jump to last post 1-50 of 63 discussions (764 posts)

Obamacare. Just what does it mean to you.

  1. OLYHOOCH profile image60
    OLYHOOCHposted 4 years ago

    This is just one of many Re-plys, I receive each day. I thought I might share this one with you,,,,,

    Thanks. And from one of my favorite pundits, Stella Paul, more motivation to work our tails off in this election season.

    June 30, 2012

    A Surgeon Cuts to the Heart of the ObamaCare Nightmare

    By Stella Paul


    The day the Supreme Court ruled in favor of ObamaCare, a friend called me. He's an extremely dedicated, much-loved surgeon, and he was frustrated and livid in equal measure.

    "I've actually had a lot of experience working in all different types of environments," he began. "I've worked in a government-run socialized medical care system, and I saw the waste and inefficiency.

    "The longer people worked in that system, the less work they wanted to do, because the more you wanted to do, the more they dumped on you. So after a while you stop doing it, because they're not paying you to do more. Why should you do a difficult case, a difficult surgery that will take you hours and hours to do?

    "You might start out wanting to do it, but after a while, you just run out of energy, because there's no incentive. You'd have to be a superhuman being to continue to work in that system and not be worn down by it.

    "Because nobody wanted to work, it would take an hour to turn over the surgical room. In my private practice now, it takes ten minutes.

    "And I saw tremendous waste: closets of stuff that never got used. Nobody cared.

    "Capitalism has completely transformed my sub-specialty. When I was in training, a common procedure that I do now took 40 minutes, and people needed a month of recovery. Now it takes 10 minutes, and people can go back to work almost immediately.

    "And all these improvements were driven by the financial incentive. Capitalism has had a tremendously positive effect on patient care and outcome in my specialty.

    "But when I go to meetings now, I see that there's very little innovation going on. Everything's being impacted by ObamaCare, which, among other things, raises taxes on medical devices.

    "You know, doctors are people, and we're being hammered on all sides here.
    It's the paperwork; it's insurance; it's transitioning to electronic medical records, so the government can get their mitts into your practice. It's lawsuits; it's rising overhead and decreasing compensation; it's stress upon stress upon stress.

    "And a lot of doctors are going to say, 'Forget it. I don't want to do this anymore.' Guys that are 5 or 10 years older than me are just going to give up and walk away.

    "Why should I be a slave to the government? You know, it used to be that doctors would do charity work at a charity hospital. Nobody wants to do it anymore, because we're too overwhelmed.

    "I work 60 to 70 hours a week, so how am I supposed to fight back against this? Most doctors don't have the time to lobby their congressman or go to Washington. If you're a doctor in the trenches, you've got a stressful job; you've got a family. You're seeing the same number of patients and making half the income you used to make. People are litigious these days, so you've got to worry about lawsuits. When are you going to find time to lobby a politician?

    "And the American Medical Association threw us all under the bus, even though only 18% of doctors belong to it. These people are ivory-tower academics, and they're liberals. Most of them are in academic medicine; they get a salary with some sort of incentive bonus. They show up to work and go home. They're not in the trenches like me, figuring out how to compete with other doctors and pay for malpractice insurance and how to hire four people I need to implement the electronic medical records and two people I need to deal with insurance.

    "And as a doctor, I get it handed to me both ways. My taxes are raised, and my fees are lowered.

    "You know, young people today who go to medical school -- I don't know what to tell them. You couldn't pay me to go to medical school today. Some doctors are going to graduate with $500,000 in debt, and how are they going to make a living?

    "You're 32 or 33 years old by the time you finish your training; you're married with little kids. You've been an apprentice for 16 years, and now you're faced with socialized medicine. That's the reality on the ground. How are you supposed to manage that?

    "Fortunately, I still love what I do. But I don't know what's going to happen. I think we'll wind up with a two-tiered medical system: a private one for the rich who pay cash and a mediocre one for everyone else.

    "When my dad was 91, he had a heart attack and ended up with a stent. He had two more good years after that before he died. After ObamaCare, some government employee is going to decide that he is too old for this and not 'approve' for him to have that procedure.

    "It's just a feeling of helplessness. The only organizations that are fighting for doctors are the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and Docs4 Patient Care."

    After he hung up, I went to the website of Docs4 Patient Care and found this statement from its president, Dr. Hal Scherz:


    The Supreme Court disappointed the majority of Americans who have voiced their opposition to Obamacare, by upholding significant portions of this truly abysmal law. Their decision has left Americans now wondering what it is that the Federal Government can't compel them to do. This is perhaps the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court and emphasizes the importance of making the correct decision for chief executive, who controls who sits on this bench.

    If you want to cure the sickness that's killing America, you'll find a powerful remedy in the voting booth in November.

    Write Stella Paul at Stellapundit@aol.com.

    OLY

    1. Paul Wingert profile image80
      Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      roll

    2. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Complete bull for many reasons to cover just one: job satisfaction for doctors is statistically much much much higher for doctors in public systems because they don't have to turn away people who cannot afford care and can instead do the right thing.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You obviously haven't been around a VA hospital much.

        Listening to my son, who worked there at the front desk as the go-between between the patient and doctor, there isn't a doc in the building that cares one whit.  To a person they are overworked and underpaid, almost pushing patients out of the office because there are 10 more to get in and only 1/2 hour to do it.

        It's what we can all look forward to in the near future.

        1. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So you have a the experience of a family member telling you so...

          According to the World health Organization study on job satisfaction amongst doctors and nurses job satisfaction is more than twice as high in Norway as it is in the US, the system in Norway is public. The facts speak for themselves.

          The WHO tentatively suggest it may have something to do with not having to turf sick people out or refuse care because people can't afford it.

          1. DannyMaio profile image60
            DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If it was soooo Great, why doesn't the politicians have the same health insurance???? It will be the best doctors for the rich and the new and not as good doctors that are overwhelmed for the poor on the $hit insurance!

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Danny, what are you on about? What $hit insurance? That is an American scam, in the UK everybody who is working pays into health care via the government, no insurance companies taking a slice to make their shareholders rich.

              1. DannyMaio profile image60
                DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Do you know the American health industry JOHN? Many doctors here are opting out of government healthcare and not available unless you have private health insurance! The government health insurance doesn't pay doctors nearly what private insurance does and they refuse to see Government insurance patients! THIS IS A FACT!!! So many will be losing their doctor unless they have the private, much better insurance! Over here the politicians have the best healthcare insurance, If their great healthcare plan was that good, why aren't they on it???? Please you know nothing about America and try to spin your socialist Bull$hit, to the stupid over here hoping they buy into your countries screwed up policies. The UK has turned to $hit! I have been going there on business for over 15 years and see the change! keep your disgusting country.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And do you know why our country is turning to $hit?

                  It's these damned conservatives who want to privatise everything and turn us into little America!

                  1. DannyMaio profile image60
                    DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah OK! Your conservatives are our old left democrat party! Smart and trying to do the right thing and make your country good again! Not another failed entitlement society. Like I said I'm a real democrat! Not socialist. I believe in helping people who truly need it not enabling fools to depend on the government from cradle to crave!

                2. Josak profile image59
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You obviously don't understand the plan being instituted at all, in the US everyone will be covered by some of the provisions of Obama care, for example as of 2014 insurance plans will no longer have a spending limit so if you catch cancer they won't stop paying for your treatment half way through you also get to choose your own healthcare if you can afford to for extras like alternative medicine, chiropractic etc. no one gets to avoid it.

                  1. Lions Den Media profile image61
                    Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Josak - exactly how does one "catch" cancer? Is it something that is airborne or do you catch it by human contact?

                    Also I'm curious in that you claim to "understand" the entire Obamacare plan. Yet there are tens of thousands of pages of regulations, by dozens of different gov agencies that must be written. And until those regulations are written there is no way for Obama, let alone you, to know how this abortion is going to affect anyone. Hence, you must therefore be like a palm reader who can see the future? You socialists are so cool, at least in your own minds!

          2. Lions Den Media profile image61
            Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Josak - Does Norway have 12 million illegals? smile) But do you also know why they are happy? First of all, they are the third largest oil producer in the area and are not in the Euro. They have low unemployment and a growing economy because they exploit their oil resources. Hence, they have the money to support a very small population of about 5 million which is nearly the size of NYC. We have nearly 3 times their entire population in illegal immigrants who receive FREE care and benefits.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And do you realise that the UK and Norway had about the same amount of oil. The UK sold theirs off quickly to give the rich tax cuts.
              The Norwegians hung on to theirs and used the proceeds for the benefit of the people.

              On and by the way Norway probably has the same or even higher percentage of illegal immigrants.

              1. Josak profile image59
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Huh we just wrote the same comment.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah but you went into it in more depth lol

              2. Lions Den Media profile image61
                Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                John your claim on Norway's labor laws and geography make it exceptionally difficult for illegal immigrants to obtain work and benefit from healthcare. Thus, there is no incentive to enter illegally.

                But to your ridiculously simplistic claim that the UK sold all their oil assets to give the rich a tax cut is a most absurd comment devoid of fact. The reason I know this fact is that you have absolutely NO idea how much oil either country has within their borders. Norway recently discovered a very large new oil reserve. So my question is how do know the quantity of something that has yet been discovered? And how can Norway's higher production rate lead to a conclusion that they are holding on to their oil?

                As to your nauseating "tax cuts for the rich" dogma - both are socialist countries, which has nothing to do with the US passing Obamacare. But more importantly why are you and other liberals so opposed to people succeeding and becoming wealthy by hard work? But yet those "rich" that hold your same views are exempt from your contempt for the rich. It simply reeks of hypocrisy which pollutes your claims.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  An absurd comment devoid of fact!

                  When North Sea Oil and Gas started to come on stream in the early 80s, Norway cherished theirs and released it gradually whilst the UK sold it all off to the highest bidder, usually the US, we are now running out of Oil and Gas whilst as you say, Norway is still discovering more!

                  I think before you accuse people of making statements devoid of fact you ought to do a little research if you are completely out of your depth.

                2. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry, OK Norway is one, who is the other socialist country?

                  I sincerely hope you don't mean the UK otherwise I'd have to agree that you haven't the first idea of what socialism is.

            2. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I was just talking about doctor job satisfaction, while Norway has certain natural resources it is classified as less mineral rich than the US (per square mile) and due to it's cold climate it's farm lands are nowhere near as productive.

              IF we want to talk about national happiness we can talk about a whole lot of other countries.

              I advise you to read the economic reports on illegals, there is significant debate as to whether they are even economically detrimental, about one third pay their taxes voluntarily and the vast majority do not receive social security etc. many estimates put them as being good for the economy, I am still doing my own research (as an economist) and I am not sure who is right yet but I do know the impact is not economically significant either way.

              It is further interesting to note that proportional to it's population Norway has a very similar number of illegal immigrants to the US.

              http://immigration.procon.org/view.answ … nID=000788

            3. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The Wall Street Journal, in its "Monthly Economic Forecasting Survey: April 2006," conducted from Apr. 7-11, 2006, obtained the following answers from 46 economists on whether illegal immigration has:

                     
                   benefited more than it has harmed  96%
                     
                   has harmed more than it has benefited  4%

              1. Lions Den Media profile image61
                Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Josak - 46 economists responded. Who are they? Where are they from? Do they work for liberal think tanks or DC immigration lobbyists? The issues in these surveys are many and one them is "political ideological bias", which distorts outcomes due to either manufacturing or failure to evaluate certain inputs that would negatively impact the desired outcome. My point -- I don't care what 46 economists say until I review their methodology and their input data.

                Your "proof" is similar in providing me information from climatologists who are predisposed to believe in global warming and choose data points in their models that support their ideology. Junk science in begets junk science.

                Also, these are the same "economists" that are stunned or shocked every week or month about the unemployment rate being "unexpectedly" high.

                1. OLYHOOCH profile image60
                  OLYHOOCHposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Economists, Don't work, nor, do they have a clue. You can forget about them helping US.......

                  OLY

        2. gracenotes profile image92
          gracenotesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          My brother-in-law is an M.D. here in the U.S. He's been practicing for over 30 years.  He's worked in the VA medical system (when it was still pretty good).  He's worked in a private clinic setting, and for many years, he has worked as a hospitalist, part of that time by buying into a practice.

          It is not easy to recruit hospitalists.  They need to be hard workers who do "high volume" medicine.  My brother-in-law has said for years that physicians coming up in the profession do not have the same work ethic as his generation.  So yes, OLY, the problem of not giving a damn is already here, and the question is, will it get worse?  What an utterly daunting prospect.

          My brother-in-law has even said that his daughter, who ranks in the top 10% of her current medical school class, would not be willing to do this high-volume stuff.  Indeed, she is going into a sub-specialty.

          Lest you think that my brother-in-law is completely staunch in defending our current medical system here in the U.S., well, he's not!  He takes a thoughtful approach and is ready and willing to give credit where credit is due for some of the things that, say, the Canadian system or the Australian system do with their health care system that we, here, do not.  But he also has said that when ObamaCare was being debated, both sides arguing this issue told "some of the biggest lies it's possible to tell."

          As it stands, I think the implementation of ObamaCare will mean that Americans, who have very high expectations of our healthcare system, will have to lower those expectations considerably.  Expect some screaming and kicking along the way, and rightly so.  I guess it will take the rest of my lifetime for us to be resigned to a new paradigm.  My own personal plan is to practice preventive medicine to the best of my ability, and stay out of the doctor's office.  I can't control everything, but my approach is as sound as I can make it, given my circumstances and lifestyle.

          1. jmicchael1a profile image60
            jmicchael1aposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            How much lower should their expectations get? The current system in the USA is the most costly in the world. The outcomes of said expenditures allow the USA to be ranked in the  lowest third of the industrialized nation of the world. I think you should implement a effort to know what you're talking about.

        3. GoGreenTips profile image61
          GoGreenTipsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I've been in the VA system for many years and haven't had a problem, several different hospitals, they all have treated me great and have received excellent care.

          Don't really know what your talking about?

        4. jmicchael1a profile image60
          jmicchael1aposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          in the last 4.5 months I have been under the knife in two separate VA facilities. My experiences were both great for my outcomes and wonderful for the treatment received from the professionals involved  with my care. Your observations are not my experiences. Why do you think that is?

          1. DannyMaio profile image60
            DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm glad you received the great care you did! You deserve to have the best care, you risked your life for our countries FREEDOM. God bless and Thank you for your service.

    3. Deni Edwards profile image90
      Deni Edwardsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Someone needs to tell this doctor that the ACA isn't socialized medicine.  Perhaps he wouldn't be so upset.

    4. 0
      screamingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Pure hogwash!

    5. Onusonus profile image88
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry dude Socialists don't possess the ability to learn from the past. The answer must be that not enough socialism was applied in that country in order for it to be effective enough.

      Two Russians were walking down the street, one asked the other, "Have we really achieved full communism?" The other said "oh no. Things are about to get much worse."

      1. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And another guy who does not know the difference between socialism and communism and since he does not know even the most basic facts about what he is discussing can be safely ignored.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I was doing lol

        2. Onusonus profile image88
          Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Actually I do know the difference between socialism and communism. It's just that the outcome of both systems is the same.

          http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/600131_292614650836990_2000139367_n.jpg

        3. Lions Den Media profile image61
          Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Josak - that's manly of you in suggesting we can safely ignore you, because I find most of the time socialists to be such man-girls. And as far as the differences between socialism and communism -- are you asking on the basis of how many people each ideology is responsible for KILLING or are you seeking more subjective criteria?

          I mean isn't it the reality of the issue that in the end we are merely addressing matters of semantecs -- as it is clear both are barbarous failed political ideologies responsible for murdering millions of innocent people? Because if semantics is the issue you are attempting to support one group, such as the Socialist Nazi Party, because they gased 6 million, whereas you are vilifying someone like Stalin predicated on an absurd argument that he was worse because he starved to death 6 million...the bottom line is they were killed!? The real question Josak is -- do YOU know what you are talking about?

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, not the socialist Nazi party! Don't they teach you any history in school?

            Hey, if Hitler was such a socialist explain to me why he was murdering socialists and communists before he even started on the Jews, who he also thought were communists?

            1. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well you know school... We have one of the worst funded school systems in the developed world and as a consequence some of the worst education statistics in the developed world BUT we do have the most expensive military in the world by a huge margin. It's a fascinating view of the American psyche.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Isn't it just! Americans will approve the spending of unlimited amounts of money to kill Johnny Foreigner but squeal like stuck pigs at the thought of spending a few cents to preserve the lives of their fellow countrymen!

                Very strange.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Some of us are mad about all of the government's wasteful spending. Every dollar the government spends that they don't have is a tax on every American.

                2. Lions Den Media profile image61
                  Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  JH - Was that a story on the BBC or did Obama leak that name to you from his "kill list"? And was Johnny Foreigner a terrorist leader or just a guy hanging out on a park bench with his family? Frankly I haven't heard the guys named mentioned before. Is that his real name or an alias? Perhaps that was the guy Obama actually wasted himself when he went in with Seal Team 6? Anyway let me...thanks smile)

                  But seriously - what do you care about how many fellow Americans we yanks kill by denying health care that isn't denied. And those "few cents" actually add up to over $2 trillion dollars.

                  That said, should an American child not be executed during an abortion procedure - which you liberals have no problem with, the child is born with a debt obligation is $181,000 bucks. Those pennies really add up don't they.

                  And to the point of abortion - don't you find it bizarre that you're worried about an American's health when 50 million babies have been killed since 1973 via abortions, or over 1 million children executed annually in the US - versus an ALLEGED (means unproven) claim of 45,000 people dying in the US due to a lack of health insurance per year? Don't you find your concern somewhat misplaced?

                  So essentially we crazy Americans are going to spend well over $2trillioin to cover 45,000 people or $44 million dollars per person. That is Brilliant! This is going to work out very very well...

              2. Cagsil profile image83
                Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, it shows how pathetic the politicians who control each country of the world are and what is being attempted. And it has nothing to do with Peace of any kind. It's all about stripping rights and reaping profit for the conglomerates of the upper 1% of the world's wealthiest.

                Increased spending over the last 20 year for the military industrial complex has reduced the spending for properly funding of the educational system. This proves that government officials have been dumbing down society for 2 decades.

                1. Josak profile image59
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, there is something we agree on wholeheartedly.

                2. Lions Den Media profile image61
                  Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Cagsil - education spending has increased every year since 97, to over 100% increase. The issue isn't money it is teaching and learning. The reason the kids are stupid is the material they are taught or more likely NOT taught. Education has nothing to do with military spending. In fact it is the constitutional responsibility for the government to provide for the common defense, yet there is nothing establishing the constitutionality of federal control of education. Your ignorance is only overshadowed by your misunderstanding or complete lack of education on the Constitution and the limited power of the federal government.

                  1. Cagsil profile image83
                    Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If it is as you say, then why is America's general public so stupid? If they are not stupid, then it must be chosen ignorance. Means, they are egotistically choosing to be stupid, yet fail to see it.
                    Actually, it's more than that and if you had taken the time to think about the entire situation, instead of solely placing blame where it should not exist, then just maybe teaching and learning you would know isn't the whole problem.
                    Yes, I know. I've written couple of hubs on America's educational system. But, do remember, that's not the only reason. Religion and Politics need to get out of the educational system. All the BS is hurting our ability to teach properly.
                    Education and Military spending are all part of the Government's BUDGET! Do not sit there and tell me that one doesn't affect/effect the other. It's absurd to think that they don't.
                    Understood. I am not advocating for the Federal government to control education. Exactly, the opposite. States should be in control of public education. Federal government shouldn't be involved at all.
                    Really? I guess I would have to say that you apparently lack insight to what I know and what I don't know. Thus, your statement is a bad perception.

            2. Lions Den Media profile image61
              Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That's the point -- socialists always turn on those they fear, which includes other socialists which then naturally leads to communism and totalitarian rule. And to your point about history and Hitler -- obviously you are correct that you did not learn anything in school as apparently you were not taught the National Socialists German Worker's Party was Hitler's political party. Perhaps it was the term SOCIALIST in the party name that was confusing you?

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Not at all, I am perfectly capable of looking behind names and judging actions and nothing that Hitler did suggests in any way that he was a socialist.

                I suppose you think that the German Democratic Republic was really democratic and a republic as well!

                1. Lions Den Media profile image61
                  Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Dude please -- this blithering idiocy of your childish word games does nothing to advance legitimate arguments concerning the core issue -- Obamacare and the Supreme Court's ruling which expands government's power by limiting American Liberties, vis-a-vis asserting the unlimited power to tax. Claiming the Nazi Party was not socialist defies reality of fact. So there is not further rational purpose the continue dialogue with those refusing the accept fact. Perhaps you believe the moon landing did not occur either?
                  But what you do well is avoid the actual issues that were at hand, because you lack any credibly logical arguments supporting your position.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So, you have no argument to support your ludicrous claims so you resort to name calling!

                    Go on then educate this fool, what grounds have you, apart from the name of his party, for claiming that Hitler was a socialist?

                    This is relevant to Obamacare because there are those sad sacks out there who claim that Obama is a socialist as well.

          2. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Shall we do an analysis of how many people have been killed by capitalist regimes vs Socialist ones (I am not a communist) further saying something as stupid as that Nazism which is classic fascism was socialism shows your complete ignorance.

            I am sure you as an "intelligent" person know that the hallmark of socialism is public ownership of the means of production... The means of production in Nazi Germany were privately owned, end of discussion.

            1. Lions Den Media profile image61
              Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Josak -- the fascists were the Italians, socialists = Nazis, commies = Soviets. Why is the truth so difficult for you to accept? This type of semantic gamesmanship, in which you are attempting to be far smarter than what you actually are is the problem. So lets play your trivial little mind game - socialist/fascism/communism - are cut from the same cloth with different patterns. Even Marx claimed one needed socialism to occur before mutating into communism and fascism is essentially a totalitarian dictator that disavows socialists. But truly, your are attempting to prove a distinction where none exists. It is like attempting to distinguish the difference between slave owners and holders -- HINT: they're different in name only.
              But as a public service I shall provide the you the methodology that shall allow you to visualize and grasp the socialist/fascist/capitalist dilemma. Imagine a round clock with numbers, and it makes no difference the style of number. 11 o'clock = Socialism. 12 o'clock = Communism and 1 o'clock = Fascism. And finally 6 o'clock = a capitalist Republic, because technically capitalism is not political ideology, but rather an economic model.

              To answer your other question - YES, PROVE with numbers and not your generalized bloviating, which are based on legitimate cases of genocide and murder - and don't give me the millions killed in war.
              School's out son!

              1. 60
                Antonio4444posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The Nazi's were socialists in name only....perhaps they added the word 'socialist' to their party to trick the German people.

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How, exactly, do you define socialism Onusonus?

    6. Lions Den Media profile image61
      Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What can be added. This is the reality of the situation caused by Obamacare - there is no upside, because when you step in a cow excrement you don't rationalize it by calling it - freshly mowed grass!

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        We have an expression to cover your type of behaviour,it's called "turkeys voting for Christmas".

        1. Lions Den Media profile image61
          Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps you meant to say a "turkeys voting for Thanksgiving". After all this is the US and not your little British Island. But I imagine that creates images of a bunch of farmers destroying the British Army and bringing the King of England to submission. Perhaps your positions are based on your yearning for the day that Americans finally destroy themselves with the same parasitic form of socialism that is destroying England and the whole of Europe.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If you think that the UK is socialist then you prove without doubt that you either have no idea of what the political situation is in the UK or you have no idea of what socialism really is.

            Or perhaps both apply!

            1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image78
              Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The UK does have a socialized health care system for the most part.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That hardly makes us a socialist country, especially when you consider that the present government is waging all out war on the health service.

                1. Lions Den Media profile image61
                  Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Relative to the U.S. of course the UK is socialist.  This is what I mean with people being honest with themselves about the reality. Regardless if reality doesn't conform to your ideology, does not negate the reality. For instance, Obama's team stated today that the Obama administration did not argue before the Supreme Court that Obamacare is a tax, when taped transcripts proves otherwise. Similarly you want to think of your country as being free, when in fact it is not. The problem with evading reality is that it prevents you from identifying and fixing problems of government intervention. But being the fact that you are British, it is no wonder you agree with a socialist program such as Obamacare. Your own politicians Daniel Hannan asserts the UK is a socialist State. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luo67VD6wJ0

                  1. Josak profile image59
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok seriously, I think you need to consider your own reasoning. Socialism is not relative anymore than being alive or dead is relative, socialism is defined as system where the state owns the means of production, if a state owns the means of production and is leftist then it is a socialist state, but let's make this very clear, if the governemnt does not own the means of production it is not a socialist state therefore we can say with zero doubt that the UK is not socialist.

                  2. DannyMaio profile image60
                    DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Lion, John admitted he was a socialist! He will spin and divert anything that doesn't fit his ideology. He will give his one line answers and think he is king. Bottom line my friend you can not help or teach people when they just want to mooch off the system and blame everybody else for their problems.

              2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                With more than enough input from private healthcare providers. We also have hospitals and clinical staff which were built, bought and paid for tax payers. However, these assets are also at the disposal of private health care companies.  Private healthcare is partially funded by the state in the UK. Private healthcare providers do not fund social healthcare in the UK. Where do the NHS's debts really originate?

    7. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nice diatribe.

      I've seen just the oppositive working in a psychiatry department of a major medical university. In the 1990s, the insurance companies demanded accountability, and we had to demonstrate what where were goig to do and what the outcome was. This everntually is leading to DSM-5, the global encyclopedia of mental illensses.

      People can mock universial heaalthcare, but I praise it becuae my clinic had to turn peopel away: Doctors who lost their isnurance and their minds taking their own pills; pastors who lost their parish and their insurance; small business owners who lost everything and got hooked on drugs to control the pain. But no--sorry we cnn't help you because you do not have insurance.

      And this is while I'm doing pro bono up the ying yang. But you cannot work for free forever when school costs $200,000, and generally a bankruptcy.

    8. slcockerham profile image84
      slcockerhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      *3% of doctors surveyed in a recent DPMA poll said that they were seriously considering quiting the medical profession as a direct result of Obamacare!

      1. OLYHOOCH profile image60
        OLYHOOCHposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I read and heard the same thing.

      2. DannyMaio profile image60
        DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I have seen much much more than 3%! they are stating a source that a lot of doctors do not agree with. I have friends and family that are Doctors and most will only take private Cadillac insurance or cash. As they said, Would you take on more work and get paid less!

        1. slcockerham profile image84
          slcockerhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          My bad, it was 93%! Sorry, not proofreading my reply the first time.

      3. DannyMaio profile image60
        DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Also quitting and just eliminating Medicaid and Medicare from their practice are two different things. so 3% in that case is probably more correct.

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Actually it was 83%.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So that's 3%, 83% and 93%, hm right, got that.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this
            2. DannyMaio profile image60
              DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Trying to find something to dismiss what you do not like John? I can find many mistakes you socialist made. Even Obama said we have 57 States!

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You don't know your socialists from your elbow!

                If Obama is a socialist then I'm the King of Siam.

                1. DannyMaio profile image60
                  DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't want to know Socialism, It has proven not to work and as Thatcher said eventually you run out of other peoples money! Later King John

                  1. Bimothy Slangwell profile image59
                    Bimothy Slangwellposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    At one time it was proven that man wasn't capable of flight also. Thank goodness we didn't just give up....

    9. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Just another tax.

  2. Ron Montgomery profile image59
    Ron Montgomeryposted 4 years ago

    zzzzzzzzzz

  3. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    *shrugs* This kind of response would only be a surprise to liberals that believe Uncle Sam has unlimited pockets and is the greatest organizer on the planet.

    Some know better already, but the rest will discover the sad truth in a few years.

    1. Bimothy Slangwell profile image59
      Bimothy Slangwellposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well actually if Uncle Sam wasn't the greatest organizer on this planet, America wouldn't be the power that it is.

  4. Paul Wingert profile image80
    Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago

    What does France, Italy, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Norway, United Kingdom, Canada, (just to name a few) all have in common? 1. They all have government ran healthcare that is far more efficient than our private sector ran healthcare. 2. Their citizens have a longer life expectancy and healthier. 3. They all out rank us by far when it comes to healthcare (we rank #37 - Way to go!). Josak is correct by pointing out that one guy doesn't speak for all healthcare professionals.

    1. DannyMaio profile image60
      DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this
      1. Bimothy Slangwell profile image59
        Bimothy Slangwellposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The rich will always go against the grain.

        There are also hundreds of people who leave the U.S. to obtain affordable healthcare in other countries!

  5. Greekgeek profile image99
    Greekgeekposted 4 years ago

    For me, it means one thing: hope.

    I'm willing to pay for my health care, but getting turned down for preexisting conditions for years  was terrifying.

    The insurance I now have is crap and covers very little, yet its premiums eat the bulk of my income. And of course, it has a lifetime expenses cap which will kick in within 20 years, after which I will have no insurance.

    obamacare says even people with health issues can get insurance, and can't be cut off in their 60s (at which point, under the OLD system, their health care expenses go to the state since the insurance industry won't pay them, and they wind up having to use more social services.)

    The system that Obama has implemented was devised, pushed hard, and endorsed by prominent Republicans from Lamar Alexander to Orrin Hatch to Mitt Romney to JohnMcCain. But now that the Democrats have adopted their proposals, they've backpedalled and started calling it socialism to fool everybody.

    Does everyone REALLY have such selective amnesia? The videos the GOP produced supporting this system a few years back are still on the web! I can't believe people are falling for their changed script. If they were still pushing it as they were just a few years ago, you'd say it was a good thing.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This!  smile

                                         http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6812619.jpg

    2. 0
      screamingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You hit the nail on the head! Republicans now have selective amnesia! Like a bunch of little kids! Okay when it was their idea but didn't get it done. So now the President gets it done and it's the worst thing in the world! What a joke!

    3. Lions Den Media profile image61
      Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      GG not all republicans supported this Utopian propaganda. And I assure you no conservatives support Romneycare or Obamacare or any other socialist government run system. Preconditions could be handled with a one page bill, creating a high risk pool and creating a competitive market place where 100's of companies compete accross the country or the world, instead of few sanctioned companies allowed in your state.

      There is one thing for certain -- it does not take 2,700 pages and another 10 to 20 thousand pages of regulations to fix the problem of preexisting conditions. And remember this, when it comes time to ration care, which there will necessarily be due to an explosion is costs -- pre-existing conditions is going to be one of the primary factors in determining your level of care and whether or not you get a procedure.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Because health care in the UK is cradle to grave we have no pre-existing conditions, though how a condition can exist before it exists rather baffles me!

        1. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          A "pre-existing" condition is a condition that exists prior to becoming insured by said company.

          It means you had it before you bought the services. You didn't get it while you were covered.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Aye Cagsil, but it still sounds crazy to me,like these folk who'll talk about "a white good" and really mean a refrigerator and not some arcane religious practice.

            1. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What it effectively means is a genetic underclass, if you are born with a serious medical defect in the US then you had better be from a rich family or you are in serious trouble.

              Apparently now debt collectors are posing as emergency room staff to get you to pay your medical bill before you go in and threatening to deny you care if you don't because doctors are not allowed to turn anyone away, the WHO initial report already links it to several deaths, they also ambush you while you are still groggy from anesthesia and get you to sign payment plans with massive interest rates. Honestly you guys have no idea how lucky you are in respect to healthcare.

            2. Cagsil profile image83
              Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I agree with making companies eliminate that from their practice. But, in doing so, the price of care is going to go up, because government regulations which will affect people and effect company profits.

              The company can make up the loss by increasing it's margin(this could be done in a couple of ways such as looking for cheaper suppliers or cutting employees) or by increasing it's cost of services.

              There's a possibility they will do ALL 3 to raise profit. The government cannot honestly control what a company will do.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Indeed they can't and that is why everybody who is claiming that it is socialised health care is wrong. It does nothing to eliminate the biggest cost and that is private profit.

                1. Cagsil profile image83
                  Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  But, government's involvement isn't going to reduce or eliminate the private profit. To think it is is just foolish.

                  That's not what the Affordable Health Care Act does.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes,

                    and

                    no.

        2. Lions Den Media profile image61
          Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          John H - Pre-existing condition is a condition that existed prior to an individual seeking insurance. But then you knew that...I hope!

          1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image78
            Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You missed the point that in socialized healthcare there can be no pre-existng condition. So for a person in that system it is a baffling idea.  The ability of all companies to refuse insurance to babies with congenital conditions even when both parents are lifelong clients being obscenely baffling.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I was aware of how the expression was used, I was and am puzzled by the mangling of the language. "An existing condition" means exactly the same thing without the pretentiousness

              1. Mighty Mom profile image92
                Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The PRE-fix "PRE" in PRE-existing condition is more than PRE-tentious, John.
                It's PRE-valent.
                The insurance companies use (and abuse) it routinely to PRE-judge applicants and PRE-vent them from being eligible for healthcare coverage.

                Here's how unfair it is.
                Candidate A, Candidate B  and Candidate C are all white males age 48. All three are a bit overweight (BMI 29) and all take medication to keep their blood pressure in check.
                All candidates are identical in terms of their risk exposure for the health insurer.

                Candidate A is self-employed. He is middle class (although struggling in this economy). He applies for individual coverage. He is DENIED.
                Candidate B works for a 20-person architectural firm. Candidate B is ACCEPTED -- no health questions even asked. Why? Because his employer has a group policy with the insurer.
                Candidate C's income is below the threshold to receive Medicaid. Thus his healthcare is paid by the governent.

                THIS is just one of many inherent disparities and inequities and of American health insurance as it now.
                THIS is just one of the many problems Obamacare seeks to redress.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

  6. Skarlet profile image86
    Skarletposted 4 years ago

    Socialized healthcare is terrible. My mother country has had it for many years, and when it is first put in place, everyone is happy, but over time, money becomes tighter and tighter, and the good doctors bail, while the crooks and quacks stick around. That is what history has taught me. Not only that, but its common sense when you think about it.
    I am disappointed in Americans for thinking that they should just do what Europe has done. Just because our healthcare system has gone down, that does not mean that we should adapt another bad system.
    I am very interested in the system Romney proposed. It is the only time that I have heard an intelligent, fair and truly beneficial plan being brought up.
    Of course the liberal media were so afraid that people would hear that and see the light, so they cut that little line out, "I like to fire people", to try to demonize him and stop people from listening to what he really said.

    "I like to fire people," means that we are the boss and we can fire our insurance company. I like t fire companies that are not serving me right too.

    American's don't understand how crappy government healthcare is when the doctors know that you cannot fire them. And you really can't. I don't care what weird excuses someone comes up with. When you are not the one hiring, you have no control and IT SUCKS!

    1. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ok so how come #1 No country that has passed public healthcare has ever got rid of it #2 Polling in countries which have it Like Australia how public support of over 95% #3 every country which has passed it has seen an increase in health stats. #4 The healthcare in the US costs three times as much per person than the one in Britain for fewer hospital beds, more infant mortality and a lower life expectancy. #5 Every single one of the 35 countries with a better healthcare rating than the US according to the World health Org ranking has public healthcare.

      Years of potential life lost is a measure of how many years of life are lost for every 100 000 people let's compare the ratings from other countries vs US ratings  in the US the male YOPLL is 6291 years now lets compare that with public healthcare countries: Australia: 3946 Iceland: 2994 (less than half) Italy: 3605 Finland 2995 Hell even the much criticized Canada is doing much better at 4168.

      All the evidence shows that public healthcare is more effective.

      Oh also the ACA has a section that will add a doctor review panel which will make firing bad doctors much easier than it is now.

      1. Onusonus profile image88
        Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Because socialist countries lie about their statistics in order to make their system look good. Cuba is a prime example.

        1. Skarlet profile image86
          Skarletposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That is right Onusomus.
          I have asked Josak why he does not move to Cuba and he has one million excuses. I have spent my time in Cuba and am grateful to the U.S. A.
          This is a free country and we are all free to leave any time we decide that this is not where we want to live. socialists love speaking about the glory of Europe and Cuba, but for some reason they never leave the U.S. A to the greener pastures of Cuba.

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            As you know I lived in Cuba several years but i have all my family here and i live here to be close to them, there is nothing strange about this, public healthcare has nothing to do with Cuba it is something that all successful nations have passed or are in the process of passing.

          2. Onusonus profile image88
            Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I knew a guy who escaped Romania because America had a real healthcare system that saved his wife's life. That would have never happened with Romania's socialized medical system. France's system is racking up a huge deficit too, and women in Canada are more likely to die of breast cancer than in America, for now.
            In fact in the late 1960's Canada implemented federal price cuts and as a result drug research dropped by more than 50%.
            As America is the leading manufacturer for drug research in the world, one could only imagine the devastating effect that socialized medicine will have on every other country just because of this failure in our policy.

            1. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Do you even realize that Obamacare does not touch drug research?

              Mexico receives more medical tourism than we do, even Cuba with it's tiny capacity gets about half as many medical tourists yearly as the whole US.

              Even New Zealand receives medical tourism from the US because surgeries there cost 15% of what ours do here for foreigners with higher success rates, the US is just not a very popular medical tourism destination except for the very rich.

              1. Onusonus profile image88
                Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The federal price cuts in Canada were indirectly related to the drop in Drug research, and yet they still caused it to drop drastically. the same thing can happen when the wasteful government takes over. The mere idea that the US government is capable of even balancing a checkbook is laughable, and now we want them to take over our health care system. The fact is that socialized medicine evolves into a two tiered system which does not affect the rich but drags down both the middle class and the lower class. The Obamacare tax however, will get more than 75% of it's revenue through the middle class.
                Healthcare in Mexico is very affordable because they use the free market, and Cuba as I said before lies about their statistics. They have an undocumented infant mortality rate because they don't count the children who die within the first few hours of life, their hospitals are dilapidated, dirty, and bug infested, and many people who enter Cuban hospitals die from malnutrition.

                1. DannyMaio profile image60
                  DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  They don't like the truth! they spread the BS lies that fit their agenda. If Cuba was so great and have all this great stuff we don't how come people risk their life on these ridiculous made boats to come here? Does Cuba or Mexico have ILLEGAL ALIEN PROBLEMS???

                  http://www.floatingcubans.com/


                  http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6847690_f248.jpg


                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6847693_f248.jpg

                  1. Josak profile image59
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I have given you the truth hundreds of statistics on lower running costs and better health results from public care systems all of which can be found on the last page (I have plenty more to add) a particularly striking one is that 45 000 Americans die every year because they don't have insurance and more than 30 000 die because their insurance spending limits run out both of which things Obamacare will fix. It is you who ignores the facts and figures presented by international independent sources (the truth) in favor of what you want to believe.

                    Additionally this discussion has nothing to do with Cuba but since you insist on bringing it up 30 000 people a year go to Cuba for healthcare every year about a third of them from the US.

                  2. Onusonus profile image88
                    Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah their health care is so good that's why their national anthem is "row, row, row your boat..." lol

                  3. Lions Den Media profile image61
                    Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Danny - is that a 57 Buick? smile But seriously, these countries do have illegal alien problems - everyone one is leaving illegally!!

            2. 0
              screamingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Onusonus, that is pure hogwash! For being a top industrialized nation, our healthcare ranks in the gutters. We need to reel in the costs and make itaffordable for all, with excellent care! Care provided by American citizens being trained, as opposed to services being provided by foreign doctors in our hospitals. Affordable healthcare is a must for all, along with better education to stimulate these professions to our young people!

              1. Skarlet profile image86
                Skarletposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I have been in the healthcare field for over 20 years. We have the BEST quality healthcare hands down. I regularly see people, my family included, leaving their free healthcare to get good care here.

                1. Onusonus profile image88
                  Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It's obvious that American healthcare is not perfect, but it is one of the best in the world and that is due to competitiveness brought on by the free market. It is tragic that America has decided to fix the system by taking a step backwards into such a self destructive system.

                  1. DannyMaio profile image60
                    DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    We will not go backwards if the socialist in chief is defeated!

                2. DannyMaio profile image60
                  DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Skarlet, These people are so far gone they do not even want to listen to people like you who come from there or Doctors who are saying they will have to retire or get rid of some of their current patients because they will not accept the payment from the government. If they get their way they will find out in the long run....hopefully not for everyone else sake.

                3. Josak profile image59
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Funny according to the international body in charge of measuring this we have the 37th in the world.

                  1. DannyMaio profile image60
                    DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    want to buy a bridge? REAL CHEAP!!!!

                  2. DannyMaio profile image60
                    DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    you are so gullible! where did they get the true stats from????? From the dictator??? You seriously need to go in a corner and think about what your saying! you're either lying to yourself or I truly feel sorry for you.

                    I guess even if the you heard it from the horses mouth you wouldn't believe it. I'm done with you.

                  3. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It's called propaganda Josak.
                    It's a progressive staple.

        2. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Firstly those are independent World health organization statistics not state ones second we are not talking about socialist countries we are talking about almost every industrialized country in the world, from Canada to Australia and New Zealand to the whole of Europe this is one huge conspiracy of socialism you see here. Your comment is rubbish.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol  His comments are always rubbish, as you'll discover.  smile


                                               http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

      2. Lions Den Media profile image61
        Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Josak - of course people want free stuff, but giving people what they want by taking it from others is not LEADING...it's called pandering. I have no obligation to provide you with anything, just as you owe me nothing.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Lion's den, health care in the UK is not "free" we all pay for it out of taxes.
          This, though you will no doubt scream "unfair" costs us considerably less than your second rate (or should I more accurately say 37th rate) health care costs you.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            US is not 37th in healthcare. The WHO study is pathetically misleading, probably intentionally so.

            50% of the 'ranking' is determined solely by life-expectancy. Life expectancy is not the same thing as health-care. The US has a high homicide rate compared to other countries, so all those people who are murdered count as negatives to how effective our healthcare system is. It's irrelevant.

            Another 25% has to do with how much people pay for their healthcare. So you're not looking at how well the system works, you're looking at how much it costs. It makes a system like the US where you pay for insurance out of your paycheck look worse than a system where the government pays for it out of your taxes.

            The figures didn't account either for obesity rates, which America leads in. Obesity is not a failing of the healthcare system. Along with obesity, America has more heart problems, blood pressure/blood sugar/diabetes/etc etc etc problems. These are failings of our society, not our healthcare. Too much McDonalds.

            When life expectancy is adjusted for things like homicides and accidents, the US actually leads the world in life expectancy. We're the best in the world at treating cancer, and as far as I can tell we run right along with the OECD average for diabetic treatment.

            1. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Oh those vile WHO people! and their communist conspiracy. Why not Years of Potential Life Lost then?

              100 000 people let's compare the ratings from other countries vs US ratings  in the US, the male YOPLL is 6291 years now lets compare that with public healthcare countries: Australia: 3946 Iceland: 2994 (less than half) Italy: 3605 Finland 2995 Hell even the much criticized Canada is doing much better at 4168.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Again, you can't just pull a figure and claim it has something to do with healthcare when it doesn't. America has more YOPLL because we have higher homicide rates, higher obesity/diabetic rates, etc. Those higher rates take people at younger ages more in America than other countries, but it has nothing to do with healthcare.

            2. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              In 2006, the U.S. had 36 diabetes-related lower-limb amputations per 100,000 people compared with an OECD average of 15. In the U.K., a country with what Pearson calls a very strong primary-care system, incidence of lower-limb amputations was four times lower than the U.S. at 9 per 100,000 people.

              The diabetes thing not so much though... yes I know the Us diabetes rate is higher by about 20% but that does not account for the 400% improvement on our stats in the UK.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                US diabetes rate isn't 20% higher than UK's. In 2000, the US had a rate of ~6.5%, while the UK had a rate of ~2.7. That's 240% in 2000, I'll leave it up to you to find more recent figures.

                That puts the US below the OECD average for amputations, and those figures you cite don't account for severity of diabetes. Do you know what the differences in diabetes types is between nations? It's a fairly meaningless statistic.

            3. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Besides the fact that the UK system is better than the US one in most ways it's a flawed comparison because the US spends twice the percentage of it's GDP than the UK does on healthcare and still gets inferior results.

              1. Cagsil profile image83
                Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                What a joke statement. roll

                1. Josak profile image59
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Nope not a joke, it's accurate.

                  1. Cagsil profile image83
                    Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It's a joke statement because the quality of care overseas is no better than the quality of care is in the U.S. at this point and NOT EVER has the quality of care been better outside of the U.S.

                    Your statement lacks truth.

                    The quality of care in the U.S. has been downgraded over the last decade or so. Why? Because there are so many patients versus doctors.

                    Big Pharma continues to control society through pathetic drugs which are not helpful but have dangerous side-effects. Ask some of the patients.

                    Doctors don't give a damn about their patients anymore and if any did, then they are few in number, since American are stupid about their health or their education about health.

              2. Mighty Mom profile image92
                Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Shift from diagnosis and treatment (especially with Big $ Big Pharma drugs!) to prevention and wellness is very late in coming to US.
                But it is happening.

                And yet we still have people (at least one hubber, probably more) who INSIST that conditions like heart disease, diabetes and obesity are not related to healthcare.
                roll

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Diabetes, heart disease, and obesity aren't caused by healthcare. You can't say a country has poor healthcare because it has high obesity rates.

                  1. Josak profile image59
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    THat's actually not true for a variety of reasons, for example in Australia where i am now people's doctors are also their nutritionists often, they set out diet plans and exercise regimes and monitor their patients health and well being, because doctors visits are quite cheap it makes this possible.

              3. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Right. You're wrong about the cost and the results and which is better, but you didn't actually argue anything specific so...

                1. Josak profile image59
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The US spends 15.3% of it's GDP on healthcare the Uk spends 8.2 the Us spends 6719 dollars per person on healthcare the UK spends $2815 despite this the UK has better statistics in almost all of the general litmus tests for healthcare (regardless of how many excuses Americans like to use)

                  With that much smaller expenditure the UK gets the same amount of doctors 25% more nurses and a lot more hospital beds per person.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You're missing the mark comparing strict GDP to GDP. You have to compare GDP per capita to GDP per capita, and compare that to healthcare costs. As GDP rises, so does healthcare spending per capita, in every country. That eliminates between 50-75% of the discrepancy alone.

                    As for 'excuses', do you think it fair to count the extra 38,000 people in the US who die every year from traffic accidents and murders as 'failings of the US healthcare system'?

    2. DannyMaio profile image60
      DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Great post! only problem is these progressives just want their government cheese! They do not listen to logic. They actually think everything is really free! you can not help people like this.

      These same fools keep voting for Nancy Pelosi! This imbecile says some of the stupidest things ever and they have the nerve to talk about Palin. need not say more! You can write a book on all the asinine Pelosi statements.

      1. OLYHOOCH profile image60
        OLYHOOCHposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        YA, Like, Let's PASS IT FIRST,,, Then,,, READ IT... 2,700 PAGES??????

        OLY

      2. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lollollol

                                           http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

    3. Lions Den Media profile image61
      Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you Skarlet for expressing Obamacare succinctly -- it SUCKS!! But honestly, I cannot stand seeing grown men in skirts and pom poms cheering on Obamacare. It's like the Japanese cheering the arrival of the Atomic bomb thinking it's going to be like a really big fireworks display! And Obamacare is the equivalent of offering the Japanese people sunglasses so the mushroom cloud does harm their eyes.

      1. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You say that now, but you've never seen me in a skirt.

        1. Lions Den Media profile image61
          Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And I thank God! So let's continue my streak of good fortune. smile

    4. Bimothy Slangwell profile image59
      Bimothy Slangwellposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We certainly enjoyed our socialized healthcare while I was in the military! Though to be honest, we complained about it and how it was inferior to civilian or private care, etc.

      Fast forward now that I'm out of the service and have private care.....I'd give my 1st born to again be in the 'socialized care' of the military. As have the other prior service I talk to.

  7. DannyMaio profile image60
    DannyMaioposted 4 years ago

    The USA is the top Medical procedure country in the world! We are the highest cost but the absolute best! That is why all the rich come here from the socialist countries! The USA comes up with most of the new medicine because of our capitalistic structure that rewards success! most of the socialist/communist countries do not produce much because they do not give people incentives to build big companies. They take 60-75% of the profits.

    I know someone in Greece that would like to export extra virgin olive oil but the government wants so much that it isn't worth trying to start the business!

    Proven fact when you give benefits for too long people get lazy! they have studies from here in the USA and Denmark that shows the longer you have unemployment benefits the longer people stay out of work! If it was 26 weeks most found jobs from the 18-24th week when made 52 most found work from  week 46-52 and now when 99 most who returned to work was from week 89-99. same in Denmark! Entitlement societies always have major problems because you always run out of other peoples money! We can not be the land of the free if Government has to take care of you from cradle to grave! Anyone who thinks anything is free is a fool!

  8. secularist10 profile image93
    secularist10posted 4 years ago

    "I think we'll wind up with a two-tiered medical system: a private one for the rich who pay cash and a mediocre one for everyone else."

    Hmm... sounds like what we already have in this country!

    Half of all healthcare dollars are already spent by the government, folks. (That's before anyone heard of Barack Obama.)

    A tiny percentage of the population accounts for the vast majority of the healthcare spending.

    I forget the details, but I read somewhere that if we could significantly reduce a particular preventable illness (it might have been obesity), healthcare costs would not even be an issue.

    Obesity, heart disease and diabetes have skyrocketed since the 1970s (along with McDonald's stock price). Surprise, surprise, healthcare costs account for the vast majority of the increase in consumer prices since that time.

    Food for thought (no pun intended).

  9. spbarton21 profile image60
    spbarton21posted 4 years ago

    To me it means the end of what our nation was built upon with the states allowed to govern themselves and the people being able to choose what how they live their lives. It marks the beginning of European Socialism coming to our shores

    1. Moshka profile image60
      Moshkaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes it is very sad. The basic lessons learned through the poor quality of healthcare in other countries that have taken on this system have not been learned by democrats. This is why the president is labeled a socialist. He lied about it not being a tax, and for some reason the AHA is such a good idea that all of the government has exempted themselves from paying into it.

      http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/315342_10150899554630779_624275039_n.jpg

      1. 0
        screamingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That is pure tea party hogwash! Keeping watching limbo, beck, oreilly and hannity and the next thing you'll think Kansas has ocean front property!

        1. Moshka profile image60
          Moshkaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry but the president is a liar.

          1. 0
            screamingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So what is this tax the middle class will be getting? Define middle class and the amount taxes will be raised?

            1. Moshka profile image60
              Moshkaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              every individual who refuses to buy health insurance will be taxed $695 a year by 2016; phased in from $95 in 2014.  Families without insurance in 2016 will pay a $2085 penalty; not to exceed 2.5% of gross income.  Employers with 50 or more employees who are not providing health insurance will be assessed a tax of $2000 per employee with the first 30 getting a pass.  So, for a company with 49 employees, the choice is (1) don't hire another worker or (2) only hire temps from that point forward.  Employers with 200 employees or more cannot opt out of providing health care insurance; they are mandated to provide it under the law.

              As of 2013, individuals making $200,000 per year and families making $250,000 a year will be assessed an additional 0.9% on their normal Medicare payroll tax. People and families in this same income bracket will be hit with a 3.8% surtax on investment incomes. But, prior to that surtax, the capital gains tax and dividends for all individuals will be raised from 15% to 20% in 2013.

              For the last two years, there has been a 10% tanning tax and that will remain under this week's court ruling.  On January 1, 2013, a medical device tax of 2.3% will be applied to any device costing over $100.  This will effect the cost of manual and motorized wheel chairs; artificial hips; stents used in heart patients; defibrillators; and whole host of other products.  In effect this 2.3% tax will just be added to the cost of almost every device you can find in a hospital.  And, that cost will only wind up being passed onto all of us in the form of higher insurance rates.

              If you have, what Congress defines as a "Cadillac" health plan -- a plan costing more than $8500 per individual or $23,000 per family -- you will be assessed a 40% surtax on that plan.  So, in effect, an individual with an $8500 a year plan will see that cost rise to 11,900 or, at least $32,200 a year for a "Cadillac" family.  Now, while it is true that most of those Cadillac plans involve the wealthy, some middle class families that include someone who is seriously ill, have chosen Cadillac plans because the cost under normal insurance would be a lot higher.  Also, like a lot of what Congress does, there's no automatic annual cost of living increases on the definition of what is a Cadillac plan; meaning that, eventually, normal plans will become Cadillac plans without a Congressional "fix" every year.

              ObamaCare also imposes a sales tax (called the Premium Tax) on all health insurers to pay for the new health insurance exchanges.  In doing so, it is estimated that premiums for the average family will go up by 1.9% in 2013 and 2.4% in 2014..  Eventually, the tax could add as much 3.6% to the average annual cost of health care insurance; driving up the 10-year costs by $5,000.

              Lastly, ObamaCare greatly expands Medicaid.  About 57% of the cost of Medicaid is picked up by the federal government.  The balance is paid for by state programs (basically, some form of taxes).  The expansion of these programs will only force many cash-strapped states to raise taxes on its citizens to pay the increased cost of Medicaid.

              All these taxes, all over the place, were imposed intentionally by the Democrats so that no voter could specifically look at one tax for ObamaCare as being targeted  to them. Instead, they might see their health insurance premiums go up over here and dividend taxes going up over there; making it difficult to connect the dots and blame ObamaCare for the two tax increases.

              1. Skarlet profile image86
                Skarletposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Very good and well put together post.

            2. OLYHOOCH profile image60
              OLYHOOCHposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I am amazed nobody pulled up, Obama Care, to see what is in it, SO,

              Here it is, along with some interesting comments.

              OLY

              http://patriotupdate.com/oldsite/storie … ll_HR_3200

        2. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Total annual Obamacare funding: 392 billion.

          210 from people earning more than 200 000 yearly.

          60 from insurance companies.

          32 from pharmaceutical companies.

          302 of 392 billion is completely separate from the middle class in any way, other sections like the Cadillac tax will mainly affect the very rich.

          Can you do the maths? Let me help you, it's not 75% from the middle class.

          Edit: Sorry I mean to address this to Moshka

      2. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lol Tea Party?  What a joke!  Why not move it up a notch and post something from MAD
        Magazine
        roll  I do get amused by the way Tea Party rally signs are so often full of misspelled words though.  yikes

                                                 http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

      3. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The only income tax increase will be on people earning $200 000+ yearly (not middle class) there will be an extra tax if you use sunbeds (but frankly that's on you) an extra excise tax if you own health insurance which costs more than 27 500 (not middle class) (for Cadillac insurance plans the tax can be waived if the owners can show significant hardship would result from the increase)  a levy on insurance companies (not middle class) excise taxes on pharmaceuticals (not middle class) that makes up more than 90% of the Obamacare funding and except for the sunbeds none will touch the middle class.

        So that is obvious bull from ignorant people (what can we expect from the tea party.)

        1. DannyMaio profile image60
          DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Wrong again you MSNBC puppet. The rich all have insurance it is the middle class from 26-35 that may not want to buy insurance because they may want to save that money for a down payment on a home or start a business or new car...whatever. but they are the ones being forced to buy! Rich people have insurance! Also this age group isn't a huge burden on society on healthcare, Also if they were in an accident the auto insurance picks up the medical! so I do not want to hear that lame a$$ nonsense. This is a TAX on the MIDDLE CLASS pure and simple. I know it may be hard for you to comprehend because of what they teach you on MSNBC and Huffington post. read the bill it is ONLINE!

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Unlike you I have read the bill in it's entirety and I am well aware of what is in it, the conversation was about the Obamacare tax not about people having to buy insurance, there they are simply purchasing a service.

            1. DannyMaio profile image60
              DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              They are forced to buy something from a private company through the government! There is no way you read the bill!!! that is hogwash! There are just about 20 different taxes in the bill, anyone who isn't a freeloader or socialist doesn't like the bill especially the doctors. If the true middle class doesn't want to buy insurance for any reason, they are penalized! that is a TAX!!! if you can not understand that simple logic, then even if you did read the entire bill you do not comprehend very well. Like I stated, the rich have insurance it is the Middle class who will not! they might feel they can save that money for 5-10 years to put a down payment on a home or whatever, they don't have that choice anymore! IT IS A TAX!!!! If it wasn't a Tax then the bill would have been declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! You can not have it both ways.

            2. DannyMaio profile image60
              DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You read the bill, Tell me about how they will set up a committee who determines if it is profitable to receive health care and how they determine it? It is towards the end of the bill, give me the page# lets see how much you read. Shouldn't be very hard to do if you truly read it. I will be waiting.

              1. Josak profile image59
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So wait you expect me to remember page numbers and every individual detail? I am good but not that good.

            3. DannyMaio profile image60
              DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Also tell me how it has States expand Medicaid! what it will do to some states and how will they cope with the expansion.

      4. Bimothy Slangwell profile image59
        Bimothy Slangwellposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You are aware that the definition of tax is that it must be used to raise revenue for the government?

        Obamacare doesn't accomplish this hence it can't be a tax...no matter what the Supreme Court ruled.

  10. Nouveau Skeptic profile image78
    Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago

    I anticipate the only outcome for me being lower healthcare costs as I will not be subsidizing free emergency room healthcare for the uninsured.

  11. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 4 years ago

    Best in the world at treating cancer!
    Who says?

    1. Mighty Mom profile image92
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Best in the world at CAUSING cancer, I think he means.
      smile

      1. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't remember where I read it but I think he is correct, that the US has on most cancers the best survival rate because the US medical system has focused on cancer treatment. It does not prove the first thing but I think it's true.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But it isn't the best survival rate as such, rather the best diagnostic rate.
          They are better (faster) at diagnosing cancer but there is no evidence that cancer sufferers in the US live any longer than in other countries, just that they are aware of their condition for longer.

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And again lol

      3. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No, best at treating it. People who have the means often come to America to get treatment.

        1. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          America's medical tourism is not really significant, between 60 to 80 thousand people a year, to put that in context Cuba gets 20 to 30 thousand a year and it is a tiny island where people from the nearest large country are not technically allowed to go, we are not a popular country to come for medical treatment overall.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Wait, the fact that we are the best in the world at treating cancer isn't significant? What a statement.

            1. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That comment pertains to medical tourism.

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596/

      We're best at treating 13 of 16 types of cancer.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Five year survival rate! Like I said, you're just better and faster at diagnosis.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          1 - Can you back that up?

          2 - Shouldn't countries where 'everyone has easier access to better healthcare' diagnose faster than America?  Seems to contradict the whole idea that other countries do better because of access to healthcare.

  12. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 4 years ago

    But obesity, heart problems, high blood pressure, blood sugar, diabetes are all tied in with health care.
    You just cannot say that illness and disease are nothing to do with health care.
    Cripes, I've got high blood pressure and I go to my doctor for treatment for it, not the cobblers or the vets, or the hairdressers!

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No, obesity is not caused by poor healthcare. It's caused by Americans having more sedentary lifestyles and eating more fatty, low-quality fast foods. America has a treatment rate on par with the OECD for diabetes and heart problems, but has double the number, percentage wise, of people with these problems.

      If you get treatment for high blood pressure, it wasn't the treatment that caused it. Americans are definitely NOT the most obese people in the world because of the healthcare system... to say so is ridiculous.

      It's education and lifestyle that causes it. It's people who never get off the couch except to grab another slice of pizza or another cheeseburger. Healthcare is not the same thing as what you eat.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh of course it wasn't the treatment that caused it!

        But to say that the treatment of it isn't health care is absolutely ludicrous.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Treatment for these things has more to do with diet and lifestyle than anything. That's not healthcare, that's lifestyle. Americans are stupid, lazy, and fat.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So, say, a diabetic is in hospital having a lower limb amputated, that isn't health care, that's life style.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, that's an operation. But poor healthcare didn't cause that person to be diabetic. The US has diabetic rates 100-400% higher than other OECD countries. It's not because of our healthcare system.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Who ever said it was?

                As far as I recall the question was whether or not the US had the best health care in the world.
                The question wasn't what percentage of the population suffers from any disease but what percentage of the population has a satisfactory outcome to their disease.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Right, and when I bring up facts about outcome, people just dismiss them. We are better at treating cancer than anyone else. We're also above the pack for treating diabetes, but there is no research on treatment success by diabetes type, so it's hard to know for certain. We also have the highest life expectancy in the world if you exclude accidents and homicides.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No, you're better at diagnosing cancer, big difference.
                    You aren't above the pack at treating diabetes, review the post in which Josak compares amputation rates between the US and UK.

  13. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    Well, I do know if I had lived in the US during my cancer I would not have been able to afford the treatment I got here, even with insurance. I'd still be paying it off after 15 years.

  14. 0
    screamingposted 4 years ago

    Seeing as the socalled Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare, why would you want Romney as President? And when Romneycare was adopted, Republicans were for it. So which is it? Are Replicans hypocrits because President Obama got it passed? And if because of this law Obama is called a liberal among other things! How can you consider Romney a conservative? He also would be a liberal with the same ideas as President Obama.

    1. Bimothy Slangwell profile image59
      Bimothy Slangwellposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Many citizens in our country are so enamored with Obama that they don't realize Obama is a Republican. The paradigm for the Republicans have shifted so far, that Right is now center and Left is..........out of bounds and Communism.

      All of this because of the election of Obama, it has some frothing at the mouth like madmen.

  15. startupninja profile image61
    startupninjaposted 4 years ago

    Here is a complete report which directly refers to this discussion:
    WHY IS HEALTH SPENDING IN THE UNITED STATES SO HIGH?
    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/16/49084355.pdf

    a key point which opponents of healthcare reform consistently avoid from this paper: Americans spend nearly $3000 per person per year more than
    Swiss people, even though Swiss people have about the same level of income.


    And an overview of the historical life expectancy stats
    http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=36371

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And what does that paper say? It says that services are more expensive in America. It means that we are paying more for doctors, nurses, drugs, and equipment. It also shows how we pay double our fair share for drugs because we don't put price controls on pharmaceutical companies. It also shows the defensive medicine practiced, where expensive tests are performed at double the OECD average to limit liability.

      That's why we spend $3000 more per person than Swiss.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Doesn't matter why, you still spend it.

        Hardly a defence for being shafted.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Does matter why we spend it. If you know why, then you can see what the problems are and aren't.

          For instance, doctor/nurse salaries. They are higher in the US. Why? Has nothing to do with healthcare, it's because the cost of education is so high.

          Drugs. We pay double the OECD average for the same drugs. The OECD artificially holds down the prices, and drug companies actually lose money on their drugs in Europe. We're the ones who are paying for all the R&D. If we had the same price floors, we wouldn't have most of the research and innovation that we do. America foots the bill for the world when it comes to drug research, but we're the ones who have it wrong.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You're telling me that all the drugs companies are American!

            Believe me, the drugs companies know how to make a whacking profit in the UK.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Drug companies are multi-national. They spend billions on R&D, then they have to sell drugs at half price in Europe. They don't make profit in Europe, they make it up in America. Yes, there are certainly going to be some exceptions, but the general theme is absolutely that.

              Pharm. companies operate off of profit margins in the 10-20% range. Between EU and America, they average 75% of American prices for drugs. EU is about 50 and America is 100. So if they make 15% profit at 75%, how much profit do you think they are making at 50%?

            2. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, sell their drugs for double the price in America.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                $100 a year for genetic AIDS drugs, $10,000 a year for branded.

                I don't know about you but that looks a lot more than a 10-20% profit margin.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Branded drugs cost more because the company that spends billions doing the R&D gets the patent for X years to make up for it. After the patent expires, generics can make the drug without having to spend billions to research and develop it.

                  If no pharm. companies were given patents, they wouldn't be able to earn enough money to pay for R&D. We wouldn't have very much R&D at all in that case.

                  Do you understand anything about how pharm companies operate?

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co … 67257.html

                    Do you understand anything about how drugs companies work?

                    14% on R&D!!

          2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            BS...other countries do drug research. Canada has developed and is still developing many drugs, as is Germany...as are many other countries.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              In fact, most of the big drugs companies appear to be Swiss.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I swear, can't you think for yourself? Where do the pharm companies get their money to do their R&D?

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, yes, I can think for myself unlike some who just swallow everything they are spoon fed!

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Then where would they get their money for R&D if they weren't allowed patents on their products and had to compete with generics?

                  2. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    John, do you think that US pharm companies pay 35% taxes?

            2. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't say we are the only ones who do research, but we are the ones who pay for it.

              Ok, let's say PharmCo A makes $135 million in a year. Multi-national companies get about 35% of their income from America, where they can charge double the prices. So they sell 65 units for $1 and 35 units for $2

              Of the $135 million, $20 million is profit(15% profit margin).

              Ok, so it costs PharmCo A $115 million to research and produce 100 units of this drug. That's $1.15 per unit.

              They sell the units for $1 in Europe, and lose $0.15 per unit. They sell the units for $2 in America, and earn $0.85 profit per unit. See how Americans pay the bill?

              If you took out the American income, you would have a company producing 65 units for $75 and only making $65.

              We pay for the research, no matter where it is done.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, mis-type. 35% sales from America, not 35% income.

  16. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    Then again, the US produces a lot of useless drugs and are over medicated as a rule. Depressed? We have a pill for that. Shy? We have a pill for that. Overweight? We have a pill for that. Overly passionate about things? We have a pill for that. Can't get it up? We have a pill for that.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And many of those pills are just existing ones that have been tweaked to escape the patent.
      And how many drugs go out of favour and are replaced by other "better" drugs, well in actually fact, they don't go out of favour really, their patent expires and the miraculous new replacement is just the same old drug in a slightly modified form, re-patented.

  17. startupninja profile image61
    startupninjaposted 4 years ago

    @JaxsonRaine from your previous 10 posts you made the case that US citizens are being seriously fu.ked in almost every way possible by big pharma & private healthcare and it is you the people who pay for this...
    How on earth can you claim that the Obama health care plan is worse than the status quo then.
    It is simply not true that the US pays for R&D since as you are so keen to point out pharma companies are privately held internationals... which by default infers that the statement that the US pays for anything should be considered a failure by your system if taken as true.
    What the OECD papers states is that although the US healthcare system costs the american people 3000$ more annually than the Swiss you get worse healthcare and practically no primary protection.
    More importantly I have yet to hear of a plan on behalf of right wing cronies who have been swindled into defending policies that hurt them and their families, since the vast majority of this demographic are not exactly the paragon of capitalism but instead the bottom of american society, to defend the greed of the 1% in the name of personal liberty which is then squandered on being a redneck.
    Can you please explain this to me?

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The only way in which we are being f..... is in that we have to make up for what the rest of the world doesn't pay the pharma companies because of price controls.

      If the US copies Europe and puts price controls on pharma. companies, we will see much less revenue for these companies, less R&D, and less life-saving drugs. It's not a good thing to cripple researchers.

      It is true. The US pays twice what the OECD pays for the same drugs. I gave a simple math example that shows where the profit is in that scenario, it all comes from the US.

      It doesn't matter if a pharm. company is multinational. They still make their profits by selling to the US. look at my earlier post for an example. 35% of sales to the US at double the price.

      Again, we have better healthcare than the rest of the world, although it is expensive and some don't have access. We have better diagnostic and treatment rates.

      We pay more because of drug prices, physician salaries, and many other reasons. Switzerland pays half what we do for drugs. Pharm companies lose money selling drugs there.

      I believe that free markets with minimal intervention work best for human development, and history agrees with me. I'm not defending policies that hurt my or my family. Yeah, things could be better, but Obamacare won't do anything to address healthcare costs.

    2. DannyMaio profile image60
      DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      HERE ARE A FEW REPUBLICAN PLANS THAT ARE SITTING ON HARRY REIDS DESK!!!


      A Plan for Replacement
      IN PROGRESS: On January 20, 2011, the House passed H. Res. 9, a resolution instructing House committees to develop legislation replacing the job-killing health care law. Committees are currently doing their work to hold hearings and examine solutions to lower costs, increase access to quality care, and strengthen the doctor-patient relationship.
      Vote Result  •  Text of the Resolution [PDF]
      Enact Medical Liability Reform

      Skyrocketing medical liability insurance rates have distorted the practice of medicine, routinely forcing doctors to order costly and often unnecessary tests to protect themselves from lawsuits, often referred to as "defensive medicine." We will enact common-sense medical liability reforms to lower costs, rein in junk lawsuits and curb defensive medicine.
      Purchase Health Insurance across State Lines
      Americans residing in a state with expensive health insurance plans are locked into those plans and do not currently have an opportunity to choose a lower cost option that best meets their needs. We will allow individuals to buy health care coverage outside of the state in which they live.

      Expand Health Savings Accounts
      Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are popular savings accounts that provide costeffective health insurance to those who might otherwise go uninsured. We will improve HSAs by making it easier for patients with high-deductible health plans to use them to obtain access to quality care. We will repeal the new health care law, which prevents the use of these savings accounts to purchase over-the-counter medicine.

      Ensure Access for Patients with Pre-Existing Conditions
      Health care should be accessible for all, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses. We will expand state high-risk pools, reinsurance programs and reduce the cost of coverage. We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, eliminate annual and lifetime spending caps, and prevent insurers from dropping your coverage just because you get sick. We will incentivize states to develop innovative programs that lower premiums and reduce the number of uninsured Americans.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        GAO found that malpractice insurance premiums in FL in 2002 were between 100,000-200,000 per year for general surgery. big_smile

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes I have always maintained that tort reform will bring prices and premiums down some.
          Of course that's another no-no.

        2. DannyMaio profile image60
          DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The right thing to do is to let states compete across state lines that will reduce prices greatly! Both parties are holding us hostage by being in bed with Insurance companies!

          Also the Lowlife Attorneys with the malpractice insurance is driving costs up!

          Many things can be done to make things better! Obamacare isn't it!

          85% of doctors do not like OBAMACARE, Many who are close to retiring will do just that...Retire early, They will have to see many more patients and lose money seeing them. Many have already stopped taking medicare patients because they do not pay enough! So when Obama says you can keep your doctor...that is if they want to take medicare, many will not have the same doctor.

          The penalty will be for the middle-class! The rich have money and will have health-care, the middle-class worker from 26-35 that feels they rather save their money for a down payment for a home or to pay off their college will be the ones penalized! Why would the rich who have plenty of money pay the penalty??? Commonsense doesn't work for these people.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm one who will pay the tax. Im healthy and saving for a home. I'll pay cash for a house, in full, next year if everything continues this way.

            But meh, tax me for being healthy.

            1. DannyMaio profile image60
              DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Like I stated, You are in the middle-class and not the 1% they say will be paying the TAX(penalty). If you were in the 1% you would have all the money you need to buy the house and have health insurance.

              Glad you are working hard and striving to make your life good! That is the True American way!

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Heh, it would be a lot easier if the government just gave me a house, car, job, savings account, TVs, xbox, computers, clothes, food, dune buggy, woodworking shop(have to have a hobby!).

  18. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    John.

    http://www.pfizer.com/files/annualrepor … al2011.pdf

    Pfizer. Page 16. R&D expenses = $9.1 billion.

    What do you think they are spending all that money on?

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      They paid over $4 billion in income taxes last year and only $9.1 billion on R&D!

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Only $9.1 billion?

        You have refused to explain how these companies are supposed to finance their R&D, still thinking they charge way too much for medicine.

        Luckily, they are only allowed to charge 50% in Europe compared to America. Don't worry about it, we'll pay for the R&D that will bring about the next life-saving drug that will benefit everyone.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But they don't finance all their R&D, the lions share is financed by others.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            John. The $9.1 billion is their share that they finance themselves. Their money they spend themselves.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Fine, they can afford it.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Alright, making progress!

                Do you know why they can afford it?

                I'll give you a hint, it's not Europe's 50% price ceilings.

                That has been my whole point all along. US foots the bill for drug research.

    2. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Dick Cheney's secret moon base. Gotta run that thing on batteries you know.

      1. OLYHOOCH profile image60
        OLYHOOCHposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        AWWWW,,,, You heard about this, ALSO. Then you must have also heard about the UNDERGROUND CITY, on, VENIS.

        OLY

  19. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 4 years ago

    Frankly, I don't care how many Americans you kill by denying health care, in fact the more the merrier (you know I'm only joking, love you all to bits really)
    What I'm objecting to is the claim that you have the best health care in the world and that anybody who says differently is a commie pinko fag and a liar to boot. That any statistics that say otherwise are not to be trusted.

    I'm not going to enter into the abortion debate here, wrong time, wrong place.

  20. startupninja profile image61
    startupninjaposted 4 years ago

    You are discussing big pharma as this poor little industry which cannot make ends meet big_smile
    the billions in R&D which you are so often mentioning is just a number which is always less than the annual profits of the company, and I might add it is tax deductible and also includes attempts to renew patents on generics so they limit the production and extend the branding of a given drug.
    One important issue I need to point out... In a free market system, it is strategically stupid for a pharmaceutical company to develop cures for diseases since once that disease has been eradicated, the cash flow stops.
    No pharma has ever invested in R&D for the CURE for HIV, for example, while there is a whole line of branded (expensive) TREATMENTS... now the scientists who are working on this are looking for a cure, however, the company would not put funds in developing a cure, since it would be slaughtering a cash cow by doing this, and instead the develop treatments on the basis of their research.
    If big pharma invented the vaccine for Polio, instead of a university professor, we would most definitely still have it as a disease on this planet.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There's a huge problem with your argument. One group of people, if they could develop a cure for 'X', would absolutely do it, because they would all become insanely rich for doing so. You can say they would do better just treating it, but the group that 'chose' to cure it would come out ahead of the pack and steal all that business away from everyone else. If it were so easy, someone would do it to make a few quick billion.

  21. startupninja profile image61
    startupninjaposted 4 years ago

    This is how a country fights back and takes care of its population:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 17944.html

    What is even more interesting is that it costs way less than that number of $9.1 billion which you are throwing around like it means something, to bring life saving medication to a nation three times the size of the US.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ok, that article about India has nothing to do with 'fighting back'. It's still the pharma companies who made those drugs available in the first place, even if it takes a while for them to become 'genericable'.

      India isn't developing drugs, it's purchasing generics. What does that have to do with the cost of developing new drugs?

  22. recommend1 profile image69
    recommend1posted 4 years ago

    I see political trolls (or are the shils) are spewing up more of these disinformation threads and posting their twaddle for twitter or whatever - I don't know why you guys respond to them any more,  I rather liked the threads a while back where the puppeteer kept his own trolls debating twaddle with garbage until they gave up.   Makes one wonder why HP doesn't ban the clear multiple personas.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Who are the trolls, I don't know if you're referring to me or not smile

      1. recommend1 profile image69
        recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I haven't even bothered to read most of the comments in this thread as many are just too stupid to give any credence.  I just held out a hat and asked if it fit anyone big_smile

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          +1

  23. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 4 years ago

    Oh come off it Lions Den, by insisting that the Nazis were socialists you show your total ignorance.

    1. OLYHOOCH profile image60
      OLYHOOCHposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Medications from Canada, Discount

                                       http://www.medicationscanada.com/

      This might be of some help to some of you.

      OLY

    2. Lions Den Media profile image61
      Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      JH -- Look if you want to defend the Nazi's murdering millions of innocent women and children knock yourself? You are probably correct, because the main argument the Jews had when entering the gas chambers was an argument over whether or not the Germans were socialists or fascists. Most of those shot in the back of the head voted socialist and those entering the gas chamber voted socialists. But truly JH you're arguing over semantics regarding the arguable difference between fascist and socialist, which the definition of a term fascist is continually debated amongst scholars. .

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hey, I'm not defending anybody, least of all Hitler.

        If you really think socialists are fascists then I am really sorry for you, but you are beyond reasoning with.

      2. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        There are many differences between socialism, communism and fascism, unfortunately Lions den your ignorance is all encompassing. First I just want to deal with what Marx said about socialism being essential in creating communism.

        so·cial·ism/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
        Noun:   

           #1 A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the state.
           #2 (in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

        Directly from the dictionary, socialism definition #1 is what I and I believe John subscribe to, it's an economic system that functions on the basis of public ownership of the market, particularly the means of productions.

        The second definition is the Marxist one, socialism Marxism is very different for example socialism as Marx envisioned it would be leaderless, a spontaneous worker's cooperative which is different to the initial definition. As can easily be seen just from looking at the dictionary when Marx said socialism would be a stage in the achievement of communism he referred to something very different to the definition we use.

        But the Socialism being different to Fascism thing is easily solved, socialism as seen in the definition is a system wholly based on the idea of public ownership, without public ownership of the means of production socialism cannot function but in Nazi Germany the means of production were never owned by the state, without state ownership you cannot have socialism so with zero doubt, they are very different and Nazi Germany was fascist.

        There are many other differences for example fascism is nationalistic and traditionalist, for Germany Hitler was convinced that Germans were the genetically superior people on earth and that they were descendants of the Teutonic Knights in Italy Mussolini focused on recapturing the glo9ry of the Roman Empire, socialism on the other hand is far more internationalist.

        I know you will just write a meaningless refutal of this comment because ignorance is hard to break but at least others who may read the comments who half a working brain will see the facts.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Also, socialism does not recognise  borders or parameters which separate human beings, whether they be national, or based on religion, sexuality or gender. Socialism embraces the philosophy that all human beings were born equal. The foundations of naziism, therefore, are the polar opposite to those of socialism.

        2. Lions Den Media profile image61
          Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you for that lecture Josak - I feel as though I had been transported back to a poly sci debate at UCLA. And yes you are correct in many of the definitions you were kind enough to look-up. And thank you for your confidence in my refuting your scholarly endeavors with meaningless drivel.  So as not to disappoint you my friend ....

          Socialism - is an economic/political system whereupon gov maintains control over all economic decisions, and therefore owns the means of production. For all intents and purposes a socialist government controls all facets of human life. To assume otherwise defies logic because without economic liberty what is liberty?

          But I understand you and your fellow socialists attempts to distance yourself from national socialism under Hitler. It is an attempt by the left wing educational elite, whom like yourself are socialists, who are attempting to rewrite history. It is understandable for socialist to attempt to disavow all connection to Hitler's atrocities, which were permitted because of two elements associated with human frailty - weakness of Germans to stand up to their government and the second was the ease with which Jews went to slaughter -- without fight or dignity.
          So more to the point as you and John H continued support of socialism via parsing the "EVOLVING" truth. And only in the land of socialism, such as Obama's and Holder's and your's - can the truth "EVOLVE".

          But let us assume for the moment you are correct, (I realize that is something you fantasize about, unfortunately it will remain a fantasy) it is only logical that at some point on their march towards fascism Nazi Germany was necessarily a National Socialist State before turning to fascism - which then creates a fun debating topic in academia.

          But I applaud you in your continued efforts to divorce yourself from the reality of history and your efforts, together with your comrades, to change that history. The fact is socialist, fascists communists - are all relatively the same and without question end in the same dictatorial blood bath these dictatorial regimes always end in.

          Also Josak there is NO such thing as a "refutal" perhaps you meant rebuttal. 
          Accept your political ideology like a man, and by accepting the truth of your socialist roots, shall set you free from the associations of your ideology of the past.

          My simple point, before you went all Webster, was that regardless of the differences in academic debate, in which good socialist want to disavow Hitler -- in the end does it matter with 6 million murdered? But should you want to continue your defense of Hitler and mass murdering under the name of socialism -- feel free. Because in the end, according to you Hitler was lying about being a socialist if in fact he was a fascist, which begs the question as to why socialists lie about their true objectives. Do socialists lie to implement a fascist agenda?

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So you wrote that much without saying anything at all of substance then bizarrely went on to claim that I supported the Nazi murders, my real name is Joska it's a Polish name and many of my relatives in Poland were killed precisely because they were socialists so that in itself make your argument laughable but I also think the implication is insulting and patently inaccurate.

            The terms we are discussing and their differences are a simple mater of definition, anyone with half a brain can pick up a dictionary and see that socialism, communism and fascism are radically different or since I am apparently a member of the leftist "educational elite" (even though I went to school in a mud brick single room school with 80 other kids) let me simplify it for you (I wouldn't want to talk over your head) Pick up dictionary, look up words, see different, left, right, nationalist, traditionalist, state ownership and means of production. Good boy.

  24. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 4 years ago

    Jaxson, you say "the definition of a term fascist is continually debated amongst scholars."  and yet even though these scholars continue to debate, you have made your mind up and know exactly what definition to apply!

  25. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6869771_f248.jpg

  26. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 4 years ago

    "Socialism - is an economic/political system whereupon gov maintains control over all economic decisions, and therefore owns the means of production. For all intents and purposes a socialist government controls all facets of human life."

    Thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do not understand socialism. I suggest that you give up trying to mould socialism into an image that suits you and if you can't actually find out what socialism means that you leave it alone and stop showing yourself up.

    1. Lions Den Media profile image61
      Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      JH - I know you are hooked on the social ownership of the means of production as your sole differentiation between fascism and socialism. Certainly, you can claim all day long that socialism is the "societal ownership of the means of production" - but at the end of the day the means of production is "controlled" by the government. Your view of the utopia created by socialism is a theoretical version. Socialism in practice elicits deficiencies of human nature and the natural human instinct for those in power to seek total absolute power. And those deficiencies were expressed by Hitler, the German military leaders and the German people, whom like yourself, convinced themselves that they were right and just.

      But the good news is that you admitted, by your failure to address the core issue, because you are attempting to distance your socialist views from those socialist views held by Hitler.  Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery. Congratulations!!

      And guess what - your little socialist bud, Obama, wants to 'EXTEND BUSH TAX CUTS... AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!". That Obama is quite the socialist big thinker...just like Bush was -- but didn't people like you claim Bush was a Nazis?  What's that saying "One Obama in the gulag (I know it's Russian) is worth two in the Bush?"  Something like that anyway - but I'm confident in your mind you believe you know the answer.

      And by the way, is not the ownership of stock in a "public" company actually - societal ownership of the means of production, which is the pillar of socialist ideology?

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I take it that you didn't read the link that I posted purely for your benefit!

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Skarlet, I had a stroke a couple of years ago. Within an hour of an ambulance being called I was in hospital, I very shortly afterwards had a brain scan, no waiting or any sort of hold up.

          I have no desire to push my leftist views, I just don't want to be in the position where I have another stroke and am without insurance and therefore treatment!

  27. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 4 years ago

    Here Lions Den, argue with this if you can -

    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

    1. Skarlet profile image86
      Skarletposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's BS,  For one.
      On a particularly real note- I am originally from Europe and have learned from numerous real life experiences that socialism, leftism, and government healthcare is dangerous.
      Most of my family still live in Europe, but my still leftist cousin was living here when she discovered at 44 she had breast cancer. She was treated here, and recovering fine,until several months later she had a very small lump in the lymph area. She then got the wild notion to go and have some "free" care in England, and they killed her.
      I am a nurse and I know this for a fact. They simply did not have enough staff to catch her problem in time, and she went into a grand mal seizure. If she had stayed here she would still be alive.
      People don't realize that you get what you pay for period!  Mitt Romney gave the best example of a healthcare system that sounds smart, and fair. Unfortunately, the liberal media jumped on it and cut out the line, "I like to fire people."
      Truly amazing how people will be manipulated by that. I also like to fire insurance companies that do not serve me well!

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If health care was so wonderful in the US why did she decide to come to the UK for treatment, I thought the US was supreme at treating cancers!

        And how exactly did they kill her?Lethal injection? Gas? Pillow over the face?

        I'm sorry for your loss, I too lost a lover to breast cancer but she got the best treatment possible.

        1. Skarlet profile image86
          Skarletposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hello!
          I said she was a leftist... She THOUGHT she would get wonderful care over there. She did not appreciate what she was getting here.

          She needed a brain scan, but in order to keep costs down, they let her wait, and basically ignored many of the warning signs. Also, they were short staffed.

          That would never happen here.

          I could write a huge article about it, but I am trying to keep it brief.  I am a nurse, and there is NO Way that she would have been allowed to go like that. 

          Rather than argue out of a desperate desire to push your leftist views, it may be wise to open your mind to the fact that it is totally impossible to get the best of anything that you do not directly pay for.

        2. Lions Den Media profile image61
          Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          John, John, John, John. They killed her with negligence Einstein. Enough of your condescending vomiting. My first question is how is that you know with certainty that she received the best care possible? You ASSUME that fact, much like you assume a great deal. But the reality is that we have yet discovered the "best" cancer treatment. Therefore, what system will discover the best cancer treatment - the UK Gov, the US Gov or the private sector in America that is motivated by the entrepreneurial spirit?

          John, the reality of the situation is that you sound like a sad pathetic leftist attempting to argue a personal and professional point as expressed by Skarlet. I know that snotty little leftist tone and it is most infuriating. A man would have have wished his condolences about her cousin passing and dropped the issue. But apparently the male species is in short supply in the UK.  So too are good tennis players. Cheers!!

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            <sigh> I don't know and I can't say that she received the best care possible, I do know that what ever failing there was (if any) was not as a result of socialised medicine. I do know that my friend did receive the best care possible.

            I'll leave the rest of your message ignored, which is the best thing to do with it, though I might throw in a comment about people who are so fixated on their ideas that nothing will shake them.

      2. Bimothy Slangwell profile image59
        Bimothy Slangwellposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The problem is what about the people who can't afford it.

        1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image78
          Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Taking one anecdote to suggest UK healthcare is inferior would also be a mistake.  The stats are roughly equivalent with the US, better in some areas, worse in others.

  28. startupninja profile image61
    startupninjaposted 4 years ago

    @Skarlet,@LionsDen - it never ceases to amaze me how seemingly intelligent individuals can constrain their views to imposed bubbles of understanding, and still insist that they are the ones who are more knowledgeable.
    For fu.k sake, Cuba has a better health system that the US, they might not have all gadgets and gizmos, but they somehow manage to provide a healthier life for their citizens and at the same time export more doctors through Medecins Sans Frontieres and direct help programs, to developing countries than the wealthiest nations of the West. There is a doctors for oil program between Cuba and Venezuela, and we all know oil revenues can buy you a lot of care anywhere in the world.
    This idea that right-wing Americans actually have a clue of what is going on beyond your borders is so absurd that it would irritate me if I didn't consider it funny, mainly due to the fact that less than a third of US nationals have a passport and the media is not exactly providing you with unbiased international news.
    One advice... see 'Sicko'. I find Michael Moore annoying but he managed to get a very comprehensive view of why it sucks to be ill in the USofA.
    In order for me to be able to obtain a tourist/business or student visa for the US, I need to pay for an insurance plan which will cover up to $250,000 or somewhere in that neighborhood. I am sorry but this is ridiculous.

    1. Lions Den Media profile image61
      Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      startupninga - have you been to Cuba? How do you know? I'm going to listen to you when thousands flee Cuba annually? Wow - Cuba and Venezuela as the basis for your argument for success creating a successful health care model when these countries. Okay you've made your point - You're a commie!

      The problem you point to regarding a visa is NOT because of business or private insurance companies - but rather politicians and political policies. My question is why you would want to come to the US, when Cuba and Venezuela are your commie states of choice? And if you haven't been to the US how do you know anything about the quality of life -- Michelle Moore? And your claim that Cuban doctors help more people around the world is bulls**t. Not to mention what country do you think many of the medicines used were developed in America? Penicillin? HIV drugs to Africa?  And your "gadgets and gizmos" that are developed in the US help save lives. Cuba and Venezuela don't add any value in research and development in the world. In fact these countries cannot even develop an economy.

      1. slcockerham profile image84
        slcockerhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Correct information would be hard to obtain through a michael moore movie. In the moore realm healthcare in cuba is right at the top. Cuba does have good cigars though, this is their main contribution to healthcare.

      2. startupninja profile image61
        startupninjaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @LDM - First of all let me put it out there... I've been to more countries than you know exist the US including and I have seen the best and the worst of world for myself. Yes, I am a commie, and I'm quite proud of that fact... It made me look for problems to be solved and not opportunities to be exploited in the enterprises which I started and which thankfully enabled me to get out of the rat race with twenty odd years of age.
        I know one FACT... the UK has a higher rate of social mobility than the US, and it is still a monarchy, I seriously doubt that there is one right winger on this site who makes more than $250,000 annual income and you are the ones who are screaming free market, free market, right to choose, right to choose... Any person who is gullible enough to fight for and support those who prevent him from making an honest wage is a sad excuse for an individual, since an individual has to be capable to think for themselves and analyse the information he/she receives through the prism of personal impact.
        Those who still blindly cling to ideas in this glorious 21st century, are known by one name and one name alone which I would gladly attribute to you on the basis of your replies... A FANATIC & A FUNDAMENTALIST

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Really? Why then, does the OECD say that the UK has the worst inter-generational earnings elasticity? Children are linked more to the earnings of their parents than any other country in the OECD.

          Unless you are talking about some other form of 'social mobility' than income? Maybe us American's are too rigid in our class system. Come to think of it, none of my family has ever been a part of royalty...

          http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,3343, … _1,00.html

          1. startupninja profile image61
            startupninjaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Jaxson, by what I see from this link, the US is "very" distant from the UK in this analysis of income mobility. Doesn't this fact from a source which you yourself cited prove that the whole idea that America is the "work hard, move up", free market, individual liberties, capitalist heaven where only hard work is rewarded, is nothing but a myth?
            I checked the methodology of the analysis your link and by what I see they exclude variables which I consider paramount in such an study and they used empirical estimates from other studies which used a similar methodology and population samples to their own.
            I would like to put forward the following view:
            http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evi … l-mobility
            and their methodology so you compare:
            http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/methods

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "Doesn't this fact from a source which you yourself cited prove that the whole idea that America is the "work hard, move up", free market, individual liberties, capitalist heaven where only hard work is rewarded, is nothing but a myth?"

              On behalf of Jaxon, yes it does cast doubt on the myth of America the land of equal opportunity rewards for hard work, dilligence, ambition. Horatio Alger died a long time ago.

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It has never been that way in the US. The Horatio Alger stories have done a lot of damage to people's self worth and esteem.

                "The characters in his formulaic stories sometimes improved their social position through auspicious accidents instead of hard work and denial."
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Alger_myth

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, they have. And the myth puts the blame on individuals born into poverty and has bad implications for public education, health and other government policies.

                  There was some truth in the myth early in this country's history when the westward migration occurred and fertile land was free for the taking and later when the homestead laws were passed making free land available to anyone who would live on it for a year(?). My grand parents homesteaded in the Nebraska sandhills around the turn of the 19th century and by dint of hard work and persistence became successful cattle ranchers.

                  Thanks for the Wikipedia link on Horatio Alger. Very interesting.

              2. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Half of Americans are able to raise themselves by at least one quintile over the course of a decade. I've brought this subject up before, the US actually has great income mobility. It's just when people look at it as a factor of income inequality that they say it sucks.

              3. DannyMaio profile image60
                DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                This just proves how UN -American you truly are! Please do not mention you are a Patriot, That would be a BIG MYTH!!!

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What, all true Americans view their world through rose tinted spectacles!

                  1. DannyMaio profile image60
                    DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    YES JOHN!!!! REAL AMERICANS ARE PROUD!!! we have many like you, Socialist/Marxist who drag the system! People need to take care of themselves and stop looking for the freebies and blaming others for their lack of courage, enthusiasm and Will to be successful!

                    When people stop blaming others and taking matters in their own hands and being responsible for themselves and their family, Then things will be great!

                    If you didn't have the US behind you, the terrorist would have taken over your weak country! And yes it is WEAK!

            2. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Firstly, the methodology link you provided doesn't address the methodology of the social mobility chart they posted from The Spirit Level.

              Secondly, a chart that ranks from 'Low' to 'High'? Generally speaking, a solid study, based on statistics, will use actual statistics in plotting. Not 'How your country rates on a scale from Bad to Good'.

              Thirdly, looking at income mobility as a factor of income inequality is misleading. Since the US has higher inequality, they say 8 times in the 20:20 methodology they use, that means the US has to have more upward mobility to have the same actual income mobility.

              So if you compare the US to Country A which has an inequality factor of 2, you would have to have the following situations to call each country 'equal'

              US: Income change from $20,000/year(USD) to $160,000/year
              Country A: Income change from $20,000/year(USD) to $40,000/year

              Those two situations would be called 'equal' income mobility. That's why it's stupid to look at income mobility as a factor of income inequality. I personally think that increasing your income by 8x is better than increasing your income by 2x.

  29. startupninja profile image61
    startupninjaposted 4 years ago

    I seem to be a bit buzzed so bare with me... who gives a sh.t if best treatments for cancer are available in the States when only trust fund babies receive the best of your healthcare system and everyone else has to settle for whatever their health plan covers.
    It's not like you are all equally treated in hospitals.

    1. Lions Den Media profile image61
      Lions Den Mediaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      startup - you are an obtuse dolt to put it mildly and you represent the classic reason why abortion was legalized in the US. Unfortunately imbeciles like yourself are unknown to us until far into the future because your ilk are a product of socialist indoctrination within a failing global education system. However, my rationalization with abortion is in the belief that by sheer mathematical probabilities we eliminate a number of your kind annually.
      As with most commies, you vomit forth statements that are devoid of fact or reality. You make assertions you know nothing of what you're speaking of. When an American goes into a hospital, there is no way to know whether they are rich or not. The fact is that if someone is in an accident or put into the hospital they get the same treatment regardless of who they are. The issue in quality of care is generally the quality of the doctor not the system. Let me tell you something -- Stupid and "buzzed" is no way to go through life. So get off the pipe and get a grip on reality.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hey Lion you might want to chill.
        Have you ever been banned here? You can't get too personal.

        1. OLYHOOCH profile image60
          OLYHOOCHposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I put my time in, The Dog House...... LOL

          OLY

      2. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No wait seriously AHAHAH seriously? the guy who is always complaining about too much government power and advocating personal liberties wants the government to be able to force people to give birth even if they don't want to. That's hypocrisy in unbelievable measure.

        I think abortion is immoral but I believe it is the right of the individual to decide what can and can't be done in their body which means I respect liberty a hell of a lot more than you do.

        1. slcockerham profile image84
          slcockerhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Women should have the right to do with their body as they choose. It's the distinct other baby human that we are talking about. Quite often a different blood type and definitely different DNA. Let's get your facts straight on this issue.

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Why don't you tell us what you really think?

        1. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          big_smile

        2. DannyMaio profile image60
          DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You know the truth hurts! He spoke his mind and gave many facts to back up his claims. All you do is post articles from ridiculous left wing propaganda outlets. I also know people like you will report him because you want to shut him up because he speaks the truth and you don't like it.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Why should we report him and deprive ourselves of watching him flounder and dig even deeper holes to lose himself in?

  30. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6872618_f248.jpg

    1. OLYHOOCH profile image60
      OLYHOOCHposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You say, CONGRESS. Now, you are aware that we no longer have a Congress..

      MONEY AND POWER. MONEY AND POWER.

      That is what most people can not see or understand today.

      Our Whole Government has gone, SIDEWAYS.

      OLY

    2. DannyMaio profile image60
      DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Many more doctors will be doing the same! Let them drink the koolaid! when their chickens come home to roost, It will be funny to watch them try and spin it!

  31. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6874763_f248.jpg

  32. DannyMaio profile image60
    DannyMaioposted 4 years ago

    As thought, Lion has been Banned! The lapdogs are not man enough to standup for themselves and go crying, like kids do to their Mommies! No guts! I'm telling Mommie! Do you feel big and bad? What a bunch of wimps!
    Where is the backbone? I guess when you make a lot of sense and support it with facts and logic, it really hurts and they have to try and silence you!

    This is the mentality of the weak cradle to crave looking for hand outs socialists/Marxists far left!
    Get off the tit!

    1. Mighty Mom profile image92
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      For those of us just coming into this conversation (or deciding if it's a conversation worth joining) would you mind explaing who the "Lion" is?
      And are you equating Hub Pages with Marxist/socialist mentality?
      I'm so confused.
      (yeah, what else is new, I know)
      smile

      1. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Lion is a hubber who made a lot of comments like this one:

        startup - you are an obtuse dolt to put it mildly and you represent the classic reason why abortion was legalized in the US. Unfortunately imbeciles like yourself are unknown to us until far into the future because your ilk are a product of socialist indoctrination within a failing global education system. However, my rationalization with abortion is in the belief that by sheer mathematical probabilities we eliminate a number of your kind annually.
        As with most commies, you vomit forth statements that are devoid of fact or reality.


        now Danny here is saying he shouldn't have been banned tongue

        1. DannyMaio profile image60
          DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No words in that post were bad! he was immediately banned, so your guess would be wrong!
          I personally feel this is a site to express yourself and if you have it out with someone, they comeback and say something and it is over! Why all this cry baby stuff? like I stated, Be a man.

          He did not say the F word or anything worth getting banned for! That is my personal opinion. He expressed his feelings and again in my opinion not worth being banned for.

          Ever hear the saying" sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never harm me"
          Again People need to grow a pair and GROW UP!!

        2. Mighty Mom profile image92
          Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Calling someone an obtuse dolt and an imbecile = questionable. I could see the moderator spewing Diet Coke out their nose on those.
          But...
          Calling aother huber an abortion -- not once, but twice in the same post -- is pretty much off the charts personal insult.
          And my guess is startupninja wasn't even the one who reported him.

          How could I have missed this colorful spewer and when is his ban over?
          lol
          roll

      2. Onusonus profile image88
        Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well I recall that it started out with the fact that the president is a big fat liar, and then a bunch of socialists said it is a good idea. (no surprise there).
        http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/582750_441186569247020_910060441_n.jpg

        1. Cody Hodge profile image85
          Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Wow.....way to take that way out of context.

          Obama NEVER WANTED A MANDATE. He had to put one in there because it was the only way to get any sort of bill passed.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image92
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Mandate" has become the four-letter word of the Affordable Care Act.
            And the sole point of fixation for those who won't even be affected by the bill but are determined to oppose it anyway.

            If I were Obama right about now I'd be saying, "Hey, don't blame me for forcing you to purchase health insurance. I wanted to give it to you for FREE. But noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...."

            1. DannyMaio profile image60
              DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So you want Obama to lie some more? I know you really do not think anything is really free....DO YOU?

              1. Mighty Mom profile image92
                Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No. I do not think anything is free.
                But there are quite a few hubbers on here who seem to believe that healthcare is free if it's provided in the Emergency Room.
                Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

                1. DannyMaio profile image60
                  DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Like I stated many times, If the politicians, right and left would get out of bed with the insurance companies and let us compete across state lines, we would see a 20-25% reduction in costs.
                  If they stopped the lowlife attorneys with the frivolous malpractice lawsuits will reduce Malpractice insurance for Doctors and bring costs down.

                  Then have the insurance companies not deny for preexisting conditions and able to keep young adults on till 25.

                  This will make it much easier for many to get insurance, only big problem is the ILLEGAL Aliens! We will always have them in emergency rooms. Obama care doesn't even take them into account.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Obama supports comprehensive immigration reform. He has increased greatly the number of illegal aliens deported. Try sticking to the facts for a change!

      3. OLYHOOCH profile image60
        OLYHOOCHposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well, MM, Lion, I do not know. I just came up wit this Question, in My little head, so, I thought I would throw it out.

        I have read most of ALL your comments, and, have learned a thing or two.

        I can't beleive all the Re-plys I have received on this, but, It is OK with me.

        At least I am aware of the thoughts you-all have.

        Thanks to ALL of you for your time.

        OLY

        1. Mighty Mom profile image92
          Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry to be unclear, OLY. I get what the thread is about. And it's testament to the timeliness of your chosen topic that we're up to 400 plus posts. That's pretty cool.

          I was mostly looking for clarification on Danny Maio's defense of Lion.
          I've seen that and would prefer to talk about Obamacare.
          lol

          1. OLYHOOCH profile image60
            OLYHOOCHposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            KO, MM. Have a great Night.

            OLY

    2. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You do know that hub pages has a word filter right? and if you use words on that list it gets a mod to come check your post, my guess is in his incoherent ramblings lion used more than a few of them and was thus banned,while it is richly deserved I am actually disappointed it was quite funny watching him rant nonsense.

      1. DannyMaio profile image60
        DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think you Spew a lot of nonsense and looked foolish with many statements you made. You pretty much said people who don't think like you are stupid and don't make sense etc... That is also degrading, should you be banned?

        Again, no backbone. that is the problem.

  33. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    The government can't give anything out for free.

    Everything has a cost. Every good, every service has a capital cost.

    1. Mighty Mom profile image92
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well it's interesting you bring in the word "capital" Jaxson Raine.
      Because it seems to me that America's current system is the epitome of anticapitalist.
      Why do we burden our best capitalista with providing health insurance for their employees?

      Don't we want American businesses to be more competitivt? Yet we saddle them with this rapidly growing albatross.

      How about we release them from the financial bondage of carrying group health insurance?
      How about we do the right, logical thing and provide healthcare to ALL our citizens -- not just the old ones and the poor ones -- because it's the right thing to do?

      Just a thought.
      smile

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I use capital in the broad sense, everything costs time, labor, money, or resources. There is no 'free'. Calling it 'free' is a lie.

        If the government provides us 'free' healthcare, they pay for it by either taxing us, or by taking out debt(which is a direct tax anyway).

        It doesn't matter where the money comes out of the system. If the employer pays $200/month for an employee's healthcare, the employee is receiving $200/month in non-cash compensation. If the employer pays $100/month and the employee pays $100/month, then the employer can pay the $100/month to the employee, at which point it is paid out. Same result. If the employer/employee pays nothing, the government can tax $200/month from the employee. Same result, only now the government, notoriously inefficient and irresponsible with money, is in charge of your healthcare money.

        The service will be paid for one way or another. The only other option is to redistribute wealth, and make the wealthy pay for everyone.

        It doesn't matter. If the employer has to pay $200/month, the employee receives $200 less per month. Since all corporations do this, they are all competitive.

        If all corporations paid nothing into healthcare, they could give the $200/month directly to the employee. Again, they would be just as competitive with each other, as the total employee compensation would be unchanged.

        Again, it won't make any difference to the employers. It won't change employee compensation.

        If you are advocating redistribution of wealth, I say that is a violation of freedoms. If you are advocating each person pay for the system through taxes, then you really haven't done anything. People will still be paying for their healthcare(and those who can't pay taxes won't be paying for it).

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Very true--fixing holes in the road and repairing unsafe bridges, paying public school teachers enough to attract competent applicants, paying for effective local, state and federal government functions and national defense requires sufficient tax revenues which thanks to the likes of the little creep Grover Norquist are very hard to achieve.

      1. OLYHOOCH profile image60
        OLYHOOCHposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Bingo, Ralph.

        OLY

      2. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Come on, we get sufficient tax revenues. It's just that we grow our spending by more than GDP every year.

        You cannot increase spending by 5-8% every single year and expect to be able to pay for it. Yeah, for a while you can pay for it by increasing taxes, but eventually you will reach 100% taxes, $0 revenues, and crazy levels of spending.

        Here's a crazy idea... What if we only spent, say, what we brought in. We could grow our spending at the rate our revenues grow. Really, we could fit a spending budget from not too long ago in our revenues today, and increase at a realistic rate every year.

        1. DannyMaio profile image60
          DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          He is an UN-American grubber! Looking with his hand out and trashes this great country! He has one liners, spew BS from the liberal media like it is gospel...It is only gospel to the puppets who believe it!

          People like that deserve nothing! They probably do not add anything to society and a drag to the system. People need to learn how to take care of themselves.

          They talk about I live in Detroit near Canada and never seen a Canadian come here for medical! Anyone with brains knows if they had money they would use the US Medical system! We are the best. Yes we cost a lot more but you get what you pay for! Why do the politicians have better plans than the people??? These fools do not have a clue! Like I said we suck so bad that we have the biggest problem with Illegals! That UN-American should go to another country and feed off their tit!

        2. DannyMaio profile image60
          DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Nothing is ever enough for these people! We supply safety-nets and these people want bassinets!

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            We have quite enough military spending, thank you.  In fact, it could be cut in half and we'd still be fine.  Why are so many conservatives worried more about the money we spend to help sick people than about the money we spend to kill people?

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'm sick of all excessive spending.

              Any program that automatically grows spending more than the rate of increase of revenues is irresponsible.

              1. Mighty Mom profile image92
                Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, so you are for abolishing the Bush tax cuts, then?

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm for a simpler tax system all together.

                  Put effective corporate and personal tax rates at 20% maximum. We'd do better with corporate rates at 10-15%. That would actually make us competitive in the international market.

                  We don't need higher taxes. For the most part we need less spending.

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image92
                    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    And which department gets the lion's share of our federal spending?
                    MILITARY.
                    Maybe we should start there?

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The problem is only partly spending increases. It's also tax cuts starting with Reagan and promoted by the little vermin Grover Norquist.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  We don't need higher taxes. Taxes are taking money from people to redistribute the money back out in some other form. Every time the government gets involved, money is lost.

              3. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Agreed.  As soon as conservative politicians spend more time talking about cutting defense spending than they do about food stamp recipients, then they will have achieved credibility when it comes to their complaints about government spending.

                1. DannyMaio profile image60
                  DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If you understand what the government IS suppose to do, It is Protection! Anyone who thinks this world is just so wonderful is a fool! I guess Missiles on rooftops in the UK for the Olympics means everything is just peachy! WAKE UP!!!!!!!

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Did I say the world is wonderful?  roll

                    Did I hear the word "fool"?

                2. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If we want to remain safe, we can't cut defense spending too much.

                  One thing we need to do is spend a lot more money on cyber defense and cyber warfare technology. We spend so many billions of dollars on projects, only to have foreign powers hack our servers and steal our information.

                  There are plenty of people who would love to watch us fall behind in defense.

                  1. DannyMaio profile image60
                    DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    These people don't see the truth, that we protect many other countries and they have minimal soldiers and defense because we protect them!

                    Yes some countries wish we weren't as strong to try and take advantage.

                  2. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    We can quit invading countries that don't attack us and save tons of money.  How about let's do that?

                3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  An excellent point, PP and UW.

                  1. DannyMaio profile image60
                    DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Every post you show how you hate the US and I personally feel you shouldn't receive a dime from the country you despise soo much! very sad for you

            2. 0
              screamingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              @PrettyPanther because they believe in Pro-Life! lmao

            3. DannyMaio profile image60
              DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I guess you have inside info of our military and all info on threats etc... Nice to know we have a classified person writing on hub pages! wonderful.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That's a dumb response.  Really.

                1. DannyMaio profile image60
                  DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  But you knowing all the inner details of our military is far brighter? PLEASE!!!

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh, come on.  You're being ridiculous.  When will you start complaining about $7600 coffee makers and hundreds of aircraft that have never flown in combat?

                    Oh, I forgot, that $200 a month some need family receives in food stamps is so much more wasteful, right?

                  2. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Did I say that?  Where?

  34. startupninja profile image61
    startupninjaposted 4 years ago

    @MM - you are right, it wasn't me who reported Lions Den Media big_smile I even penned a civilized rebuttal earlier only to read in later posts from the rest of you fine people that he was banned... big_smile
    Too bad I would miss getting into an in depth discussion with a Nazi like him/her tongue

  35. DannyMaio profile image60
    DannyMaioposted 4 years ago

    Warning: The Supreme Court May Be Hazardous To Your Health

    July 11, 2012 by John Myers
    Warning: The Supreme Court May Be Hazardous To Your Health
    PHOTOS.COM
    Patients have to take a number at Canadian health clinics.

    Unless you are living in a cave, you know that last month the Supreme Court made one of its most controversial decisions since Roe vs. Wade. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the four “liberal” members of the court and upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Many Americans who were upset about the decision vented that anger on Twitter. I find it bizarre that many Americans tweeted about “moving to Canada” to enjoy better medical care.

    “I’m moving to Canada, the United States is entirely too socialist,” tweets @wallyweldon.

    “The supreme court upheld Obama Care. That’s it. I’m moving to Canada!” tweets @lucasdargis.

    As an American who has spent more than half my life living in Canada, I want to say this to wallyweldon and anyone else who is packing his bags: Stop! Even if Obamacare remains, the quality of medicine has a long way to fall before it will reach the rock-bottom levels that my wife Angie and I live with in Canada.

    A Typical Trip To The Doctor

    The red light on the old alarm clock read 7:00. The morning news began with the top stories. It was the first Monday of the month, so my wife and I began our pilgrimage to the emergency clinic in Calgary, Canada. My extended family saw one doctor for 40 years; but because he retired and there are so few doctors in family practice, we now have to visit day clinics.

    This particular Monday was during winter. A blizzard had rolled in off the Rocky Mountains, making the roads almost impassable. We felt strong enough to walk 3/4 of a mile in snow-drifted sidewalks to the clinic to get the prescriptions we need for Angie’s lupus and my asthma.

    The real emergencies the clinic deals with every day are a shortage of doctors and waves of patients. Some of the patients, like us, just want a refill of a prescription; others are junkies, looking for a sympathetic doctor to give them their fix.

    It might seem ridiculous to walk through a blizzard to get refills of medications that we have both been taking for years. But that’s universal healthcare in Canada.

    You can’t simply phone your doctor and ask him to call in a refill. That is against the rules. Under the guidelines here, prescription renewals have to be personally handed out during an office visit. This allows the doctor to pocket the same fee he would get if he were attending someone with a broken leg.

    By 8 a.m., we saw the illuminated lights of the clinic through the falling snow.

    The clinic doesn’t open until 9 a.m. but a line had already started on the front steps of the clinic. There were no benches, so the people in line huddled beneath the snow.

    We were lucky that day. The snowstorm made it difficult for people to arrive early. Only four others were ahead of us; more than a dozen were behind us.

    There was a complication. The snowstorm had delayed the clinic staff. At 9:15 a.m., the doors opened. We dutifully walked in and collected our numbers — just as I did as a kid at the barbershop. Over the next half hour, we sat and waited for our number to be called.

    Checking in allows us to be seen by the “doctor of the day.” Chances are about one in two that we have met him before, because they rotate in the city.

    At 10 a.m. we were called to the examining room. The handsome doctor with a Polish accent seemed genuinely to care. (Often, the doctors are desperately tired or simply fed up with their job.) He took a few minutes to learn about our ailments. Then he passed us our prescription slips. At 10:30 a.m., three hours after we began, we began the walk home.

    Medical care in Canada seems like the Dark Ages. It has been especially hard for us because, just more than a decade ago, we would make appointments in Spokane, Wash., to see our doctors at Rockwood Clinic. There, fine coffee was served in china cups, and rarely was the length of the waiting-room stay more than a few minutes.

    No ‘Free’ Car Wash

    Two decades ago, I was sitting in the showroom of Sutherland Mercedes, a car dealership in downtown Spokane. The shop in the back was changing the oil on my 20-year-old 300D Mercedes-Benz.

    As I sat in the corner, a respected cardiologist was looking at a new car with his second wife. She couldn’t have yet been 30; he was pushing 60. The salesman showed them the most expensive Mercedes sedan on the showroom floor. The wife loved it. To close the deal, the salesman mentioned that, if they bought the car, they could have free car washes from the dealership for as long as they owned it.

    “You hear that?” gushed the wife. “Free car washes!”

    I had to stifle myself. Across that very street was the Lincoln dealership with the then-new Town Car. If you bought it, you didn’t get a free car wash. However, the Lincoln cost half what the Mercedes did.

    That sums up healthcare in Canada. Almost everyone up here thinks Canada has “free healthcare.” The truth is Ottawa and the provinces foot the bill for universal healthcare. It is a spending program that has made Canada’s government debt levels soar.

    Canadians have become so indoctrinated that even intelligent people don’t account for the fact that the average family in Canada pays roughly 50 percent of their income in taxes each year just to fund the healthcare system.

    To meet the growing expense, governments will have to raise taxes and even further reduce the quality of healthcare. While this is not a winning blueprint for a society, it seems that the U.S. Supreme Court is willing to embrace it.

    Perhaps the justices should have read this quote in The New York Times on Feb. 28, 2006: “This is a country (Canada) in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years.”

    Calgary has many great things going for it. It is a hub for energy and a progressive city in so many ways. Yet I miss the United States and the healthcare system. In the United States, doctors had the time to treat patients like patients — not just a number in line.

    Yours in good times and bad,

    –John Myers
    Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

  36. JimMiles profile image84
    JimMilesposted 4 years ago

    Anecdotes do not measure up to facts, data, statistics. For the facts about Canada's healthcare system, read:
    http://jimmiles.hubpages.com/hub/Single … are-Please

    1. DannyMaio profile image60
      DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Below is from your link and the KEY thing is If you need heart or lung surgery the US is the place to be! Yes many can not come here because they do not have the funds but if you gave a choice...What would they pick????


      Look, I’m not denying that some people with means might come to the United States for care.  If I needed a heart/lung transplant, there’s no place I’d rather be.  But for the vast, vast majority of people, that’s not happening.  You shouldn’t use the anecdote to describe things at a population level.  This study showed you three different methodologies, all with solid rationales behind them, all showing that this meme is mostly apocryphal.

      Maybe that’s why the manuscript was titled, “Phantoms in the Snow.”

    2. startupninja profile image61
      startupninjaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This is an excellent Hub... it makes the entire case for the single payer system. Compared to that sci-fi story "trip to the doctor" at least the hub presents valid arguments over and over and over again backed by factual data.
      I sure as hell would like to know if Canadians would rather have a US like system instead of what they have now... this statistic has been heavily avoided by the propagandists.

      1. DannyMaio profile image60
        DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        propaganda? I clearly showed how the author clearly stated he would rather be treated in the USA then Canada if they had the choice! Do you pick and choose what you like? Bottom line is Yes if you didn't have health-care you would love the Canadian system or any other socialist/commie horrible health-care.

        The system isn't GOOD health-care it is just health-care. Do the Rich in Canada use that health-care? Do the politicians? NO they do not! We have clinics here in the US which is just about the same as your handout garbage system.

        We didn't become the strongest country by being socialist and commies! And no other country has people sneaking in because we suck! It is because they have an opportunity to better themselves!

        I don't see Russia, China, and other countries having Illegal Alien problems as we do! Those are FACTS!!

        1. startupninja profile image61
          startupninjaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          yeah and go right ahead and read the comment section of this particular article:
          http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordp … -the-snow/
          which is referred in the Hub. Take your time read all the comments and see what a real discussion on healthcare looks like.
          There is one amazing point which was brought up there, and when I went over it I was screaming DUH...
          Answer me this, if the US system is so great, how come you are the only ones who have it... ?!
          Why no one else adopts it in that form, and why is Universal Healthcare present in practically every other country on Earth?
          Hint... it's not because you are the smartest nation on the planet.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I live across the Detroit river from Canada, and I have yet to meet a Canadian who would trade their health care system for ours.

            1. JimMiles profile image84
              JimMilesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well, maybe that means that it's not the doctors or care-givers that are at fault, but rather the middlemen (=insurance companies/ gov't administered). Personally, I have no say in how insurance companies approve or deny my claims, or otherwise run their businesses. If my government did it, I would have much greater access to the forces which shape their policies.

              Is it really an argument over who's doctors and hospitals are better? Why is it assumed that changing payment policies would suddenly degrade US quality of care standards?

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The argument is over which SYSTEM produces better results and at lower costs. Canada wins on both counts. Some Canadians do come to the Sloan Kettering, Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic for difficult procedures for which comparable facilities aren't available where they live. And some do have to wait in line for non-emergency treatment. However, the overall results are better and the cost is significantly lower. [One-percenters like Romney no doubt get better care than the average Canadian. That comparing apples and oranges.]

                1. JimMiles profile image84
                  JimMilesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree.

          2. JimMiles profile image84
            JimMilesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks, Ninja! If socialized medicine is good enough for the U.S. Military, it ought to be good enough for everyone! VA care-givers may be understaffed and overworked, but that is not a systemic problem, it's one that's easily fixed by creating more JOBS.

            For anecdote lovers: My local VA is extremely efficient, although understaffed. Every appointment I've taken my friend to, he's been seen early, and received excellent care. He's had VA care for almost all of his 92 years, since he was medically discharged from the military during WWII! (He also has Medicare, and his dealings with that system have been positive, as well.)

            We don't need to reinvent a new bureaucracy or a new system; it's already there. You don't need thousands of pages, just one simple amendment to the current Medicare law: remove the restriction to people "65 and older." This would expand an already-working system, allow vastly more choice of care providers and thus competition between them, and create jobs in the process (which I thought were capitalist principles, not socialist!?).

            Or so it seems to me.

  37. paradigmsearch profile image90
    paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

    "Single women put Obama on top, in new poll"

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/sing … 13797.html

    Interesting choice of words for the title. And I know damn well it wasn't an accident either. big_smile

    1. OLYHOOCH profile image60
      OLYHOOCHposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am not a POLL person. That is why I am here at, Hub Pages.

      I want to hear and see what you, THE PEOPLE think.

      OLY

  38. startupninja profile image61
    startupninjaposted 4 years ago

    This is a repost of a comment by a Mark (it summarizes things so well I simply had to put it on here).
    So Mark says:

    "You would benefit from actually living in the US and getting a first-hand look at what the American health insurance system looks like. I pay thousands of dollars a year into Medicare even though I can’t use it; I then pay thousands of dollars for my own health insurance; then I pay a fee every time I go to the doctor; and then I get an additional bill from the doctor when the insurance company decides that it’s not going to pay a big chunk of the bill. I’ve had HMOs, PPOs, POSs – seven different insurance plans in 10 years across four different jobs – and they’re all the same. I’ve had to switch doctors four times because the plans all have different rosters.

    Oh, but as part of the lucky 50% of the country that has private health insurance, surely my care is better than what I got in Canada? Surely the doctor’s offices are so much more technologically advanced, and the doctors so much better trained, with so much more time to spend with patients?

    Yeah, I don’t think so. We pay a ton of money and then pay a ton more money when we get sick, and the entire system – aside from MRIs and orthopedic surgery, which you pay through the nose for – is no different than what I had in Canada. Dealing with insurance and having to change doctors all the time makes it even worse.

    I’d much rather wait to get a friggin MRI on my knee than go bankrupt because I have cancer."

    I advise all to go through the comments they are worth the article a hundred times over !

  39. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Taxpayers who were in the bottom quintile in 1996 found themselves in the following situation in 2005:

    29% increased their income by $17,705, or 153%, adjusted for inflation.
    14% increased their income by $37,982, or 328%, adjusted for inflation.
    10% increased their income by $67,142, or 581%, adjusted for inflation.
    5% increased their income by $159,292, or 1379%, adjusted for inflation.

    Taxpayers who were in the second lowest quintile in 1996 found themselves in the following situation in 2005:

    27% increased their income by $20,277 , or 69%, adjusted for inflation.
    15% increased their income by $49,437 , or 169%, adjusted for inflation.
    8% increased their income by $141,587 , or 484%, adjusted for inflation.

    The median person in each quintile increased their income by the following percent, adjusted for inflation:

    Bottom 20% - 90.5%
    Second 20% - 34.8%
    Third 20% - 23.3%
    Fourth 20% - 16.6%
    Fifth 20% - 10%

    Upward mobility is very much achievable in the US. The average, median person in every quintile achieves it.

  40. startupninja profile image61
    startupninjaposted 4 years ago

    my post which triggered your mobility tantrum referred to social mobility which has a few other factors which are very nicely presented in a table on the methodology link which I posted. The good or bad scale is merely to demonstrate the final results in an observable manor which is precisely why I provided the link to how it is obtained.
    the ' "very" distant ' remark is sarcasm and if you are unable to recognize that then you should be worried mate..

    since we strayed of topic please help me understand your point of view by providing me with answers to the questions in my previous post... relating to healthcare

    Answer me this, if the US system is so great, how come you are the only ones who have it... ?!
    Why no one else adopts it in that form, and why is Universal Healthcare present in practically every other country on Earth?
    Hint... it's not because you are the smartest nation on the planet.

    thanx

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh yes, classic. When someone posts data you don't like, attack the person. That's called 'argumentum ad hominem', by the way, and has no place in discussion or debate.



      The original link you posted is about social mobility. The chart is a chart of social mobility on a scale of 'Low' to 'High'. The methodology you posted isn't about the chart. The social mobility was pulled from other studies, and the methodology page you posted defines social mobility as "Correlation between father and son’s income".

      You seem to think that all the factors on your methodology page have to do with social mobility, but they don't.

      You didn't provide the link to how it is obtained. You don't understand that the methodology link you posted doesn't explain the methodology for their source. To look at that, you have to look at the methodology for The Spirit Level.

      And using 'Low' to 'High' is irresponsible, and makes me think someone is pushing an agenda. When statistical data is plotted, it should be clearly marked.

      Well, if I went off of how much sense your comments made, I would have to assume that most of what you say is sarcasm.

      Argumentum ad populum, because something is popularly used or believed doesn't mean it is right.

      I've shown how American healthcare is very good. Universal healthcare is another entitlement that increases the burden of non-producers on producers. The more the government gives people for free, the less incentive they have to improve their situation. We already have huge problems with people complacently staying on food stamps and subsidized housing.

      If welfare programs are in place for struggling citizens, several things need to be present for me to approve of such programs.

      1 - All welfare must be paired with education, training, and/or looking for work.
      2 - Funds must be managed responsibly by government. This means that money for each welfare program must be kept separate from other government funds. No 'borrowing' from welfare to balance a budget, like Clinton did. No 'borrowing' from welfare to subsidize corporations.
      3 - Anyone who receives assistance will pay that back once they are able. It can be over the course of 10, 20, or more years.

      People need to be responsible for themselves. Welfare in America inherently doesn't work as well as welfare in some other countries, because we sadly have more people who are lazy and feel they are entitled to things which aren't entitlements.

      Nope, we're not the smartest nation. We are the fattest. Woohoo.

      I'm proud of America, not necessarily the same thing as Americans though.

  41. 0
    screamingposted 4 years ago

    It never ceases to amaze me! If people of a foreign country need assistance most are all for it! But when many people have lost everything, because of a recession they had no control of, they're labeled ill educated and wanting a handout! Those people didn't want to lose everything! And now that they need a leg up so many criticize them? If they lost their job they lost their health insurance and ability to survive. A true Christain and American would want to help them! Give me a break!

    1. DannyMaio profile image60
      DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm all for assistance= safety-nets. Not enabling people so the get lazy and want the government to take care of them. You are very blind if you truly do not see all the fraud and abuse of the system! We even have the liberal fools putting on commercials for food stamps! like they are begging them to go on them! Even if you have a job, I can get food stamps? Yes come on down! even if I own my own home, I can get food stamps? Yes even if you own a home! Very pathetic! sorry government promoting food stamps!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpqHZ2Yx … re=related

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well that's capitalism for you, anything to avoid eroding profits!

        Get the taxpayer to subsidise your business.

  42. 0
    screamingposted 4 years ago

    There's people on both sides of the aisle taking advantage. If you think only one side, you're wrong. How many get a form of welfare? For example making money on the side, even here on hubpages and not reporting it? Simply because they make too much here and under the table other ways, if caught they would risk the disability check! Years ago, when you took a job out of high school you had a job and retirement package for life. Does that exist today for blue collar or even white collar workers? It's far and in between. I'd venture to say if even you lost your job and found yourself unable to provide for your family, you would welcome obamacare and welfare until you could find employment again. I do believe however if anyone is on welfare longer then their unemployment benefits, they should be drug tested to eliminate the abuse by liberals and conservatives.

  43. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6881062_f248.jpg

    1. DannyMaio profile image60
      DannyMaioposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Obvisous, you are either leaving out that Harry Reid will not take up a vote or just spewing your nonsense!

      Many bills have been sent to him and he just puts them under the table, your spinning doesn't work for people that see facts, Maybe the MSNBC crew will believe the lies.

  44. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    So many exclamation points...


    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6881148_f248.jpg

  45. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6881413_f520.jpg

    1. Cody Hodge profile image85
      Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, we spend the most, but we only have the 4th most effective care?

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Depends on how you define 'effective'.

        1. Cody Hodge profile image85
          Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Or what the meaning of "is" is.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Eh, that chart comes from the commonwealth fund. Their sources, for their 2010 report, come from phone surveys from 2007-2009, WHO mortality statistics from 2003, and the OECD health status 2009.

            A quick search and I can't find anything about their methodology, definitions of 'effective care' 'safe, coordinated, patient-oriented' care, or any other of their measures.

            1. Cody Hodge profile image85
              Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Serious question....

              Do you honestly believe we are somewhere in the top half of that list?

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                We are definitely higher than we get listed.

                Trying to rank healthcare systems isn't as easy as these groups want to make it seem. The US healthcare system gets knocked because of how much we spend, but it's not the system's fault that we spend more than we 'should', compared to other countries. It's the fault of higher education costs, malpractice insurance, and rates of obesity and diabetes(among other things).

                If our education system became more affordable, that would make our healthcare system 'better', according to WHO.

                There are so many factors that no study adjusts for. None of them adjust for inherent rates of illness, accidents, homicides, cost of education and insurance. None of them compare the outcome of treatment(kind of ironic, isn't it?).

            2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
              Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The World Health Organization (WHO) ranked the health systems of its 191 member states in its World Health Report 2000. It provided a framework and measurement approach to examine and compare aspects of health systems around the world.[1] It developed a series of performance indicators to assess the overall level and distribution of health in the populations, and the responsiveness and financing of health care services.


              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heal … th_systems

              France ranked # 1 Expenditure per capita #4

              United States ranked # 37 Expenditure per capita #1

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Wizard, I have thoroughly explained why the WHO ranking is misleading.

                It doesn't take into consideration the outcome of treatment. Think about that.

                It gives better rankings to countries where healthcare is paid for out of taxes than out of paychecks.

                It doesn't adjust for rates of illness, accident, or homicide.

                It doesn't adjust for physician/surgeon/nurse salaries, which depend greatly on cost of education and malpractice insurance.

                It doesn't adjust for the cost of pharmaceuticals. Every other OECD country applies price controls. Pharmaceutical companies worldwide get their funding for R&D from the US, but we get docked for that.

                It's a ridiculous yardstick to use. Almost as bad as people who look at corporate tax rates as a % of GDP.

                1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
                  Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Jaxson, I realize that your ideas are fixed and your mind can't tolerate any viewpoint that upsets your blinkered vision, but, in candor,  your rebuttals are just pissing into a hurricane of accepted data. 

                  Here's more . . .

                  Do you want to negate Kaiser too—a foundation devoted soley to American healthcare?  You know more than they?

                  http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oecd042111.cfm

                  Exhibit 1
                  Total Health Expenditure per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2008

                  http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/OECDChart8_1.gif

                  Exhibit 2
                  Total Health Expenditure per Capita  and GDP per Capita, US and Selected Countries, 2008

                  http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/OECDChart2.gif

                  Exhibit 3
                  Growth in Total Health Expenditure Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 1970-2008

                  http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/OECDChart3_1.gif

                  Exhibit 4A
                  Total Health Expenditures, Per Capita Spending in US Dollars and PPP adjusted

                  http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/OECDChart4A_2.gif

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Wizard, I never said we don't spend more than other countries. I know we spend more than other countries.

                    Apparently, you can't understand my arguments. Try reading them again.

                    We spend more because doctors' educations cost more. That has to do with our education system, not our healthcare system. No changes to the healthcare system will change that spending.

                    We spend more because of doctors' insurance premiums. That has to do with our legal system, not our healthcare system.

                    We spend more because we don't have price controls on pharmaceutical companies. We are docked for that. Even though, without the US market, there would be very little private R&D done. Other countries make the US foot the bill for global drug R&D, and then the WHO docks us for it.

                    We spend more because we have more people eating McDonalds while watching the football game. That has nothing to do with our healthcare system.

                    We spend more because we have up to 3 times, or more, the number of traffic accidents per capita. That has nothing to do with our healthcare system.

                    The WHO doesn't adjust for anything.