 2011 $1.2 billion in economic aid and $1.8 billion in military aid.
Israel, a nation that when it passed it's mandated healthcare laws in 1995 received over $5 billion in US foreign aid that year (not nearly all of that just military aid either).

The US has 40 million citizens who are 65 or older. Guess what segment of the population uses the most health care and most expensive health care services?

Compare that with UK's mere 7 million 65 or older.
Of those 40 million US citizens who are 65+ each and every one is eligible for government run health care in the US. It's expensive. Eats up half of the US budget each year. It's chock full of waste, abuse and fraud. I'm not saying it should be ended, our elderly especially need health care obviously. I'm just telling you how it is.

Sym doesn't understand the economic complexities of the US because she is so vast. In my state of Virginia alone there is a vast difference between the cost of living of Northern VA (the richest area in all of the US*), Southern Virginia and Western Virginia.

Sym- "Just mimic another nation's health care system, like Israel's. Derpa derpa!". Yeah. Genius.

*(By average median income)

You seem to have shifted a little bit there, and gone from your state to the US as a whole on the numbers front. There's no need to manipulate stats like that. Just post realistic figures, and allow that other countries face similar issues and have universal healthcare that costs less.

Canada is pretty big too, you know. Heads up again- universal healthcare.

Realistic numbers? What did I say that isn't realistic? There are 40 million American citizens who are 65 or older.
There are over 8 million people living in Virginia. A bit over 7 million Israelis.
Every dollar of foreign aid cited is what is published by official US government statistics and Israel does receive the most US foreign aid of any other nation on the planet.
What numbers have I cited that aren't realistic?
You better elaborate or you are just a shill spouting sophist and it's useless to even have a conversation with you. You are too blind.

Well, I do wear glasses, but that seems a little harsh, even for you. You cited numbers from Virginia in comparison to Israel and then used numbers from the whole of the US. What is it as a percentage? Vs Israel?

How do the numbers stack up for the Israeli system of universal healthcare for the elderly vs how much the US spends on a non-universal system for the same age group? Or just within your own state for state and federal spending?

You can get angry and call me blind if you want, but I'm just asking you to at least take a look at systems that work. That's it- that's my minimum requirement of you. Even Vol took a look and saw some ideas he liked.

[patches70]

You don't see how unsustainable the European model is, the very model we in the US seem to be moving toward.

The US has about 120 million working aged citizens. Those are who support the 40 million senior citizens. About a 3 to 1 ratio but the demographics show that as our baby boomers head off into their sunset years that ratio is dropping. The US fortunately still has the birth rates to sustain the system (but just barely).

In Europe it's worse. The working aged to the non working segments. With European birth rates such as they are they don't have the right ratio to support the system. That's why Europe has to import human beings. This cascades as European cultures are going to disappear all together because those very immigrants don't assimilate but rather keep their own traditions.

For a socialized system to work you must keep shoving in people to support those who use the majority of the services. Europe is not doing that because they have terrible birth rates.

As for comparing nations, take UK's amount spent on health care and multiply it by 6. We have six times the population of the UK. Administrative costs would be higher for the US as would transportation of resources because of the sheer size of the nation. So, what does the UK spend every year on healthcare?

Israel, there is no comparison possible. Take out the foreign aid we give to her and then you can get to a real cost. As I've said, the US subsidizes other nation's health care systems. In fact, eliminate all foreign aid given by the US and make all the nations pay for all their own bills without the US giving them cash.

I'm all for that. Then let's see how much all these nations end up spending of their own money on their systems.

The US is subsidizing all these nations to some degree. Pull all the US troops out of Europe and see how they fare without all our money being spent in their cities and towns. Then compare.

All these systems for everyone else in due in a great degree to the US handing over taxpayer money. I'm not sure how to quantify it all but I'm sure some bright enterprising socialist would be glad to ignore all that.

I'd love to have free health care. Maybe Europe, Asia, Africa and South America can send us some foreign aid that we can put toward paying for "free" health care for me and the rest of my countrymen. I bet that'd go over real well.....

US health care is a mess. It increases in price at rates up to 10X the national inflation. It's insane. But why it's going up is not addressed by Obamacare at all. Health care costs have skyrocketed as government regulation of health care has increased at the same time. Everything the US government touches turn to crap.

The closest thing we have to a truly socialized health care is our military. That's about as socialized, government run, government paid for system as you can get. Guess what, Obama is giving the screws to the military, active and retired, and is increasing their premiums 345% over the next 5 years. I'm surprised that the Obama haters of CC haven't been posting their outrage over this. 345%, that's insane. Obama care is going to do that to everyone on the national scale (hopefully not as bad).

Obama care is bad because it is piecemeal and never addressed any of the real problems. If the US wants better health care then we'll have to stop paying for everyone else in the world. We have to stop spending across the board in other areas. We have to stop debasing our currency (which is the overriding factor in rising prices). We have to fix those things first. And to do that, other nations would have to learn to live on their own. It's political suicide. Something you don't seem to understand or accept.

And you certainly don't accept how terrible our politicians are. Our guys could f*ck up a wet dream so the prospect of turning over health care to those fools is not a happy picture for a plurality of people.
What are the answers? Hell if I know, don't get sick I suppose. But it sure as hell isn't "Just do what <insert your nation of choice> does!"

[ViperOverLord]

I'd love to have free health care. Maybe Europe, Asia, Africa and South America can send us some foreign aid that we can put toward paying for "free" health care for me and the rest of my countrymen. I bet that'd go over real well.....

That's the thing__ I won't be free (unless you are in poverty). That healthcare is a right line is phony. What right you have is a choice between poverty or paying the government for the privilege of breathing on their land.

[Symmetry]

You don't see how unsustainable the European model is, the very model we in the US seem to be moving toward.

The US has about 120 million working aged citizens. Those are who support the 40 million senior citizens. About a 3 to 1 ratio but the demographics show that as our baby boomers head off into their sunset years that ratio is dropping. The US fortunately still has the birth rates to sustain the system (but just barely).

In Europe it's worse. The working aged to the non working segments. With European birth rates such as they are they don't have the right ratio to support the system. That's why Europe has to import human beings. This cascades as European cultures are going to disappear all together because those very immigrants don't assimilate but rather keep their own traditions.

For a socialized system to work you must keep shoving in people to support those who use the majority of the services. Europe is not doing that because they have terrible birth rates.

As for comparing nations, take UK's amount spent on health care and multiply it by 6. We have six times the population of the UK. Administrative costs would be higher for the US as would transportation of resources because of the sheer size of the nation. So, what does the UK spend every year on healthcare?

Israel, there is no comparison possible. Take out the foreign aid we give to her and then you can get to a real cost. As I've said, the US subsidizes other nation's health care systems. In fact, eliminate all foreign aid given by the US and make all the nations pay for all their own bills without the US giving them cash.

I'm all for that. Then let's see how much all these nations end up spending of their own money on their systems.

The US is subsidizing all these nations to some degree. Pull all the US troops out of Europe and see how they fare without all our money being spent in their cities and towns. Then compare.

All these systems for everyone else in due in a great degree to the US handing over taxpayer money. I'm not sure how to quantify it all but I'm sure some bright enterprising socialist would be glad to ignore all that.

I'd love to have free health care. Maybe Europe, Asia, Africa and South America can send us some foreign aid that we can put toward paying for "free" health care for me and the rest of my countrymen. I bet that'd go over real well.....

US health care is a mess. It increases in price at rates up to 10X the national inflation. It's insane. But why it's going up is not addressed by Obamacare at all. Health care costs have skyrocketed as government regulation of health care has increased at the same time. Everything the US government touches turn to crap.

The closest thing we have to a truly socialized health care is our military. That's about as socialized, government run, government paid for system as you can get. Guess what, Obama is giving the screws to the military, active and retired, and is increasing their premiums 345% over the next 5 years. I'm surprised that the Obama haters of CC haven't been posting their outrage over this. 345%, that's insane. Obama care is going to do that to everyone on the national scale (hopefully not as bad).

Obama care is bad because it is piecemeal and never addressed any of the real problems. If the US wants better health care then we'll have to stop paying for everyone else in the world. We have to stop spending across the board in other areas. We have to stop debasing our currency (which is the overriding factor in rising prices). We have to fix those things first. And to do that, other nations would have to learn to live on their own. It's political suicide. Something you don't seem to understand or accept.

And you certainly don't accept how terrible our politicians are. Our guys could f*ck up a wet dream so the prospect of turning over health care to those fools is not a happy picture for a plurality of people.
What are the answers? Hell if I know, don't get sick I suppose. But it sure as hell isn't "Just do what <insert your nation of choice> does!"

Dude, so much wrong with this. I'm not good with editing big posts, but I'll just repeat a few of the basic problems here.

1) Universal healthcare is not just a European thing. Canada implements it, as does Israel, Japan, Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand... I don't get why you think this is some European model. There are loads of models.

2) Those models aren't even the same between European countries. The EU doesn't run a set healthcare system. Indeed your entire view of Europe is really weird to people who've lived there. Importing human beings? Really?

3) I offered several systems for universal healthcare that weren't socialised.

4) You answered your own question on where to look for the answers. Look to countries that have cheap and efficient models and don't buy the crap that it could never work and doesn't work and shouldn't be considered at all, ever.

[patches70]

I'd love to have free health care. Maybe Europe, Asia, Africa and South America can send us some foreign aid that we can put toward paying for"free"health care for me and the rest of my countrymen. I bet that'd go over real well.....

That's the thing__ I won't be free (unless you are in poverty). That healthcare is a right line is phony. What right you have is a choice between poverty or paying the government for the privilege of breathing on their land.

Yes, I know. That's why the quotations are there. I guess your sarcasm detector wasn't on.....

[thegreekdog]

Surely it's comparable if your point was that universal healthcare isn't possible in the US because of high rates of military spending. It's a nation that spends more and has universal healthcare.

That's not my point at all. I indicated that the United States is different than other countries were universal healthcare has been successful. I pointed out 10 Time Magazine examples and 1 example from me. I can most assuredly find other examples of ways in whcih the United States is different and thus may not be ripe for universal healthcare. Further, and more importantly to me, if there are problems with the current healthcare system in the United States (and there are) is universal healthcare the best answer given these extraneous factors. I don't think it is. Do I have other ideas? Sure. I guess those are the free market fantasy ideas you're talking about, but it's hard for me to disucss those ideas with you when you've labelled them as such.

The Times magazine examples were not, at least as you posted them, about the impossibility of universal healthcare, but rather about the high cost under the current system, which is not universal.

At least you're down to just one argument on your part, which I guess would be that the US government already spends a lot on stuff, if it is the military thing that's out of the way. I've made another topic on what happened in the UK with regards to a shift to private sector ownership.

No doubt, of course, it will be deemed irrelevant.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 8&t=165841

The Time magazine examples point out the reasons why healthcare costs have increased. The question I put to the group was how does universal healthcare solve those problems. Because if we don't solve those problems, healthcare costs will continue to be high while being paid for by the government. I received one response on target, your responses have been cryptic at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Until you get over your perceived notion that I'm some sort of Fox News parrott, I don't think we're going to move on in this debate.

[Symmetry]

Surely it's comparable if your point was that universal healthcare isn't possible in the US because of high rates of military spending. It's a nation that spends more and has universal healthcare.

That's not my point at all. I indicated that the United States is different than other countries were universal healthcare has been successful. I pointed out 10 Time Magazine examples and 1 example from me. I can most assuredly find other examples of ways in whcih the United States is different and thus may not be ripe for universal healthcare. Further, and more importantly to me, if there are problems with the current healthcare system in the United States (and there are) is universal healthcare the best answer given these extraneous factors. I don't think it is. Do I have other ideas? Sure. I guess those are the free market fantasy ideas you're talking about, but it's hard for me to disucss those ideas with you when you've labelled them as such.

The Times magazine examples were not, at least as you posted them, about the impossibility of universal healthcare, but rather about the high cost under the current system, which is not universal.

At least you're down to just one argument on your part, which I guess would be that the US government already spends a lot on stuff, if it is the military thing that's out of the way. I've made another topic on what happened in the UK with regards to a shift to private sector ownership.

No doubt, of course, it will be deemed irrelevant.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 8&t=165841

The Time magazine examples point out the reasons why healthcare costs have increased. The question I put to the group was how does universal healthcare solve those problems. Because if we don't solve those problems, healthcare costs will continue to be high while being paid for by the government. I received one response on target, your responses have been cryptic at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Until you get over your perceived notion that I'm some sort of Fox News parrott, I don't think we're going to move on in this debate.

Ouch, intellectually dishonest or cryptic. Just to restate my point, made several times over this thread, I think it's a good idea to look at systems that work in other countries. A point that you outright dismissed and have been scrambling to justify throughout the thread. I'm glad that you now accept again that the Times points were about the high cost of healthcare in the current system in the US, and not arguments against why universal healthcare would be impossible though. There was a moment there when you came across as being a little dishonest.

Did you read the New Yorker piece I posted about the rising cost of healthcare? It dismisses several of the points in Time. Not to be cryptic, or anything, but it's worth a read and is significantly more in depth and specific than a "top ten reasons America's system is expensive" featuring such gems as "we're just too fat".

[thegreekdog]

Ouch, intellectually dishonest or cryptic. Just to restate my point, made several times over this thread, I think it's a good idea to look at systems that work in other countries. A point that you outright dismissed and have been scrambling to justify throughout the thread. I'm glad that you now accept again that the Times points were about the high cost of healthcare in the current system in the US, and not arguments against why universal healthcare would be impossible though. There was a moment there when you came across as being a little dishonest.

Did you read the New Yorker piece I posted about the rising cost of healthcare? It dismisses several of the points in Time. Not to be cryptic, or anything, but it's worth a read and is significantly more in depth and specific than a "top ten reasons America's system is expensive" featuring such gems as "we're just too fat".

Oh, I'm not saying we dismiss univeral healthcare outright or that we not look at other systems. I'm simply pointing out that there are alternatives to other systems, alternatives to universal healthcare, and that one must not look at other systems without considering the inherent problems with the United States (the US government, the US healthcare system, the US insurance system, and the US people generally).

I will look at the New Yorker piece (I'm assuming it's in this thread). And "we're too fat" is actually a valid discussion point as to why healthcare costs so much.

[heavycola]

Ouch, intellectually dishonest or cryptic. Just to restate my point, made several times over this thread, I think it's a good idea to look at systems that work in other countries. A point that you outright dismissed and have been scrambling to justify throughout the thread. I'm glad that you now accept again that the Times points were about the high cost of healthcare in the current system in the US, and not arguments against why universal healthcare would be impossible though. There was a moment there when you came across as being a little dishonest.

Did you read the New Yorker piece I posted about the rising cost of healthcare? It dismisses several of the points in Time. Not to be cryptic, or anything, but it's worth a read and is significantly more in depth and specific than a "top ten reasons America's system is expensive" featuring such gems as "we're just too fat".

Oh, I'm not saying we dismiss univeral healthcare outright or that we not look at other systems. I'm simply pointing out that there are alternatives to other systems, alternatives to universal healthcare, and that one must not look at other systems without considering the inherent problems with the United States (the US government, the US healthcare system, the US insurance system, and the US people generally).

I will look at the New Yorker piece (I'm assuming it's in this thread). And "we're too fat" is actually a valid discussion point as to why healthcare costs so much.

There's an interesting dude about called Wendell Potter - he used to be head of PR for Cygna, and then one day he went along to a healthcare expedition in TN - you know, where doctors and dentists give their time and services for free - and he had a huge crisis of conscience. He quit his job and now gives lectures on how f*cked up the US healthcare system is, and on the dirty tricks used by the big 5 insurers to reduce their bottom lines and please their shareholders (which is their actual function, rather than looking after people's health).

It's good to hear it from an industry whistleblower, especially one who was so well placed.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thanks, heavycola, for the recommended reading.

[Symmetry]

Ouch, intellectually dishonest or cryptic. Just to restate my point, made several times over this thread, I think it's a good idea to look at systems that work in other countries. A point that you outright dismissed and have been scrambling to justify throughout the thread. I'm glad that you now accept again that the Times points were about the high cost of healthcare in the current system in the US, and not arguments against why universal healthcare would be impossible though. There was a moment there when you came across as being a little dishonest.

Did you read the New Yorker piece I posted about the rising cost of healthcare? It dismisses several of the points in Time. Not to be cryptic, or anything, but it's worth a read and is significantly more in depth and specific than a "top ten reasons America's system is expensive" featuring such gems as "we're just too fat".

Oh, I'm not saying we dismiss univeral healthcare outright or that we not look at other systems. I'm simply pointing out that there are alternatives to other systems, alternatives to universal healthcare, and that one must not look at other systems without considering the inherent problems with the United States (the US government, the US healthcare system, the US insurance system, and the US people generally).

I will look at the New Yorker piece (I'm assuming it's in this thread). And "we're too fat" is actually a valid discussion point as to why healthcare costs so much.

I'll post it again-

Link