http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/27/s … s-to-rise/
To all those who swore and I am certain will still swear ACA won't raise premiums:
In before the excuses or rationalizations.
No matter what you say, or what you write, there will always be those who firmly believe this AHC is the best thing that ever happened. Finally, something was done to put those greedy insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals in their place. Now everyone can have "FREE" health care.
The fact that they have not read the bill, don't understand the bill, and have no intention of paying for insurance doesn't matter.
They love it, and they are right and you are wrong.
It's not based on blind optimism it is based on the fact that it has worked all around the world, conservatives can predict gloom all they wish but a quick glance at all the highest living standard nations in the world and all the highest life expectancy nations in the world will show that it's nothing more than fear mongering.
Josak - There are just so many possible ways this could have been accomplished without Obamacare. Sure, it has some things that look good on paper, and some things that look bad on paper. The unnerving part is not even have a good estimate on what the actual costs will be.
Knowing there truly is just so much money available, what if the program is unable to support itself and goes belly up?
Would we then be forced to seize bank accounts and confiscate funds as just happend in another country?
Has it worked all over the world? Many in other parts of the world would disagree with you.
All the polling from nations which have it I have ever seen indicates wide support and massive opposition whenever anyone even mentions cutting it, furthermore they do it cheaper too.
Hence as far as I am aware not a single nation has repealed such healthcare.
OH also according to Gallup nations with public healthcare have a population which is much more satisfied with it's healthcare.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122393/oecd- … marks.aspx
The Secretary of the bleeding Health and Human Services says premiums will rise. Not Conservatives or Tea party people or whatever. Kathleen Flipping Sebelius.
Why don't we address THAT?
I already have, she hasn't given figures I can find but the fact that now healthcare is unlimited (for example) cancels out the cost entirely, costs are matched to the service and in that respect amongst others the service is now far superior.
So the Secretary gave out false information?
Ok so many ways to tackle this
#1: Your source lists a study as a source but links to a daily caller article without any links to the actual study that I could find (I might be missing it) given the lean of these sites and unable to actually see the study the claim is very dubious.
#2: Costs pay for services, formerly your coverage might offer 20 000 in coverage per year, once that runs out you are in the cold, on the other hand with the ACA your coverage is now unlimited so you may be paying a bit more but your service is radically better. (That is just one example of how)
#3: All of this is purely speculation, we have no idea if or how much these costs are going to rise we are at best estimating.
#4 As the article points out the cost is place don the youngest demographics due to their statistical good health and yet Obama Care has massive youth support meaning the people complaining are generally people whom it will save money.
#5 Penny pinching on lives is not something we should be interested in doing, certainly not something that holds any weight with me, the 45 000 lives saved every year is more than worth the extra cost.
#6 Transitional periods often see price jumps before stabilization.
Business is insurance business.
Isn't it it is too early to tell? It will officially start on Oct 1.
As that equals death to me, you can take a hike!
Too bad for you and the crooks behind Socialized medicine scam.
Health care in the UK costs about 9% of GDP and covers everybody.
Health care in the USA costs about 16% of GDP and does not cover everybody!
Who is scamming who?
Nobody wants to talk about that. I've tried.
Lol, these discussions are funny. Always the same stuff, nobody is ever willing to actually take a step back and look at things.
You do not have the amount of people in the UK that America has. Also, you can go to any hospital in America and not be turned down.
America has the best doctors, facilities and medical schools. Even ARMY doctors are great.
He is talking percentage of GDP population is irrelevant to that measure.
You can go to any hospital in the UK and not only not be turned down but also not be charged afterwards.
Best doctors? Prove it none of the available evidence indicates that, most seems to suggest it is Finland or Germany.
We also have lower levels of doctor and care satisfaction than anywhere in the first world, ie. our care is not very good.
I know what he was talking about and don't care.
The same thing applies at U.S. hospitals. You are not turned down for service and get the bill later. I said that already did I not?
Like I said before, the U.S. has the best doctors. I don't attend of being sick and traveling to Germany or Finland. That includes that tropical paradise Cuba either.
Lower levels of doctors and care satisfaction? Explain this.
So your first objection was irrelevant.
Your second statement is the same in Britain but also free and so does not prove your point.
No proof, facts say otherwise.
Surveys on satisfaction with care and the doctors one was cared for by conducted internationally showed the US scored lowest in the first world.
I never asked you to judge if my objections are relevant or not. And frankly, I don't care. Second, I don't have to prove a thing to you.
You have no proof, just a bunch of statements attacking mine. What type of proof is that?
I don't believe anything you say. It would help if you would stop wasting your time. America is the best. America is better than the Uk and will remain that way until the end of time. Get mad and keep posting trash and biased polls so I can laugh some more.
It's a very common situation, I believe John suffered a stroke, many people cannot afford the sort of treatment involved to survive such an event or recover to a dignified state.
As I qouted previously even with health assistance in the US before Obamacare it's estimated about 45 000 people die yearly due to not having coverage.
I'm just surprised, I was under the impression that John was doing quite well.
Here in the US - a stroke is an emergency situation and no hospital emergency room will turn a patient away. No ambulance will refuse to transport and we have the latest technology for quick treatment of stroke to prevent long-term damage.
Oh he would have received initial care but stroke recovery is a long term and costly process (it was for my brother anyway) costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in physio etc.even with insurance most plans don't cover anywhere near that much, until 2014 when they become infinite anyway, so yes the first treatment absolutely, the care required for a a dignified life, probably not.
But yes you are correct, medicare in the US is already somewhat publicly run and it saves millions of lives, the same doom and gloom predictions were made of it too.
I wasn't really talking about Medicare, I was talking about emergency medical care that is available to anyone, even illegals, who walk through ER doors. You're right in that the quality and length of rehabilitation might be affected by the quality of insurance, but those with NO insurance are also treated because they are less of a burden on society if they recover. In my state, indigent patients are referred to local health facilities that treat them and charge them minimal fees, such as $10 per visit, which includes prescription drugs, although not all drugs qualify, but the generics are usually fine.
If the person doesn't even have the $10 fee, it comes out of a kitty provided by local churches and charities.
With Obamacare and the new provider rules, that could all change so the insurers are guaranteed their cut of money.
Even Sebellius said yesterday that the Administration did not foresee how complex this plan would be to implement. It's a failure. Get ready to watch it crash.
Well it isn't free health care .I've paid my share as has every other tax payer.
And yes, I probably be dead by now without unlimited health care.
Well here, it's free for half of the citizens, since they don't pay into the tax system.
Glad you're alive, but both my wife and myself would never want to take from someone else to get treatment for one of us.
In the UK the only way you can avoid paying into the tax system is never to buy anything!
It's no more taking from somebody else than claiming off your car insurance is taking from somebody else. Or indeed claiming off your health insurance in the US!
How do you buy anything and avoid contributing to tax then?
Slice it or dice it any way you wish - we were misled about costs. I'm not saying I'm totally opposed to Obamacare - I'm not. I don't mind paying a little more if it means more people can be covered and get health care. What I resent is being lied to. My premiums have already risen and are scheduled to rise again. The Dems should have just been honest with us and said, "Your premiums might increase a bit, but more people, including children, will now have access to health care."
Yeah, I know. Honest politicians - what a pipe dream!
America is ranked 39th in the world for healthcare quality, and our system is the most expensive by far.
If socialized healthcare isn't the way to go, it's still a hell of a lot better than what we've been doing.
Indeed. In fact most systems in use in other first world companies are demonstrably more effective, and more cost effective.
I agree our current system just plain sucks. I'm just not sure that Obamacare was the correct cure for our healthcare system.
Nobody's sure whether or not Obamacare is the right answer, but at least the issue is on the table.
I truly do not understand the motivation of those so vehemently opposed to getting so many of their fellow Americans onto health insurance.
a) They continue to believe everything the haters on breitbart.com, hotair.com, Fox News et al tell them (death panels!)
b) There is a disproportionate number of health insurance employees on Hub Page
Or they take the idea of liberty and extend it to its ultimate logical conclusion?
It's not very often that you get a statist explicitly lay out their prejudices, but judging from most arguments for Obamacare, you could guess them: opponents are either NUTS (Fox News, Breitbart) or in the pay of some vested interest. If this is really the conclusion you have come to I think you need to do some wider research into why people might oppose any kind of state involvement in health.
Oh, and Obamacare was essentially written by insurance companies to benefit them, and raising premiums continue to support the notion that it does. Imagine a law forcing people to buy products or services from whatever business you work from or own, wouldn't that be awesome?
MightyMom - I'm not so sure everyone is opposed to changes in our healthcare system. Many are opposed to the secrecy behind this plan, and no clear answer on how much it will cost.
It may have been better to look at several possible plans and pick the best one than adopting this plan when much of it is still unknown.
Heaven knows changes are needed, I'm just not sure this plan was the best move we could have made. No citizen I am aware of had any input whatsoever into what this plan would change and make better.
I agree with you, old Poolman.
I do not believe Obamacare as written is the best this country can do for our citizens.
I believe it was a hastily pushed through piece of compromise legislation.
I understand why Obama was in such a hurry to push it through. And I'm glad he did.
There is NO WAY anything close to this would get through the House post 2010!!
As to having citizen input, that's a laugh.
90% of Americans favor gun control and our Congress still will not pass it!
Why would we think Congress would listen?
Anyone who still harbors hope that Obamacare will provide all Americans with healthcare, should read the figures from the CBO. 30 million will be without healthcare, and the lower-middle class will bear the brunt of insuring others.
This is an incredibly bad plan and next year, 2014, expect to see Obama's staunchest supporters turn on him because of this.
Yes some people will remain uninsured by choice, not because they can't afford it but because they don't want it, they will pay a fine which will then cover their medical costs when they get sick and inevitably expect help anyway.
?? I can't afford insurance, and shelled out over $12,000 last year for medical care. Didn't ask anyone else to pay it, though - what is this "inevitably expect help" thing?
Again, ever claimed on your car insurance? Would you count that as "expecting somebody else to pay"?
I meant in a crisis, obviously you were able to pay your bills or at least arrange to pay them, when people are in grave medical situations and cannot the result is ultimately wanting state aid (not that I can fault them for it if it were my life or that of one of my family I am sure I would do the same).
Here's a fun quiz from the Kaiser Family Foundation*
*I imagine you count major insurers and health systems like Kaiser (biggest in the western US) as among those who will turn on Obama in 2014, right?
Yeah, right - there is a problem, so we therefore need to violate people's rights to do something about it, even though we have no idea whether it will work or not. At least the issue is on the table!
No one's rights were violated at all, I know you consider taxation a violation of human rights but that is not a relevant opinion, nothing else about the ACA takes away people's rights. (and before we get "but it makes you buy healthcare!!!1") no it does not, it charges you for not doing so... charges which are in fact not enforced or enforceable to pay for the fact that if you get sick and can't afford the treatment the state will save your life.
Again, Josak, if we are to accept that the property we own is truly ours, taxation has to be considered theft. I know it's a bit awkward but it's the truth.
And that . . . is a distinction without a difference - coercion is still an aggressive action. Even if what you offer me will save my life, give me an incredible sex life and make me exceedingly rich, I still have the right to refuse participation in it. Any other outcome has to be considered aggressive and a violation of individual rights.
Obamacare is trash. I am so happy to hear how states have fought the scam known as "Obamacare."
I really do not care where America is ranked according to healthcare. There is a lot of politics in skewed polls put together by biased Leftists. America's healthcare will be ranked a lot lower the minute more people start to die due to socialized healthcare.
Like has happened precisely nowhere, yeah the facts won't change.
Um, it isn't socialised health care that has suddenly resulted in more deaths, it is the gradual privatisation coupled with the demoralising of staff and also the loss of essential workers in the health service.
Thatcher started the rot by deciding that hospitals should be run like hotels, with maximum bed occupancy, neglecting to think of how a ward that was never emptied could be deep cleaned and where the victims of a disaster or even the effects of a spell of bad weather might be quickly given beds.
If you really believe that more people die as a result of socialised health care, do some research and find that actually fewer people die as a result of socialised health care.
Too much room for abuse in socialized medicine. Take your Liverpool Care Pathway. For some terminal patients it might be helpful, but in the US, doctors actually try to save lives - not help end them.
The abuse of something like that is way too tempting to a country that's feeling the crunch from healthcare funds.
Have you ever been in a UK hospital and watched a crash team try to bring back to life a dead patient? No! I have and it sucks, it removed all dignity from the deceased. I'd have much rather they had been allowed to leave this life in a dignified manner, as the LCP allows.
Our doctors do save lives and furthermore they don't have profit orientated insurance companies to work against.
We aren't feeling the crunch from health care funds (which is just as or even more likely to happen in the USA) we are suffering from dolts who want to dismantle the system we have and replace it with a more inefficient USA style system.
Our system IS inefficient - thanks to the coming Obamacare. But we have the best trauma teams in the world. They don't "bring back" dead patients - but they save valuable lives that can be saved.
Your Liverpool Care Pathway is nothing more than your government playing god and choosing to let some of your people die. Here - we allow the patient and their family to make that very personal choice.
The UK and Europe, in general, have lousy healthcare. Sure, you might have enough to go around - but you don't have near the quality we have. You would like us to have it - misery does love company, but our will be even worse than yours. Ours is intricately tied to lining the pockets of insurance companies - so it will break the bank.
Your LCP is a sham and a shame - choosing who should live.
I'm sure we'll soon have something just as disgusting.
LCP doesn't chose who lives or dies, it accepts that when somebody is dying they should be allowed to die with dignety and respect, not put through intense pain and degradation for a few extra days of "life".
And take a hint from the name, it isn't a government plan, it is one small area only and spoken highly of byfolk who've had relatives under it.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/11November/ … thway.aspx
John, I think this concept is one of those "that's unthinkable" areas of medical care, and I don't believe that's a good thing.
I agree with you that quality of life is much more important than length of life.
Given the rise in popularity of "Living wills" and "Do not resuscitate" orders, it appears others think this way to.
I know, I know, someone is going to ask me, "What if it's YOUR mother or grandmother?" - Guess what - I do not want doctors to subject her/him/them to more stress, and yes, EXPENSE, to possibly add a few more days of consciousness. I would prefer to be by their side as they leave, instead of waiting outside an operating room, or looking down at an unconscious body.
Sometimes, cost is a necessary consideration.
GA (evil guy)
No, cost is never a necessary consideration.
Quality of life (and death) is the only consideration.
I have only witnessed two deaths in my life, one I've already mentioned where we were ejected from the ward whilst bloody great needles were pushed into the corpse to try to revive it and another where we were encouraged to stay by the bedside, hold hands and talk to the person as they died with some totally unobtrusive nursing going on around us.
I know which I would prefer.
OH my God I can't stop.
European healthcare is bad...
Western Europe hands our a** to us in life expectancy, infant mortality, maternal mortality etc. etc. so that is complete rubbish, the only thing we beat Europe in is cancer treatment because we have focused on it so much, everything else of note is worse.
I'm not even sure you beat Europe on cancer treatment!
Doris in the USA is diagnosed with breast cancer in 2003 and finally dies in 2010.
Betty in the UK is diagnosed with breast cancer in 2005 and finally dies in 2010!
Actually I'd rather be Betty.
Western Europe typically beats us by 2-3 years in life expectancy. That's fairly significant, but not amazing.
Is that increased life expectancy because of better health care or better, more healthful choices? Americans are pretty well known for the size of their waistline and the greasy, fatty foods they eat. Aren't heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and many other diseases widely prevalent among people who eat this way? Our healthcare system is the best in the world, though too expensive. We do not live as long, because we do not take care of ourselves. It's not because our healthcare system doesn't work as well as Western Europe's system.
On what do you base your claim that US health care is the best in the world?
Numerous sources can be found on both sides of this issue, to be fair. My statement was too vague and fails to say that we get beat in some areas of medicine, and we win in many others. Generally, we have the best system, though it is way too expensive. Here's one site that quotes other sources:
http://www.redstateupdate.com/profiles/ … ca-has-the
My larger point was that you can't really compare two different areas of the world and say that one has better healthcare than another because people live longer there. There are other factors that must be looked at, such as lifestyle. Americans eat poorly and exercise very little, yet we tend to live almost as long as people who take better care of themselves. Josak fails to consider this. That was my primary point.
But that's exactly what you did - compare two different areas and say one was better than the other!
You don't think diet and exercise are part of health care. What are they then? Surely that is the crux of health care - a fit and properly fed population otherwise you are arguing for sickness care rather than health care!
And of course this should apply to all the population, not just the priveledged so the expense of your system shold knock it straight off the top spot.
I don't believe you can mandate a healthful diet through legislation. Doctors tell patients to lose weight, eat responsibly, and exercise. Teachers expound upon this in class. The government pushes it in programs, on the radio, and on television. It seldom happens in America; Americans know that their lifestyle is bad for them, but they choose to live that way. Our obesity issues are a lifestyle choice, not a condemnation of our healthcare system. We don't listen to our doctors, and we, not our medical system, are to blame for that choice. Then, we don't match up to Western Europe's life expectancy, and our healthcare system gets blamed and compared. What a farce.
Do you really feel that Obamacare is going to make Americans start eating better and start exercising? If Americans ate better and exercised more, it’s a pretty good bet that we’d have a much longer life expectancy. Does anybody doubt that?
Yup countries who made public healthcare universal saw falls in the rates of unhealthy behaviors including obesity, doctors can get involved with creating diet plans for their patients and can be asked about what they should be doing, having that guidance from an authority figure apparently helps many people.
Zimbardo and Milgram have an interesting experiment that demonstrates just how far people will go to follow the instructions of a doctor who sets a concise set of instructions, it is no coincidence that the poor have much less access to medical care and are far more likely to be obese.
Not to mention that having undiagnosed and untreated diseases like the extremely common hypothyroidism contribute to obesity.
If you think Americans will overwhelmingly eat better because of Obamacare, you are wrong. The government mandates healthful food in school lunches, and it's a massive failure. Children just don't eat the lunch, and millions and millions of pounds of food are wasted.
Millions of Americans may not directly eat better because of Obamacare.
Although millions may, for the first time, be exposed to education about a healthy diet.
And, because they will have access to healthcare, they will not wait until a problem becomes chronic or is too far gone to treat (e.g., amputation for diabetes, open heart surgery for heart problems).
Obamacare itself cannot change the fact that unhealthy, fast food is much easier and cheaper to
get than healthy food. You live in a city. You have a famly of 4. You have $10.
What are you going to choose -- two heads of lettuce, half a pound of tomatoes and some dressing? Or 4 combo meals off the $1 menu at the drive thru?
Eating in the car is an American phenomenon.And it's only a few generations old (we certainly didn't do it when I was young).
We won't even get into the obscene amounts of corn and sugar "hidden" in all the processed foods
(excuse me, "convenience" foods) in all the center aisles of your grocery store.
And given that President Obama gives all poor people cell phones (this is verifiable, right?), he probably gives them 55" flat screeens too. So very little chance of people unplugging from their passive entertainment/info sources.
So in short, do we expect Obamacare to cure every American ill and bad habit?
But it's a much needed start.
We also source things like maternal mortality which are largely unaffected by lifestyle choices and are directly focused on quality of medical care.
We have 21 deaths in childbirth per 100 000 compared to 7 in Australia and Norway and even as low as 5 in Finland or 4 in Sweden. Less than 20%!!!
Edit: Forgot to post a source
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … 3rank.html
Yes, we all know that socialism is your goal. For me, I just want the government to take a small part of my income and provide things I can't do by myself, such as a military. As for the rest, I don't need some bureaucrat to take the majority of my money and then claim that he/she spent it in a way that benefits me more.
So when you lose your point about results you change the argument, how surprising, my point was (and I proved it) that the results are better, as for what you want that is something else entirely. You are obviously content with the deaths of hundreds of thousands for your "right" to not give bureaucrats some money.
Just as you can't provide protection for US citizens from foreign invasion you can also not provide healthcare for the protection of US citizens from epidemics, disease and injury.
What an obtuse statement! I lost because you say it's so? Achtung comrade! The debate evolved. I've seen your arguments digress just as readily. Your statements, and logic, are absurd. You’re off your game today.
It’s typical of the left to turn this into an emotional plight against those uncompassionate conservatives. Yes, I yearn for the “deaths of hundreds of thousands.” You must be smoking some kind of government-provided, medicinal marijuana. What kind of logic is that?
What on earth does your “foreign invasion” statement have to do with Obamacare and socialized healthcare? You have the gall to say that I change the topic?
The outcome of not having public healthcare, which is what you want, is tens of thousands of deaths yearly that is what I was referring to. (45 000 yearly just due to being unable to afford insurance according to Harvard study and that is just the beginning.)
In the comment I was responding to you mentioned you wanted the governemnt to take care of things like the military which you cannot do yourself, the latter part of my comment was a response to that.
Before getting all confused maybe you should read the comment it was responding to.
The only thing I am confused about is how you can be so wrong. Talk about spin?
With all due respect, I have only challenged whether or not our health system is responsible for obesity. I believe the responsibility lies with the person putting the food in his/her mouth.
Then, I have stated that our life expectancy is skewed by our (America's) lifestyle of fatty foods and a lack of exercise.
To me, that's not really disputing facts. I have not stated that your facts are wrong, only that they do not take into account our unique circumstances. Thus, comparisons are inaccurate. Does anybody believe that Americans would live longer if they ate like Western Europeans do or exercised like they do? This is a difference in culture, not necessarily a difference in healthcare. That's my point.
Which is why I have presented data on changing rates of bad health behavior with the advent of public care (combined with a psychological experiment to demonstrate why) and it is also why I provided maternal death statistics which are largely independent of lifestyle choices.
I appreciate the effort, really I do. I see your direction. I also know that there are SOME/MANY statistics that clearly show that other countries with entirely different healthcare systems are doing a better job of making sure their citizens are healthy. I do not believe that many of these statistics are fair comparisons, and we've had our discussion about that.
I have a large, ponderous hurdle to overcome. I do not believe that the government is efficient. It taxes and spends. It borrows and spends. Politicians spend without regard for our future. They make promises our country can't afford. Now, we're being asked to pay more for a program that essentially allows the government to take over our healthcare system, a system that isn't that popular. Why would I trust a government that squanders money left and right to manage my healthcare? I do not believe my government is efficient. I do not believe my government can handle its current load, let alone another massive entitlement.
Our government is quite literally less fiscally responsible than Enron. Would you put more money into Enron if it were still around? I would not do so.
But how do you detach lifestyle choices from health care? Arent they inexorably linked?
You admit that a bad lifestyle leads to bad health and yet insist that there is no connection.
My last visit to the US, I stayed in an hotel that was only accessible by car, I visited friends living in suburban areas with no sidewalks or other facilities for walking.
I heard of an English man who went for a walk in the US but after being stopped by the police several times in a few miles and asked why he was walking, gave up and walked no more.
I don't think Obamacare will lead to US citizens living healthier lifestyles. It would take a much more fundamental change than that.
Obamacare or no Obama care you cannot claim to have the best health care system in the world when so many are unhealthy and you cannot absolve the heathcare system either.
They are absolutely linked, but you have to look at who is at fault for our choices. I blame people for making bad health choices. Some people blame our medical system and then say that our medical system is failing. Our people are failing to make good choices; the government and our medical professionals have put forth a dilligent effort to educate Americans on healthful choices.
If a doctor prescribes a medicaion to a patient, and the patient refuses to take the medication, who is at fault if the patient dies? I say it's the patient. You are saying it's the doctor. That's the difference between what we are saying.
Niether the doctor or the patient rather the level of health care that persuaded the patient not to take the medication.
Health care isn't divorced from education either.
I don't buy that one bit. I believe I am responsible for my own decisions once I have been educated and know possible consequences. Anybody, in America, should know that fatty, cholesterol-filled foods will ultimately make you unhealthy. If you make the choice to eat those foods, it's your fault just as much as it's your fault if you don't listen to doctors or at least get a second opinion.
So all conservatives are fit and healthy!
I don't buy that.
ETA this post makes little sense now since EA changed his post!
Actually Red/Conservative states are massively and disproportionately obese and have much poorer health statistics in all areas.
Of course they are. Red states do nothing right. Red states, George Bush, and the sequester are the reason our country is in such bad shape. This is your argument? Republicans are fat and unhealthy? Josak, you can do better.
. . .and now you've lost all credibility. I am a conservative, but I would never say that blue states do nothing right, or that they are the cause of all our problems. If you really think that, it's not even worth debating. Josak, I'm quite confident that the majority of people within this forum would say that you have lost the argument, as extremist statements like this accomplish nothing.
I was referring to my own statement, not yours, about the health of red states.
That's fair. You did, however, reply to my statement, so I was a bit bewildered by such an extremist view. Now, I know that wasn't what you intended. Please disregard my derogatory tone in the previous post.
Yes, all of us are fit and healthy. That's exactly what I said. Seriously? I am responsible for my own actions, good or bad.
I found the coments particularly interesting, and generally not too supportive.
From experience I cast aside some of his claims.
Doctors have protested the LCP because patients who should not be on it - were put on it. In the US, we call that "murder."
There are a lot of factors that go into determining lifespan, including violent deaths. We have a lot of those in gangland areas. Doesn't really reflect healthcare stats, but nice try.
The UK still thrashes our system both for cost and life expectancy, healthcare in the UK costs less less than a quarter of what it does here. As I understand it your system is slightly underfunded... and still kicking ours all around the park.
We have 45 000 die yearly just from not being able to afford care, that does not even begin to count the tens on tens of thousands killed by insurance companies penny pinching. I am pretty sure whatever you guys have going on does not compare.
I can't believe that given your age, Innersmiff, you are still so naive. DO you honestly believe that men who have no other motivation than profit, would honestly want to improve services for the patients within the NHS, when they can make so much capital from shorts shrifting them?
Here is what the article says in the gray box (gray for GRAY area, perhaps?)
The secretary’s remarks are among the first direct statements from federal officials that people who have skimpy health plans right now could] face higher premiums for plans that are more generous. …
“These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” she said. “But we feel pretty strongly that with subsidies available to a lot of that population that they are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”
Yeah. She's really backing away from Obamacare in a big way.
But I can't deny that some people's premiums will rise.
In fact, my husband's premiums have already increased 100%.
From 0 -- uninsurable in the pre-Obamacare insurance market -- to finally having health insurance.
It is not FREE. It is not subsidized by any company's group plan.
He pays a monthly premium, copays, deductible and everything.
Thank you, Mitt Romney, for paving the way for this long overdue legislation!
30 million without health care, some of whom have it now but their employers are cutting back their hours so they can avoid paying it.
In California, some insurers have already DOUBLED their premiums.
This bill is a farce and it will fail. The only question left is how many will suffer because of it.
2014 is the year the American people will turn against Obama for this mess.
Lies and more lies, the ACA according to the CDC will more than halve the number of uninsured, those who are left are those who are willingly choosing not to buy healthcare not those who cannot afford it.
As for the doom and gloom predictions we are all quite inured to the conservative fear mongering from: "the army will collapse with the end of don't ask don't tell" to "Obama will destroy the economy" and yet here we are with a functioning army and a growing economy.
Not a single country has ever repealed it's public healthcare laws except to replace them with a more public system, Obama care may well need tweaking but that is all.
This is for Mighty Mom. it has nothing to do with our fellow Americans, did you miss the CNN and MSNBC reporting that 30 million ILLEGALS would get health care too? It is comments like yours that boil my blood since you just showed your true liberal colors, and no I don't go to an of the channels you listed or websites either. I don't have Cable as it is so full of liberal trash. Liberals just don't think things through. When you are illegal you are not American, you are not paying taxes, you are not following the laws. So, as a hard working stay at home father, why should I pay for the healthcare of a illegal alien or their offspring?
Care to prove this claim, sounds life trash to me. Do some illegals get healthcare? I am sure some manage to sneak in with false documents or however (not in numbers enough to be significant) but the ACA only covers citizens.
Josak - Visit any hospital ER and you will see the numbers of illegals getting free health care. It is against the law for the hospital to ask to see their documents, or to turn them away. In my part of the country, they use the ER as primary care and get the needed treatment.
They don't have to sneak in, they are guaranteed this care at no expense to them by our own laws.
I'm not saying we should deny care for anyone who is seriously ill or injured. I'm just telling you the reality of what goes on. Will this change when Obamacare kicks in? Will hospitals still be required to treat these non-documented persons with no insurance?
They sneak into the country where the mother bears a child at no cost to them. And then, the baby is automatically a citizen of this country?
Do you see anything at all wrong with this?
Do they hold up flags saying "I am an illegal immigrant"
John - An entire family with no form of ID at all is almost the same as holding up the flag you describe. Unless you have spent a few hours sitting in one of our emergency rooms observing, you could not possibly know what really goes on.
Even if they did declare themselves to be illegals, they would get the needed care and not be turned into the Border Patrol..
You are absolutely correct.
That is exactly how illegals get their health care. At the ER. The most expensive and least appropriate
setting for non-emergency care.
It's the only place they can go unless there happen to be free community clinics in the area.
In working on the market analysis I posted the link to above, one of the most shocking statements I read (from focus group participants) was how they shop around different ERs based on the wait time!!
Meanwhile, my then uninsured 19-year-old son went to the ER in Colorado, where he basically refused treatment. The bill was $2,300 which I was able to negotiate down to $1,800.
How much do you think that bill was inflated to cover a portion of the hospital's charity care?
A friends adult daughter was drug addicted and chronically unemployed. She was eligle for free medical up to and including a heart transplant if it had been required.
Her parents put her through drug rehab many times, and the last time actually worked. She then found a job in a restuarant where they offered the bare minimum health care plan that she paid into out of her pay.
She needed some minor knee surgery and her portion of the cost after the insurance paid their part was $13,000. With her minimum wage job it will take her the rest of her life to pay this off.
Try convincing her that it is better to be a productive member of society than it was to be drug addicted with totally free healthcare paid for by other patients and taxpayers. It would be a hard sell.
Why should anyone be disincented from being a productive member of society?
Or have to choose between working and getting needed medical care?
Or working for themself and maybe not qualifying for health insurance and working
for a big employer just so they have that benefit?
That, to me, is the antithesis of FREEDOM.
I am a strong advocate and always have been for taking the employer out of it.
And yet you are still opposed to socialised medicine!
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that in the land of the free you had to carry ID!
John - Most legal citizens of this country have at leasr Social Security card and a drivers license. This being the land of the Free as you put it, carrying ID is not required unless you happen to be driving.
I'm sure they do it much differently where you live and everything you do must be better than the way we do it.
I'm really glad you are in love with the system in place for you. We would rather fix a broken system than just automatically force a system on every citizen of the country. You will notice I used the word citizen.
I'm curious why someone who doesn't even live here is so critical of these matters? Could it be you just love socialism and would like the entire world to see things the way you do?
No, just differently. I just happen to think that our system gives me a lot more freedom than yours would.
The USA has more influence on my life than any other country outside the UK. Do you think I should just absorb this influence without question? Be a good little servant of the USA?
John - We all have the right to live most anywhere we want to, and you made your choice to stay in the UK. That is great because you love it there. As far as your system giving you more freedom than ours would give, I guess that depends on your definition of freedom. I'm not sure what freedoms you refer to.
Good luck with shaping how things are done in the USA. Our own citizens don't have much input or influence on this anymore. Our President is a fan of the way things are done in other parts of the world and is steering us in that direction.
Well one freedom that ranks quite highly is the freedom from worry about the implications of major illness and its impact on my and my family's financial situation.
I don't for one minute think I can influence USA policy, do you think that means I should just give up on trying to understand it?
John, That is an excellent freedom you enjoy. Perhaps one day we too will enjoy that same freedom, but it will take a long time and require many changes. Obamacare was intended to do just that, but it was a plan that was hastily put together without a great deal of thought on the negatives that come with the plan. Had it been done with well researched data to include input from persons in the medical field, and implemented in phases, it could have worked.
Your correct, one serious illness or injury in this country will financially destroy a family. Not a good situation and it needs to be changed.
No, you and we should never give up on trying to change USA policy or even trying to understand it. Our government was designed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, meaning the citizens had some input into how things would be done. This has changed over the years, and now other than the right to vote, we have very little say in what changes are made. Massive corruption and power struggles have replaced what was intended to be a peoples government.
The original theory was great, worked for awhile, and has been nearly destroyed by greed and corruption because humans are involved. It is still a great place to live, but could be so much better.
It was a democrat's idea that we carry identification cards. You want to know who everyone is without people stealing your identity correct?
It is a no-brainer.
They should along with a law not rewarding behavior done by illegals.
This is the United States - we do not let people die who come to our Emergency Rooms for help. Illegals know that - that's why they come. We will continue to do this - but now - we will do more. Various states are approving the Medicaid expansion for illegals.
http://standwitharizona.com/blog/2013/0 … tion-plan/
That means - the Americans who can't afford to pay their own premiums, but are not in a category (or state) where they get Medicaid, will have to pay a penalty.
That penalty will go to pay for those on Medicaid - like the illegals.
This plan is very possibly the worst social health plan in the civilized world.
The ACA does not fund medicare, they are separate, as for not letting illegals (or anyone for that matter) die in emergency rooms by refusing care I can't say it's a very frightening prospect you are presenting, god forbid we show some human decency particularly to the innocent children of illegals who have done nothing at all wrong.(Oh the horror).
Believe it or not we don't turn anybody away from our emergancy rooms!
And beleive it or not because we don't discriminate and are much closer to Europe than you are we get none residents, not even illegal residents, coming to take advantage of our health care facilities.
I agree your health plan is about the worst in the western world.
That is not the ACA it is not affected by the ACA so it is utterly irrelevant to this conversation.
Actually I am quite sure that there are not even 30 million illegals in the whole country, the estimates seem to put it at 10 to 11 million. Maybe you should get mad less and think more.
You also have to consider that the vast majority of immigrant children want to assimilate into the culture because they consider the United States to be their home.
Correct Cody - The problem with this is the additional burdeon these instant citizens place on our financial aid AKA welfare systems. They are immediately eligible by virtue of the fact they were born on US soil.
Right, I can appreciate that....but, if they are born on US soil, they are citizens. Therefore, we can't begrudge THEM for something that they didn't choose. Blame the parents if you have to blame or look to someone as the cause of the issue.
Cody - Who in the world said anything about blaming the child.
The parents enter the country illegally, go to a state of the art hospital for the wife to bear the child at the expense of other patients and taxpayers, and the child is automatically a citizen?
And you are able to translate that scenario into someone blaming the child? Could you explain that so that this old brain of mine can understand how you think all of that is OK?
Except that they are very profitable, first generation immigrants have some of the highest employment numbers of any demographic in the country, they work really hard, so that is complete trash.
Sorry your blood is boiling. It's really not that emotional of an issue.
Fact: Taxpayers are already paying for (or subsidizing) health care for illegal immigrants who get free
care in emergency rooms.
Are you sure you are not confusing health CARE with health INSURANCE?
http://houston.cbslocal.com/2012/12/14/ … mmigrants/
Liberals just don't think things through? I'm not the one with boiling blood!
Actually, I have spent quite a bit of time (like three solid months) thinking about Obamacare -- including its impact on illegal immigrants and other low-income citizens.
You see, here in the Central Valley of California (major ag area) we have a lot of them.
I worked on this market analysis and strategic plan last summer:
Yup. Me and those other damned liberals like Kaiser Permanente, Sutter Health System, UC Davis Medical System, as well as a whole bunch of doctors -- not thinking through the problem.
Mighty Mom, remember Liberals live in their own warped world.
To them, it is a good thing. Liberals have no real moral compass other than taking perverted things and trying to make them sane.
You mean like how Liberals came up with the minimum wage, 40-hour work week, and safe working conditions?
Yeah, those are really perverted.
Henry Ford came up with the 40 hour work week. And how do you know that Liberals were the ones who came up with safe working conditions? More make believe on your part to give modern day perverts credit.
"Henry Ford came up with the 40 hour work week."
Henry Ford came up with the assembly line and universal parts, not the 40-hour work week.
It wasn't until 1905 that industries began implementing the eight hour work day on their own accord. One of the first businesses to implement this was the FORD MOTOR COMPANY, in 1914, which not only cut the standard work day to eight hours, but also doubled their worker’s pay in the process.
To the shock of many industries, this resulted in Ford’s productivity off of these same workers, but with fewer hours, actually increasing significantly and Ford’s profit margins doubled within two years after implementing this change.
This encouraged other companies to adopt the shorter, eight hour work day as a standard for their employees.
Finally, in 1937 the eight hour work day was standardized in the United States and regulated by the federal government according to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
It stipulated that workers were not to work more than 44 hours per week and any hours over 40 required of the worker were to be paid with overtime bonuses added to their normal pay rate.
Like I said before, Henry Ford came up with the 40 hour work week.
New Zealand under it's socialist government had mandatory 40 hour workweeks by 1840 so no.
before Ford was BORN.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7 … the-wicked
Simple, safe working conditions are liberal in concept so whoever introduced them was being liberal.
Ever heard of labor unions?
Would they be liberal or conservative?
Jesus was a liberal. Of course, that was years before the term "moral compass" was invented
by narrow-minded people who will never need a compass because they are terrified to travel outside
their teeny tiny little safe circle of self-righteous superiority.
Jesus is....not was......and he is not a label of anything.
The Democrats don't get to own him nor do the Republicans.
Think differently all you will. You get to talk with him about it later.
Who said he was a label?
How would you describe him then if you don't agree that he was liberal in regards to men?
I am not going to make that kind of error and calling him anything...liberal or conservative IS an error.
You want to make that mistake be my guest.
Why is it an error?
Is it because in your heart you know he was a liberal and you can't stomach that?
Because I know better than to label him.
Hubris makes you think he's your good buddy.
He's not the mascot of either ideology and it would behoove people to realize that.
Jesus was no Liberal. He did not marry gays and lesbians either.
Jesus was here to save SOULS.
Mighty Mom - I actually lived in California for many years, and had Kaiser Permanente as my health care provider. Like all of them, they were not perfect, but they were darn good. My wife even worked for Kaiser, and if they were available here in Arizona I would probably choose them over what I have now.
Kaiser is very innovative. Of all the health systems in that project they were lightyears ahead.
Do tons of research studies. Have great programs (wellness and disease prevention as well as condition treatment. Their chemical dependency program is aces).
I love the HMO model -- no reimbursements from third-party insurers. Easy.
Not sure when you left CA but Kaiser was one of the first systems to go to EMRs.
Everything is computerized. Any provider can look at your chart in seconds.
You can email your doctor, look up lab results and appts online.
I hope they expand to AZ!! I don' t know what governs what markets they go into!
I have often thought about going to work there. I would save a ton on premiums (I have individual plan. Ouch!)
Mighty Mom - I left California about 15 years ago, and now like you I have an individual plan that covers basically nothing.
I really have no complaints at all about the Kaiser HMO system. They had a fairly high turnover in doctors, and hired many doctors from India, Egypt, and other places. They were very knowledgeable when it came to medicine, but spoke very little and poor English. It was sometime difficult to communicate your needs to the doctor.
Perhaps they don't want to open facilities outside CA, or it has to do with the invisible state line barrier that affects all healthcare insurance companies.
If they would come to Arizona, I would sign up with them without another thought. At one point, they hired a pharmacist who's only job was to review patient records and find out what drugs each patient was taking. He was horrifed at the combination of drugs some of the older patients were putting in their bodies. In some cases, prescriptions had been changed but the patient didn't understand they were supposed to stop taking the previous drug so were taking both.
If Obamacare would provide a service as good as Kaiser I would be 100% in favor of the new system. However, I have my doubt's that any government run agency will even come close. The post office is a classic example of that statement.
If you ever get the opportunity to go to work for Kaiser, do it. They are a great company to work for. My wife left because we moved or she would have stayed until retirement.
I think what we need to do now is look at Obamacare and see where we can continue to make improvements.
I can see how the system isn't yet "perfect", but I think that the framework put in place advances our healthcare system greatly. Now it is time for everyone to seek improvements to the system instead of claiming that somehow this will destroy America and waste time repealing something that will never be repealed.
I find it interesting that people are complaining about the AHA before it has even been fully implemented. I also find it interesting that people don't seem to realize that the AHA as it now stands is only the beginning of a plan that will be refined and improved as time goes on. While people like to call Sebelius and others "liars", they don't seem to realize that neither she nor the government can control what the medical pharmaceutical and equipment providers are charging for their products, and that cost increases will continue until some new laws are passed.
Everybody says "oh, they're hiding the truth"...etc...when actually, the entire plan is right there for everybody to see on whitehouse.gov. Why don't you whiners take the time to READ THE DETAILS? Nobody ever said the AHA would provide free medical care, and to think this is ludicrous. And as far as insuring illegals, etc...the law of the land requires hospitals to take care of anybody who comes to the ER. However, if you've ever really been sick, you know that ER visits are only one part of the level of care many people need...illegals and others are not getting the rest. Pharmacies do not give meds away, doctors do not work for free, blood tests, etc. cost plenty...these people are not getting those services. Yes, we all pay for their ER visits, and we were doing that prior to the AHA. In fact, that is one of the reasons it exists because it is trying to stop the ER visits as much as possible. Ten years from now all of us will be happy that the AHA exists, and it is not, by the way, "socialized medicine". Those who say that do not understand that term. Beginning January 2014 the full plan kicks in, and from that point on, you will be able to see its results. So stop putting the cart before the horse and give things time to level out.
TT2- you must be from another time and place if you really believe all that. I have read a good portion of that bill, something that very few dom, ad I hate it, it is something that a dictator would shove down our throats...oh wait never mind. Obamacare takes away a lot more than it gives. If you want healthcare, get off your duff get a job and pay for it yourself....Why should I pay for your healthcare when I have no say in your health?
Oh you read "a good portion" good for you you are "really" on the ball.
Takes away what exactly?
For several reasons #1 Prevents the spread of disease, if someone can't get treatment they remain contagious which means you and your family can get sick as a result.
#2 Moral duty, if you are comfortable with the fact that 45 000 people die yearly in the US for lack of healthcare you are very different to me.
#3 Massive economic cost, if a person is sick and does not get treatment they will miss work, if a person dies from lack of treatment the economy loses their abilities and often has to care for their family.
#4 Crime, people who need money to afford treatments often turn to crime for the money which costs all of society.
etc. etc. etc.
Josak - You are obviously a learned expert and believer in Obamacare. Rather than constantly defending Obamacare, why don't you use your knowledge to sell it to us?
You would of course have to be fair and show both the Pros and Cons of the thousands of pages of text including those that have nothing to do with healthcare.
You would be doing us all a favor if you could do that. I would love knowing that Obamacare is not a monster that is going to eat this country until it is completely gone.
Liberals are the modern day perverts. I will come up with a hub to explain why and when they regressed into madness.
bn9900: FYI...you already were paying for the healthcare of other people prior to the existence of the AHA, or in all of your intense research did you somehow miss that fact! FYI...I have spent a huge amount of time researching Obamacare. I was at it long before it ever got to the point of being voted in. As I said, it is far from perfect, but at least it gives us a framework upon which to build. I have already seen many positives that have come about because of Obamacare: for example, the simple fact that doctors are not required to electronically submit prescriptions will save 7000 lives annually. Josak is spot on with his comments and as for Marquis: what makes you think people are "liberals" just because they disagree with your own views! That is a pretty harsh judgment. Furthermore, referring to anybody on this or any other forum as a "pervert" is against the TOS. Do you want to be banned from HP? If not, tone it down, my friend. This is still America and we all are still entitled to our own views without somebody abusing us for having them!
The Left will always hide their hideous agenda somewhere. I feel sorry for older people because they are going to die in the streets wrapped inside a blanket.
Like has happened precisely nowhere in all the countries that have instituted such systems, all of which have seen rising life expectancy and all of the first world one's have longer life expectancies than the US.
It will happen in the U.S.
They will roll back the filthy Socialist healthcare. You can keep that filth in Europe and Canada.
It isn't actually socialist health care, it just isn't capitalist.
3.6 rounded to the nearest whole number is 4. Obamacare rounded to the nearest system is socialism.
If that is the case why are so many private insurance companies involved?
Nope there is such a thing as third way mixed economies. Plenty of them in fact.
. . .so you're saying that our government is now more of a mixed government, part capitalist and part socialist? If so, do you believe that much, but not all, of this transition occur during this administration?
It is more leftist government now, with Obama pushing his socialist agenda and then campaigning instead of being a real president. We haven't had one of those for a while. Yes we pay taxes for socialist type services police fire and the like, but when the government starts taking away our rights, like the right to bare arms, government is getting to big. We need to impeach Obama.
And that of course never happens in the capitalist USA!
I agree. America took a large step to the left in the last election. Our country, more than ever, is about big government that provides services that we used to provide for ourselves. It's just an observation. What do you think?
I think that the United States is evolving as it should.
It certainly evolves. Whether or not it is evolving "as it should" is certainly up for debate.
At least from a "how does government handle equality for all" standpoint. Hopefully, 50 years from now there won't be as much of an issue when it comes to "diversity" or the same rights for everyone under the law.
I disagree. I believe you are spewing political correctness.
Disagree in what way? For example, say homosexuals were granted the same right to marry....
Would you disagree because you don't think its equality for all.
Would you disagree because you think that homosexuals are "changing the definition of what a family is" and trying to gain special rights?
I believe that, in many cases, the left feels that special legislation must be enacted to protect certain groups of people, as if, the current legislation isn't enough. If anybody is hurt or killed, there are laws. We don't need to have special laws that say that one group of people deserves more protection than another. That's not equality. Hate crimes? Aren't all violent crimes hate crimes, regardless of who the victim is?
We do not need to have affirmative action. That discriminates against people because of the color of their skin.
That's what I'm talking about.
Alright, I can understand that viewpoint.
Think about this though....if you or your family has just gone through a violent and life-altering event, or has faced discrimination because of their looks or sexual orientation, wouldn't you want to do something to make sure that it doesn't happen again?
Absolutely! Current laws address this. New laws, intended to offer additional protection for the few, are not necessary. Killing, hurting, or discriminating against somebody, for any reason, should have dire consequences. We shouldn't say that somebody will have greater consequences if they kill somebody because they are a sexist, racist, or a homophobe. We should simply say that murder or harm, of any person, is wrong and will have significant consequences.
The person in question thinks the U.S. is evolving? So people getting on welfare and waiting in long lines to see an over-worked doctor in Obama-Gondwanaland is evolving?
What planet did YOU come from?
Haha, I love the personal attacks....it means that you have absolutely no debating skills and you most likely believe everything you hear on Fox.
Like the one you gave me on another blog?
Now, will you tell me what planet you are from again?
You consistently blame Fox and other conservative outlets. That seems to be your go-to statement. In case you hadn't heard, the media is typically liberal. Does it really bother you this much that we have a few places where liberal views aren't prevalent?
See, this is what I don't like.
You make this accusation without any context at all.
I don't just spew venom because you quote conservative sources. Typically, I refute your statements because you can't quote a conservative source merely giving a conservative opinion and state it as fact.
Believe me, I don't think you're stupid nor do I believe that conservatives should just go away. However, when people keep saying things like Obama is socialist, the left likes welfare and the left loves the nanny state....it's not true at all and the sources offered as evidence tend to be flawed or just spouting talking points. That's not proof that anything that the author is claiming is true.
On numerous occasions, I have watched your posts discount any source that could be conservative.
I do not believe that democrats are socialists. I believe our president is not a democrat but a socialist. I believe our president was re-elected, because he purchased many votes with entitlements and welfare. I am providing absolutely no sources for this information, so we're good now?
I agree with parts of what you say. It's also not proof that just because it was on Fox it's not true or that it has a conservative bias.
Just say no to socialism.
Let's all send more money to our Enron of a government. That makes sense. It's done such a great job with our money so far. Let's send more!
We don't live in a socialist state.
Your work is done
I didn't say we live in a socialist state. I said that this one aspect of our government is socialized, and I do not believe that our government manages any program efficiently. I also said that people need to take responsibility for their own decisions. Thus, our healthcare program won't be blamed for an American lifestyle, poor diet and a lack of exercise. That's what I said.
As for my work being finished, I'll stop when Obamacare is abolished. As it looks now, that won't ever happen.
Again, we're going to send more money to a government that is less fiscally responsible than Enron. That makes a lot of sense. When was the last time our government didn't owe money, Andrew Jackson? Yeah, I really trust our government to responsibly oversee another massive entitlement program. It has done such a great job in the past. . .
I'm at a loss as to how you can claim to have the best healthcare in the world and yet freely admit that your people are so unhealthy!
I will give him this one point: Being fat isn't exactly something a doctor can fix--maybe temporarily with a gastric bypass or liposuction, but sometimes fat people will just forever be fat.
But healthcare is a little more involved than "what the doctor can fix".
Do you really think that doctors aren't telling their patients to eat properly and exercise? Patients seldom follow that advice. Talk to doctors, and you'll hear that complaint all the time. Instead, we put patients on statin drugs, blood pressure medications, insulin, and so many other medications, because patients refuse to take the advice of their doctors. There is only so much a doctor can do. Doctors can't follow patients around, taking donuts out of their mouths and forcing them to exercise. People are responsible for their own choices. Blaming many of those poor decisions on our healthcare system is ludicrous at best.
I'll liken this to a classroom. Let's say you have a truly great teacher who has a horrible student, a student who doesn't come to school, abuses drugs, has an attitude, and really hates school. Is it the teacher's, student's, or school's fault if the student fails? I believe it is the student's fault, perhaps the parents' too, but not the system's. You are blaming America's bad lifestyle choices on our doctors, hospitals, and healthcare system. I say it's really the people who are at fault, not our system.
The same argument is often made about our banking crisis. So many people want to blame George Bush, politicians, and the banks. That's fine. They own a lot of the blame. When, however, do we also blame our citizens for getting in over their heads, for taking loans that were too much?
John, American's are unhealthy because they have choices and more opportunities to choose unhealthy foods. That has nothing to do with healthcare. Who in their right mind would want to live in a nation that dictated what (or how much) a person could eat? Here in the US, the biggest problem for those living in poverty - is obesity. Even our poor have more than your average citizen has.
You might like the collective mentality that takes care of you from cradle to grave, but we prefer freedom. If that means making poor diet choices, so be it.
Our medical care is still better than any in the rest of the industry world.
Having choices and choosing unhealthy food is as much about healthcare as washing properly or avoiding dangerous places.
Obesity is becoming a problem for those living in poverty not because of plenty but because cheap food is heavily laden with fat and sugar.
Good health care does not impinge on freedom, it strengthens it, how can anybody in poor health be considered more free than somebody in good health?
Your health care is not available equally to all either. Sure, if you have lots of money you can probably buy the best healthcare in the world but without all that money you don't stand a chance.
Take off your blinkers, throw off this idea that anything the US does is by definition the best in the world and really look around you.
And what on earth has the "collective mentality" got to do with anything? Unless of course it is the collective mentality that says "le't be fit and healthy".
We simply disagree. When a person smokes, he/she chooses to make a poor choice. That message has been clear. Smoking causes cancer. I know of nobody, including children in elementary schools, who don't know that smoking is bad for you. When a person chooses to ignore this information, it is their responsibility, not the healthcare system's responsibity. You'll never get me to think otherwise. I believe in personal responsibility.
What has personal responsibility to do with health care? Would you take out your own appendix or hand over your personal responsibility to an expert?
It means, you shouldn't expect to be able to smoke, drink, and eat at McDonalds every day of your life, then get the same healthcare for the same cost as people who exercise, eat healthy, and treat their bodies well.
In other words, your health care isn't as good as in other countries where health care is not dependent on lifestyle.
Way to ignore all human medical knowledge. Simply put, the more bad things you do to your body, the more bad problems you are going to have. Trying to treat or fix those problems costs money, so the more bad stuff you do to your body the more money will have to be spent fixing it.
If someone wants to screw up their body, why should other people have to pay for it?
If you smash up your car and a few others, why should you expect others to pay for it?
Lol, arguing against your own point again?
Universal healthcare forces people to pay for other peoples' car wrecks.
I do realize what you are saying, and what you are saying, if you could understand it, is an argument for my side. Just like you said, I don't expect someone else to pay for the car wreck I caused.
Sorry, I didn't realise you had $5 million at your disposal.
I didn't say I did. You're very talented at creating straw man arguments.
No, but you said you wouldn't expect others to pay. $5 million sounds a reasonable sum for public liability insurance, and your insurers would only pay out if you were at fault!
Lol John. If I buy car insurance, and get in a wreck, I'm 'covering it' by having insurance. Sorry if I confused you by saying I would pay for it, it's pretty common terminology over here. I'll pay for it. I'll take care of it. My insurance plan(notice the 'my' part) will cover the expenses.
I have insurance, so if I cause a wreck, I can pay for the damages, rather than forcing an innocent person to do so.
Why won't you answer my question? It's very rude. I've answered yours.
And likewise our health insurance covers us, but covers us from birth to death.
Yet a universal rate means that innocent people have to pay for guilty people.
People who live a healthy life subsidize the costs of those who live unhealthy lives.
That's where it's different from car insurance. With car insurance, if you drive dangerously and get into wrecks, you're not going to get the same insurance for the same price as someone who drives safely.
Healthcare should be the same way. People who live 'safely' should be able to get better rates than people who live 'dangerously'. that's the personal responsiblity part.
But people are all different, some live a dangerous life and never have a days illness or accident. Others never step on cracks and develop cancer.
So you would rather that the people who try to live safely pay the same as the people who knowingly jeopardize their own health?
And again, why won't you answer my question? Do you just think you are above having an equal conversation?
So you'd deprive children and the elderly of health care because they didn't contribute as much as somebody at the height of their earning power!
I've told you, I've lost track of what it is that you want me to answer.
Are you too helpless to click back a page? Or read my question any one of the three times I have asked it?
And, you did it again. I said nothing like what you seem to think I've said. I'm very sorry that reading and comprehension are so difficult for you.
Also, you didn't answer my question. Again. Why do you ignore so many of my questions?
Are you joking? You're quite literally saying that I am not responsible for my own health, the healthcare system is? I own part of the responsibility for the foods and drugs I put into my body. I own part of the responsibility for my own exercise. I absolutely would not do surgery on myself. Are you really missing the point by that much? This is absurd even if it is sarcasm.
No, I'm saying exactly the opposite - that we, not anybody else, are responsible for our own health and that an unhealthy nation can not claim to have the best healthcare in the world when ultimately each of us is responsible for our own health and too many of us are unhealthy.
By that thinking, you are saying that the best healthcare would have control over its people, such that it could force them to eat well and exercise. If that's the case, then I would rather not have the best healthcare system. Again, I believe in freedom, not government control.
No, I'm saying that the best healthcare system would be controlled by the people who use it, not the shareholders.
How many times do I have to say that?
I think John is the one who has said Americans are obese because our healthcare isn't good enough... someone needs to tell the entire medical profession that obesity is caused by expensive doctors, as opposed to, I don't know, fatty foods and what not.
Another one who doesn't get it!
Health care doesn't begin and end with doctors, as EA and others keep saying, you do have some personal responsibility for your own health care.
Yup, and Americans generally don't take responsibility for their own healthcare. They aren't obese because our healthcare system is expensive. They are obese because they eat too much, they don't exercise, etc.
It's a reflection on Americans, not our healthcare system.
The fact that there are unhealthy people is a reflection on your health care.
Like I said, in your mind, healthcare causes obesity.
No, but lack of proper health care does cause obesity.
Ok, PLEASE find me a peer-reviewed medical study showing that lack of healthcare causes obesity!!!!
Lol John. You're too funny.
I would have thought it was so obvious as to need no peer reviewed medical study.
Well it's not... it's really, really bad logic, to say that lack of a cure causes the illness.
Let's say you get a viral illness, and I have a cure for that. If I refuse to give it to you, did I cause the illness?
No, you didn't cause that illness but I'd call that pretty bad health care.
Thank you. You have finally agreed with logic.
Lack of giving you the cure did not cause the viral illness. The virus did.
Lack of healthcare does not cause obesity. Diet/exercise habits do.
Can you follow that? Can you admit that lack of healthcare doesn't cause obesity?
I never claimed that lack of health care caused obesity, but that obesity is a symptom of bad health care.
What is it like living in your world?
Right... I guess it must be nice to ignore logic and reality.
Can you admit that you did say that lack of healthcare causes obesity? Or is that just part of your world, ignoring reality?
Lack of health care and obesity are linked. Twist that whoever much you like.
So, you can't admit that you said lack of healthcare causes obesity, even though ANYBODY can just click the following link and see it?
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/111041? … ost2368709
Lack of health care and obesity are linked.
I'm sorry if I upset your pedantic little mind by suggesting it was caused by it.
Lol, suggesting. No, you said it. You said lack of healthcare causes obesity.
Still denying fact, lol. How can you deny that you said what you said, when I linked to it and quoted it?
Are you just a troll, or can you really not understand simple sentences?
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-pre … d-obesity/
Just throwing it out there for discussion
Yes, I know there are more factors to obesity, but acting like diet and exercise have nothing to do with it is asinine.
EDIT: also, genes change over time, and we are just beginning to scratch the surface in how that all plays a part.
I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm just saying that some people may need more than just diet and exercise to maintain a healthy weight.
Yeah, some might, which is why I'm all for merit-based insurance plans.
Think of it this way. Wearing a helmet on your motorcycle might save your life. Or it might not. But either way, someone who always wears their helmet should get insurance for less than someone who never does.
John, I understand that you're quite happy to have your govt. care for you. That's okay. I expect it's a result of the culture in which you grew up. But, you need to understand that Americans are used to making their own choices and they value that over being told what to eat, how much to eat, and when to eat. Americans are typically more risk-taking than those in other countries as well, not everyone, obviously, but as a whole.
We want more out of life. We don't think a life is as full as it can be if we simply follow others rules and never take chances. When our health stats and mortality rates are higher because we eat what we want - we play a bit too hard and we take risks, that's our business.
One interesting thing - we have cubans and Mexicans willing to die to come here. The reverse is not true. Cuba has a higher health rating - but you'll not see American's risking their lives to go there.
That's because there's so much more to life than living in a nation with good health statistics. I suppose if you don't have much in the way of goals and interests - that might be enough. For Americans, however, it's not enough. We want so much more out of life.
And we get it.
Yes, this is what I have been saying, only stated better. +1
my government care for me. . .
No, you just don't get it do you?
You know your delusions about the UK are almost as tragic and amusing as your delusions about your own people
Do you really think we are told what to eat, how much to eat and when to eat it! And as for risk taking, you are all so scared of crippling medical bills that you hardly dare breath.
The reason why more of you don't go to Cuba and Mexico is fear and xenophobia. Try it, take a risk. I have a friend who went to teach in Mexico for five years and he didn't want it to end. I have friends who often holiday in Cuba, they can't get enough of it.
And how many US citizens even have a passport, let alone use it to leave the country. Go on,take a chance - come to the UK, you'll be surprised, its exciting and innovative and home to a lot of inventions which you will claim to be US inventions. We have no restrictions on the strength of beer, unlike you, you can even smoke yourself silly if you like, you won't get a tap on the shoulder off a passing policeman.
If you fancy something a little stronger than beer you wont have to go to a government controlled shop to buy it either.
Yes Jaxson, I know what real freedom is, not just what my leaders tell me is freedom
Well, John, first you say the US needs to better monitor its food for health purposes and then you say we restrict the alcohol content in beer. You're wrong about that, actually, Beer alcohol content IS separated by volume, but we can buy very strong beer here as well. Americans typically like the weaker stuff - again, just a choice.
Granted, our medical care bills will now be going up - thanks to Obamacare, but no one's crippled because of it. Many of us have passports and many travel overseas. We go regularly to vacation in Old Mexico, but we don't typically go to Cuba. I think that's the only thing you came close to getting right.
You say you know what freedom is - but you continue to support government programs that restrict freedoms. For all the whining you guys do about the US health system, before this national plan came along - we were doing pretty good. We just happen to have a few brainwashed nuts that think the UK has something worth emulating. It doesn't.
Instead of whining about what the US does, you should be thanking your lucky stars that we took pity on you after WWII, and gave you aid via the Marshall Plan. Never mind that without us during the war - you'd all be speaking German now and your economies might still be in the crapper.
It's poor sport to bite the hand that feeds you, John.
Choose the weaker stuff?! *sigh* I hate my country sometimes
I live in Arizona. Are you aware that many people come from Mexico, often illegally, and enter our emergency rooms for care? Guess who pays? (Insert Josak's statements about how this is the reason we need Obamacare.) America's healthcare system must have something going for it, or these people wouldn't come here for care.
When have I ever said that the US needs to better monitor its food?
Why then are English beers sold in the US only half the strength of the same beer in the UK?
Many of you have passports! Oh really, try this
http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2003 … merica.php
What government programs do I support? I really think you are confusing me with somebody else - that's two statements in one post that claim I do things that I never have done. Try to stick to things that I actually say and believe please.
Er, you didn't give us anything, we finally paid off our debt for your "support" at the tail end of WWII a few years ago. Rather than helping us out, our money helped pull your country out of recession.
And what do you base your idea on that we would have lost the war had you not intervened? You certainly helped shorten it but no evidence that you changed the conclusion. There is plenty of evidence that Hitler was losing the plot and control over his Reich.
You really think that your country feeds us!
England is the fattest nation in Europe. So shut your trap.
Actually, the seeds of this type came about during the 1970s when the New Left infiltrated all aspects of politics. It got worse when Carter came into office.
Reagan tried to turn back the tide but the strings loosened and allowed the once powerful faggot to become a loose disorganized bundle of sticks.
Do you think, as I do, that Carter was a conservative compared to Obama? I know it's hard to call Carter a conservative, but when compared to Obama, I believe he is/was. What do you think?
I agree, people who like big government, just can't even bother to do anything for themselves. All they want are the handouts that someone else is paying for.
And they are hypocrites too. See they love money, but not spending their own. They want everyone else (Big Government, Big Corporations+Rich) to spend theirs instead.
Liberals are on average 7% wealthier than conservatives (primarily because they are almost twice as likely to be college educated) so what that factually means is liberals are voting to create systems to help the poor which they pay most of, so not getting hand outs at all but quite the opposite, paying those hand outs to others.
How does that prove that liberals are voting that way? Conservatives largely control our country at the state level. Josak, you are always citing facts. Where on earth did you find that stat?
Where did you get your 7% and twice as educated stats? I see differing studies when I research this topic.
The 7% stat comes from "Who cares more" that book that conservatives love quoting because it shows that conservatives give more to charity.
And according to Pew research 49% of liberals have college educations, 28% of conservatives.
I can find other sources that state the opposite or at least something quite different. I'll have to get the book to see what the sources are. As for the poll, remember that some polls showed Romney in the lead. A poll isn't conclusive. A book isn't conclusive. I do appreciate, however, you elaborating on your source(s).
What are these services 'big government' is now paying for that we used to provide ourselves?
You mean like the Minutemen in 1776 has become the military-industrial complex?
You mean like the one-room schoolhouse has now become school districts?
You mean paths plowed by one mule are now interstate highways?
If you're looking for a privatized tax collection system, might I suggest suburban New Jersey?
Ask for Tony.
Well, what to expect when a politician is talking. It is not about the party. Lieing and politics go together.
John, if I don't lock my door, and I get robbed, should you have to help pay to replace my things?
I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
I'm waiting for an answer to "if you crash your car into several others. . ."
Just answer the question, you don't have to understand the point.
I answered your question, try reading. If I crash my car into several others, I don't expect them to pay for it, or pay for me. If I fill my body with fats, salts, sugars, and toxins, I don't expect others to pay for fixing those problems either.
So you don't carry insurance when you drive!
When did I say that?
Seriously, what goes on in your head to cause you to think I say so many things, that I very clearly do not say?
Er, something like this -
"If I crash my car into several others, I don't expect them to pay for it, or pay for me."
Nothing in there says 'I don't have car insurance', now does it?
Except " I don't expect them to pay for it"
I have insurance. If I crash into someone else's car, i don't expect them to have to pay for it. My insurance pays for it. See how that works?
Yes, exactly the way health care works in the UK. We have this thing called National Insurance.
Well John, the blog you list about passports (like most of your posts) appears to be inaccurate.
http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/st … s_890.html
You also have to remember that while countries are smaller and more crowded in Europe, necessitating more passports, here in the US, we have a rather large country that we can traverse without leaving our borders. If some Americans have no interest in seeing the UK - can you really blame them? It's just a testament to how much better it is here.
As I mentioned before - when younger, I traveled extensively. I don't so much anymore. You really have nothing that beats what we have here. Sure, you have some historical sites, but we have Native American sites that are just as fascinating, unless you're a racist.
You gripe that our healthcare is substandard, that people shouldn't be obese, then you claim no one tells you what to eat. LOL
You're funny, John. Not real believable - but amusing.
The site you post seems to confirm what was said on the site I posted! How can that be wrong?
It also has nothing to do with the size of the country, foreign travel is still foreign travel! Those who don't travel abroad have less knowledge of other countries than those who do.
How do you get from my comment that your healthcare is substandard to my "claim that nobody tells us what to eat" I just don't see the connection.
And as for your comment that I'm unbelievable, it isn't me that makes unsubstantiated claims that are contradicted by all the evidence.
You're "evidence" has been debunked John, and you've contradicted yourself constantly. You claim that the US being obese is one of our health problems, then you deny that you're told (or controlled) in what you eat. You refuse to understand that Americans would rather be Americans than have the little bit of nanny-services you have.
The basic problem, John, is that you keep trying to find fault with the US, yet none of your accusations hold water. We STILL have people risking their lives to immigrate here.
It's fun to bash the US - but as I demonstrated numerous times - it's mostly all sour grapes.
This thread is about those who passed our new healthcare bills and their lies. See, I admit we have some liars here in the States. But, we're working on voting them out of office and replacing them with better representatives.
You would do well to look at your own country with a critical eye.
On the contrary, I've debunked all the evidence that you've posted. I still don't get how you get from one of the US's health problems is being obese to us being told what to eat. There is no sense or logic in that claim.
Which of my accusations don't hold water? That healthcare in the US is not the best in the world? That US citizens are restricted from travelling to Cuba? Come on, tell me.
Oh, and there are many people who risk (and lose) their lives to immigrate here.
I do. You would do well to look at your own country with a critical eye and shed this "my country right or wrong" ethos.
Are Americans too fat because they're the only ones that can typically and commonly afford to stuff that much food down their throat?
Well anybody can afford to stuff junk down their throats. Fats and sugars are the most fattening forms of food and also the cheapest.
Hmmm. That means there are no hungry people in the world, or specifically in the developed countries. Or maybe that they chose to buy a new TV instead of satisfying their hunger.
Somehow I doubt that just a little.
May I quote you?
"Well anybody can afford to stuff junk down their throats."
It would seem that you believe everyone can afford enough food to become obese. If they can afford that, then they can also afford to feed themselves and not go hungry. All quite logical.
What, because people can afford cheap junk food then it's logical that they can afford more expensive healthy food!
No, but it is logical to think that if they can afford enough junk food to become fat, they can afford enough food to not be hungry or starving.
Er, where did being hungry or starving raise its ugly head from? The debate was about healthcare, not income.
A little off topic, yes. I just wondered if you thought Americans were fat not because they have poorer health care than socialistic countries but because they are richer than socialistic countries and more able to stuff themselves with excessive quantities of food?
Or maybe it's just a nervous reaction to the stress of socialists telling Americans they are cruel in letting their people starve because they won't redistribute the wealth enough, so we take all that extra money and overeat with it. Who knows?
Not sure. Isn't it the claim that every country with "free" health care has better health care than the US? ("Free" meaning that someone else is paying, not that it is actually free although that small fact is usually ignored as irrelevant. TANSTAAFL).
But thise countries with better health care than the US are not socialist countries and you are right, the healthcare isn't free, it's just free at the point of use. We all pay taxes.
Have you never thought how beneficial it is to a capitalist economy to have a healthy work force that takes as little time off work for illness as possible?
No, we don't all pay taxes. Half of the US citizenry pay a net of zero or less in federal income tax, and a very high percentage of those pay a negative number.
Socialist nor not, that is the question. Let's just say they are far close to being socialist than the US is.
One way to keep them on the job is to deny that perennial favorite; sick pay. Of course, the socialists (knowing that it is better for everyone if evil companies pay all costs and then, horrors, raise prices to cover those costs) want as much sick pay as possible. More wealth distribution, this time with the idea that people should be paid for not working plus have another month or two off with pay each year.
Or you can try and train them to live a healthy life. So far the excessive wealth in the US has pretty much stymied that; people that can afford to smoke, drink, overeat, take harmful drugs, etc. always seem to want to do those things. And will do them. Maybe the US should take on Cyprus, Greece, etc. as their "child" countries with all their extra money and thus put a stop to that. Nobody else seems particularly willing to do it...
I can think of nobody who spends money that does not, at least, indirectly contribute to taxation. Maybe I'm wrong and you can put me right.
Keeping people at work by depriving them of sick pay is counter-productive. All the work related accidents that I've had have been as a result of working when I should not have been. Luckily for me with no lasting personal damage but with sometimes,, substantial damage to my employers property!
It isn't excessive wealth that forces people into an unhealthy lifestyle, quite the contrary, it is lack of wealth that forces people to chose unhealthy options and to seek relief with the use of drugs and alcohol.
God forbid people be able to feed their families if they get sick.
As for Greece and Cyprus I hardly think we are the people to lead them out of the crisis caused in America by Americans they have far more successful nations much closer to home.
The excessive wealth? No there are wealthier per capita nations and tons of nations where the average man on the street is wealthier than the average American and they don't have the massive health problems the US has. You may also note that even within America it's the Red states with the biggest health issues.
Been over this before, Josak, with others. How you measure wealth determines who the wealthy nations are. While there are a few with more wealth per capita you won't find but a handful, if that, where the average citizen is wealthier, in terms of material possessions including cash, than the US.
It may be true and significant that the states with the most health problems are those that are the most rural - I'm not sure. If so, however, to what do you attribute it?
Actually I said the average person while only a few nations are wealthier per capita all of them and those near them have much better distribution of wealth meaning the average citizen is far wealthier than our average citizen and weirdly those nations are ALL way healthier than us.
I think it has nothing to do with how rural they are and much more about how they are governed, investing into people, getting them out of poverty, educating them and giving them better healthcare avoids the mass occurrence of these issues, both at the national and state level.
I don't believe that about the average citizen. The median American lives in a home with perhaps 500 sq ft per person - no other nation comes close. The median American probably owns 1+ luxury cars, more than any other country. The average American very obviously eats more than hardly any other country. They have more money set aside in savings. I believe you will find more personally owned computers per capita than hardly any other country. The average American owns more large toys (RV's, boats, 4 wheelers, etc.) than other countries. The average American almost certainly owns more land that other countries' citizens, with few exceptions such as Canada and Australia.
Now, I can't prove any of that (except maybe the food! ), but do believe it to be true. It is, however, a measure of "wealth" that few other countries accept and that none of the studies I've ever seen addresses. It also happens to be the type of thing that Americans want and what they spend their money on - it is a measure of wealth that Americans accept and use.
Are you sure? Rural people generally work harder - physical labor - and that will certainly negatively affect health. The do not have near the access to top quality hospitals and doctors. They suffer more accidents, and more severe ones in general. They are more exposed to wildlife - bites, rabies, etc. Centralized water and sewer is neither available nor practical - you drink water from out of the ground and put wastes back into the same ground. All of these and more will most definitely contribute to poorer health - perhaps that is as big a cause as failure to redistribute wealth.
Ah Wilderness you are pulling a fast one on me making the measure of wealth completely subjective thus making it impossible for me to prove you wrong
However I can say that is a bad measure of wealth, for example it means that a nation of people who save up more are apparently poorer because they don't own luxury cars even if they have way more money, it's very nonsensical.
Rural living apparently balances out in terms of health effects, the factors you mentioned remain true but it is harder to spread infectious diseases, pollution does not affect the body on the same scale, it is generally conducive to more exercise (which in the first world is very important) etc. etc.
Why are you being so rude John? Why won't you answer my question?
Because I've forgotten what it was, maybe try a few less insults and try sticking to the point, allowing me to stick to the point as well.
I've stuck to the point, answered your questions. You haven't afforded me the same courtesy.
If I leave my door unlocked, and I don't have insurance to cover it, and someone steals my stuff, should you have to pay to replace it?
Note "if you don't have insurance to cover it" as nobody in the UK does not have insurance to cover illness or accident the point is irrelevant.
Why won't you answer my question?
The point is relevant, but since you're too rude to descend from on high to have a real conversation, you'll never understand why.
Possibly being a troll, yes, because there are only 3 possible explanations.
Since you refuse to answer questions, troll is most likely... that's one of the main characteristics of a troll.
Will you admit that you said lack of healthcare causes obesity?
OK lack of health care causes obesity. Satisfied?
No,the point is totally irrelevant because nobody is being asked to pay for somebody else's misfortune any more than your car insurers are when they pay out on your claim.
Let me explain.
If I purposefully do things that I know can cause me damage, I should take responsibility for when that damage comes.
If I drive without a seatbelt and get into a wreck, I should take responsibility for my broken body.
If I leave my house unlocked and get robbed, I should take responsibility for my lost possessions.
If I shove crap into my mouth every day, I should take responsibility for my poor health.
I know you have no concept of personal responsibility... your nanny government has brainwashed that out of you by now... but it works a lot better.
Think about the story of the students in a class, who all get to share a grade. At first, all the students try their best, and the average grade is a B. The students that personally got As then decide that it's not worth trying so hard, if they do A-level work but only get a B. The next test, the average score is a C+. More students decide it's not worth trying harder than the kids who screw around, if they all get the same score, so they stop trying. Next thing you know, the entire class fails. That's why personal responsibility is important. You can't just lump everyone together. You can't have everyone be a winner, no matter what. You can't give everyone the same results regardless of the inputs.
It still doesn't make your healthcare good though does it?
If you think people dying of treatable illnesses is good then bully for you. I don't share your sentiments.
What on earth does any of that have to do with healthcare? Do you really think people will try sky diving without a parachute just because the NHS won't charge them the earth for fixing them up?
1 - I can have great healthcare and still eat poorly.
2 - If people want to kill themselves, I don't care. I honestly don't. Like I've said, I love freedom. If someone else wants to use his freedom to give himself cancer, he can go right on ahead. If he wants to, and prepared for it, he can try and treat it too. I don't care. Let me do what I want with my body, I'll let you do what you want with yours.
3 - It has everything to do with healthcare. If people had to pay more for insurance because they smoke, drink, and eat crap, that is an incentive to do better. Besides, it's closer to 'fair and equal' to have someone who makes themself high-risk pay more for insurance. People never learn responsibility without being given responsibility.
And what about those who pay so highly for their insurance that they just don't bother?
Do they have the best healthcare in the world?
That they just don't bother what? Please try to form coherent thoughts.
I don't understand why people have to be so blatantly dishonest... how can any person sit there and claim they didn't say what is recorded for all time in black and white?
Now the real question, John, is:
Why did you make such a big fuss earlier, denying that you said lack of healthcare causes obesity?
Are you now saying that I caused your viral infection by not giving you the cure?
Is somebody who eats badly, smokes, drinks and takes no exercise practising good healthcare?
Remember, healthcare does not begin and end with your doctor.
If by healthcare you aren't referring to professional medical services, then why does anyone need health insurance? Just practice healthcare at home.
Besides, even if you want to call a diet 'healthcare', it's not lack of healthcare that causes obesity. Obesity is caused by eating more calories than you use. Period.
So eating more calories than you use isn't unhealthy!
It is unhealthy, and it causes obesity. Glad you finally understand.
That has nothing to do with healthcare. It has to do with responsibility. You can't force people to eat healthy by forcing everyone to pay for health insurance.
So bad health has nothing to do with healthcare!
This argument has become totally pointless. You go on believing that you have the best healthcare in the world despite all evidence to the contrary.
Lol, goodnight. It's been fun talking to someone who denies reality, then accepts it, then denies it again.
Have fun living in your world where healthcare causes obesity, and not caloric intake.
I understand John. I really do. You think that people need the government to give everyone healthcare, and to teach everyone to eat healthy, because people can't be trusted to feed themselves properly. That's why you want healthcare, for everyone, that goes beyond the doctor. You want big brother to hold everybody's hands and guide them through their meals so they don't make themselves fat.
I get it. I love freedom more.
Bull sh!t, how on earth did you get there?
The government gives us nothing, we buy our healthcare, just not through profit making companies.
I have much more freedom than you, I won't be bankrupted by major illness.
Lol, deny it, but that's your motivation. it's very apparent.
You buy your own healthcare from birth?
Do you get discounts for a healthier lifestyle?
Why would I be bankrupted by a major illness?
I have more freedom than you, for a few months, because I have the choice whether or not I want to pay for insurance. You don't. No choice = no freedom.
Holden Where do you "buy" you healthcare from? The government? You pay taxes, so in essence you are paying for every ones healthcare. Here in this country, there are still some of us that do not want the government to be telling us what to do. Glad you live in a country that will tell you how to live because we don't like people who like big government here.
Weird... I thought Obama won the last two elections
Yes some of us care enough about others to not want them to die from treatable illnesses, that is called compassion, you should try it out sometime.
The POTUS did win both elections, but strangely enough, he didn't carry all of the votes. Some of us, almost half, are unhappy with the direction we are going. Even more are unhappy with parts or all of Obamacare. Go figure. It's as if not everybody wants socialized healthcare. . .
Compassion? Here we go with the typical liberal statements. If calling us uncompassionate doesn't work, try calling us racists. If that doesn't work, please consult the playbook. I'm not sure if George Bush or the sequester comes next. I'm not privy to the playbook.
He said "we don't like" as though he was speaking for all Americans rather than a minority of Americans.
Typically it's George Bush
But really deflect all you like, preventing public healthcare cost tens of thousands of lives a year. Not an opinion, not an accusation, just a fact.
Deflection? Are you really trying to deflect by saying I am deflecting? You literally claim that the Right is not compassionate when you have nothing left to say? Josak, it’s so disappointing. You usually cite facts, but now it’s the typical desperate, emotional rhetoric we hear so often from the Left. Okay, we lack compassion, George Bush is a conservative, the sequester is our fault, conservatives are racists, Fox News misreports, and we just need more education. . .yada….yada….yada. You’re playing the liberal playbook. Aren’t you a socialist? You should at least play that playbook. Here, I’ll get you started. We are all imperialistic capitalists who have waged war against all of humanity while failing to take care of our own society. I don’t know, but I think it’s a start.
Seriously, all we are saying is that not all of the blame should go to our healthcare system. People are responsible for some of our health failures that they bring upon themselves. Josak, I know you’re interested in facts, and I know that you have to agree with this. It makes sense. Don’t you at least find it amusing that some conservatives aren’t blaming the government for this? At what point should a patient be responsible for his/her own actions? Is a cocaine-addicted, alcoholic, who smokes six packs of cigarettes, and consumes greasy hamburgers night and day NOT responsible for his/her actions if a doctor has repeatedly attempted to secure rehabilitation, treatment, and nutritional help for that patient? This is an extreme example, but you have to admit that sometimes it’s the patient’s fault for irresponsible behavior.
I am neither deflecting nor avoiding the facts, yes I do love a factual debate and this is simple fact, at least 45 000 people die every year from not having coverage (before Obamacare) supporting that demonstrates the opposite of compassion. Stop trying to get around that and face it as the fact it is.
I am indeed a socialist, you may want to look up what that means though because the playbook you quoted to get me started was the rather different communist playbook.
BTW it's the sequester's fault
Okay, this is the Josak I've come to know. Glad to have you back.
Our lack of interest in Obamacare comes from an interest in freedom not from being uncompassionate. We believe everybody should have access to healthcare, just not socialized healthcare. Now, it's time for you to start citing facts to prove that more people would be better off if we had Obamacare. Again, you'll be missing the point. Freedom isn't perfect, but that's what many of us want. Now, I know what your next statement will be. . . .you have the "freedom" of opting out of Obamacare. Obamacare is changing everything. Even if you had/have the option to opt out, healthcare in general has changed or will change, and you can't opt out of some of the taxes. Thus, healthcare will cost more for those who opt out, and I believe, for many other people too. Okay, start citing sources to show how much cheaper it will be.
WE = Many of those people who do not like Obamacare = Millions of people
SO we want everyone to have healthcare but we are unwilling to take the small tax burden to make that happen, thus obviously those tens of thousands of lives are not worth the small "Cadillac taxes".
Apparently that is called compassion.
Small tax burden? Yeah right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, we do not want everybody to have insurance. We want everybody to have the option to have insurance. We want freedom.
Apparently your post is logic????
The tax burden is small, if you opt out I am not even sure it would affect you at all tax wise. Do you have a high class healthcare insurance plan or do you work in making medical instruments?
Ahh so it IS OK for 45 000 people to die yearly (at least) so that you have the freedom to not pay a small tax which you probably don't need to pay anyway, how compassionate of you. As I said that is a lack of compassion before other concerns (like the small cost to you if any).
Yup just the facts.
Here we go with the compassion again. You keep going back to that so often, I have ringing in my ears. Maybe I need some Obamacare for my Josak-induced tinnitus.
I am by no means rich, and I do not work for anything medical related.
If I opt out of Obamacare and sell my home, do I have to pay 3% tax for Obamacare? As you know, the largest investment most Americans have is their home, and now Obamacare wants a piece of that too.
Tax and spend. Borrow and spend. Print and spend. Promise this. Promise that. Deliver little to nothing. Our government is less efficient than Enron. Why should I give more money to it? That makes no sense.
It seems there are a lot of Obamacare taxes, and some of them happen whether or not you have Obamacare:
http://www.newsmax.com/GroverNorquist/O … /id/443995
You never answered the question(s). Here's the post again, and I'll paraphrase the question:
Don't people have some responsibility to take care of themselves?
Seriously, all we are saying is that not all of the blame should go to our healthcare system. People are responsible for some of our health failures that they bring upon themselves. Josak, I know you’re interested in facts, and I know that you have to agree with this. It makes sense. Don’t you at least find it amusing that some conservatives aren’t blaming the government for this? At what point should a patient be responsible for his/her own actions? Is a cocaine-addicted, alcoholic, who smokes six packs of cigarettes, and consumes greasy hamburgers night and day NOT responsible for his/her actions if a doctor has repeatedly attempted to secure rehabilitation, treatment, and nutritional help for that patient? This is an extreme example, but you have to admit that sometimes it’s the patient’s fault for irresponsible behavior.
Of course not all of the blame goes to the healthcare system, Americans have a poor health standard for themselves and a culture of violence in certain areas both of which contribute to reduced living standards and lengths. That does not change that healthcare does carry a lot of the blame and I did quote statistics that were independent of obesity, gun violence etc. to account for those disparities.
Ah, so you're saying that our lifestyle reduces our life expectancy? Good. Now, if that's the case, can we truly compare healthcare statistics with other countries that do not have these problems and still logically conclude that our comparisons are accurate? No. If this were a scientific study, you'd have to remove all possible reasons that could impact the outcome. Josak, I know you are factually based, so you and I both know that you can't compare America and Western Europe's healthcare statistics equally and without factoring this into the conclusion. America has a unique situation which skews our healthcare statistics in a downward spiral. If people ate and exercised better, as is often the case in Western Europe, our life expectency and our health costs would be different, and we might not be having this conversation.
Which is why I cited things like maternal mortality, which is separate from most lifestyle choices. We have covered this repeatedly.
The statistics you provided are woefully inadequate when we're looking at investing trillions of dollars into a program that dramatically changes our country's current system.
IF our healthcare is largely taken over by Obamacare, isn't it true that our system will only be as good as the government that runs it? How many American politicians can you name that you trust and feel that they work hard? I can't name many. These people will now be in charge of more of our money.
Small taxe burden? Were you joking?
Sorry Josak, but the MAJORITY of Americans don't want to pay for the Lazy Liberal. I hate the thought of having to pay more because someone else caused their illness. The only reason Obama was elected twice was because the first time if you didn't you were labeled a Racist, which I was, I was also called a traitor because I didn't vote for the guy from my home town. But the second time, he made all the promises and the gulable voters ate it right up, the dems also faked the voting results since tey knew if a Republican got in it was bye bye obamacare...but what they didn't figue was that they signed the death warrant for the USA...Look at North Korea.
Dems faked the results?
You're really worried about North Korea? You realize that China would raise hell if N. Korea got out of line and started something with a country they need to stay economically viable.
And you wonder why the average conservative isn't taken seriously anymore...
Then the MAJORITY of Americans would not have voted for it, twice, excuses for that are just incredibly weak and as already noted by Cody, obliterate any credibility you might have had.
Healthcare in the UK costs about 9% of GDP and covers everybody equally.
Healthcare costs the USA about 16% of GDP and doesn't cover everybody equally.
Cody, more dead people voted Dem this past two elections than in the last 3 combined, and lets not forget double votes. So if that isn't rigged I don't know what is. Yes have you ever seen a true liberal work harder than he had to? No, liberals think like this. Work for myself and expect the government to care for everyone else, and who pays for the government? The people who work enough to pay taxes. I don't have any credibility? At least I don't take my views from MSNBC, which is exactly where you got yours from, in everyone of your posts, MSNBC and CNN I love your liberal talking points however. I don't watch TV so don't bother blaming FOX NEWS for my opinion. I was only pointing out Obama's most recent mess up when referring to North Korea Go ahead and believe all these lies from the Dems, be my guest, but the Dems are doing more damage than anything else as they have split this country in two, and people such as yourself, and Josek are gobbling it up.
Josak for pete sake read my reply to Cody, it was rigged so it only LOOKED like the majority wanted him in office again.
Healthcare in the UK covers 62,641,000 in 2011 while there are 311,591,917 population in the US so of course a larger percentage of our GDP would be for healthcare. The UK NHS started in 1948 right at the baby boom so they had at least 60 years to stockpile cash to pay before everything. We on the other hand are wanting to pa for EVERYBODY now when the first and second wave of Baby boomers are already receiving care? It may sound good on the surface, buy the Quality of care will plumet as costs skyrocket, you just wait and see, and for those who voted Obama in again are the ones to blame for this healthcare debacle.
My government does not tell me what to do, it might advise but I'm free to ignore that advice if I wish to.
How come if you don't like big government you have such a huge government?
25,000 people are dying because of hunger everyday. We are lucky that we are not one of them. But are we sensible enough to understand their pain of dying because of hunger? We have to focus only how everyone of us can solve the problem or atleast could be part of the solution. So let's sign it that we would never waste food because it is like rising the problem of "World Hunger". If organizations like "World Food Program" helping people to provide meals for them then its our role to donate them and not waste food at our side.
http://indianonlineview.blogspot.in/201 … -food.html
BTW Howard, I remembered another reason why more people from the US don't go to Cuba, your government wont allow them to!
If our government tried to pull a stunt like that you can be sure that the banned country would have a huge influx of Britains straight away, people with no desire to visit would suddenly develop a pressing need to visit!
Where'd you hear that, John? The US doesn't forbid Americans from visiting Cuba. It suggests that we don't - but that's it. You must be getting pretty desperate to feel the need to make up so much.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_t … _1097.html
Seriously John. I think you've got a bad case of sour grapes. Since you don't live here - you're intent on making up all sorts of falsehoods to make it sound like this is a bad place.
I have news for you, John, I wouldn't trade places with you. Not by a long shot. You keep your govt.-controlled life and I'll keep my ability to live free. We've got you guys beat hands down, John. You still haven't thanked us for saving your behinds during (and after) WWII.
I think I'm getting a pretty good idea of what you're all about. You don't like that we have so much, when you have so little. My best advice is...emigrate. Get out of there, John. Go West. It's a whole new world.
From your posted website -
"ENTRY / EXIT REQUIREMENTS, TRAVEL TRANSACTION LIMITATIONS: The Cuban Assets Control Regulations are enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and affect all U.S. citizens and permanent residents wherever they are located, all people and organizations physically located in the United States, and all branches and subsidiaries of U.S. organizations throughout the world. The regulations require that persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction be licensed in order to engage in any travel-related transactions pursuant to travel to, from, and within Cuba, or that the transactions in question be exempt from licensing requirements. Transactions related to tourist travel are not licensable. This restriction includes tourist travel to Cuba from or through a third country such as Mexico or Canada. U.S. law enforcement authorities enforce these regulations at U.S. airports and pre-clearance facilities in third countries. Travelers who fail to comply with Department of the Treasury regulations could face civil penalties and criminal prosecution upon return to the United States."
And where on Earth do you get the idea that my government controls my life?
You, as a culture, have nothing I want.
Historical Steam locomotives still used I every day service
Yeah it's so bad that half of the number of people that come to the whole USA for treatment go to that tiny Caribbean island for healthcare.
The only people I know that go to Cuba are U.S military.
Please provide statistical proof and a credible source. I am highly skeptical of this statement.
Josak, were you able to find a source to back your statement? I'm curious about this statistic.
Here was your claim:
"Yeah it's so bad that half of the number of people that come to the whole USA for treatment go to that tiny Caribbean island for healthcare."
Will you accept a Wikipedia link?
If not just follow the sources on Wikipedia.
20 000 traveling to Cuba yearly for medical care in 2006 growing 6% yearly. Puts estimates current at about 27 000.
60 000-80 000 to the US in 2008 and shrinking.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 … l-tourism/
http://www.imtj.com/articles/2011/new-s … ics-30089/
Sorry didn't see your post the first time.
A lot of people go to other countries for healthcare because of cost. Many of these nations have good healthcare. Few are going to these countries, because they have the best healthcare. You won't find many, if any, countries with socialized healthcare that are considered among the best. Many would suggest that people go to other countries because socialized healthcare is superior. I contend that it is in fact, not better, but it is sometimes cheaper.
Five of the top 10 medical colleges in the world are in America. America is the medical inovator, second to none.
The Huffington Post is quite liberal. A recent article from this site made it clear that America leads the world in medical advances. "While there are many opinions about our nation's health care system (particularly in Washington), there's one overwhelming area of consensus -- the United States leads the world in medical innovation."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-t … 07796.html
It seems that, much like inventions and technology, we are the pioneers of medical advancements. Then, other countries come in, take what we invented, and recreate it at a cheaper cost. Ultimately, one of the reasons we pay more for medicine is because we are paying for these advances, the same ones other countries assume at a fraction of the cost. Then, people claim these countries are the medical leaders of the world. It's not true. Many of these nations do a good job of providing average medical care. They are not often leading countries when it comes to the best medical care.
Pretty hilariously wrong, socialized medicine countries make up ALL of the WHO top 20 recommended healthcare nations. They do provide better care they have better statistics to prove it. I have already shown you things like maternal mortality rates in other threads so that is patently false.
It IS true that the US has an excellent medical development industry, it is after all en mass the wealthiest country on earth so this is not unexpected, however the nation PROFITS from that, it does not cost us nor is selling it to other nations a favor the world owes us it's something we are paid market value for.
According to international studies the only thing we do notably well (second best in the world) is cancer treatment as we have had lots of investment in that area, every other area of care (such as diabetes care, amputation care, infectious disease treatment etc.) we perform significantly worse than socialized care first world nations.
Oh in case you don't understand the difference, medical development is not part of medical treatment, our care being expensive has nothing to do with our medical development.
This is a load of garbage, propaganda.
Your answers are great? You smugly quote your statistics and try act as if you are academically attempting to answer questions. Then, somebody comes along with equally solid sources, and you discount them. Your answers are no better.
When have I discounted any of your sources? If the source is reliable I will accept it.
My answers are based in fact and reason with sources, sometimes yours are too, I actually enjoy the conversation with you when they are, unfortunately as soon as it becomes apparent that the facts show something else you revert to the "this is rubbish" type one liner. I don't do that (or at least try not to) so in that sense my answers are better. I make no claim to greater intellect or anything of the kind, I do have some formal education in economics but that is all.
Look through this thread, and you'll find at least twice that this has happened. On one occasion, I said that you see only what you want to see and quoted the article again. I too have some formal education in micro and macroeconomics, but that doesn't really matter.
So in the instance you give I did not dismiss the source I simply had a different interpretation of what you presented? That is very different and perfectly acceptable within a reasoned debate, I did not claim your source was invalid at all.
That's semantics. You didn't discount the source, only the content. The source is of little value; the content is the value. In a sense, you discounted the entire value of the argument by seeing only one facet, the one you wanted. It's semantics. It's spin. I hate to say it, but it's propaganda.
I agreed with your source and from it's data came to a different conclusion, that is nothing but honest disagreement, you claimed I dismissed your sources, you were wrong. Very simple.
It's all semantics. All you are saying is that you will "interpret" other sources to fit your belief.
No I am saying I accepted your data but decided it actually supported a different argument to the one you were making, if your complaint is that I dared to think somewhat differently to you congratulations you win, otherwise interpreting data to support something else is a completely valid form of thought and debate, I never challenged your facts I believe you misinterpreted their significance is all.
Development comes for free? I provide sources, and you gloss over them, repeatedly. When you provide sources, you expect us to take them as gospel. Socialized healthcare is not as great as you want to make it sound.
Josak, if socialism is so great, why do you live here?
Development actually usually turns a profit, so it's better than free, if you come up with something worthwhile people will be interested in buying it, simple economics.
#1 I consider myself a proud American, like most people I think the country could be improved by some changes but still, #2 I have family and friends here #3 I have a business here #4 Getting citizenship to other nations is harder than you might realize.
Some changes? Do you mean a change in our entire economic system, one that embraces socialism? Some changes? Is this like when you called Obamacare minimal taxation?
the PPACA total tax comes to about 2.6% of GDP taken from major industries and high income earners, it is a small tax.
By some changes I would be entirely satisfied with a social democratic system as seen in say Norway, over the next say 50 years, I actually don't doubt that will occur, I would not describe it a particularly radical change, indeed less radical than the last 4 years have been.
Conservatives would largely disagree. We see socialized healthcare as a big change.
Big change is very different to big tax so that is not on topic.
It's not on topic because you disagree? It is totally on topic. It is a big change, and it is a massive tax.
"(CNSNews.com) – In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year."
Yeah, I'd call this a big tax. CBS and the IRS are my sources.
That's not how much you pay if you don't have care though
There are many hidden taxes even if you opt out of Obamacare. Look at the 3% tax on anybody who sells their home as an example. The bottom line is that, even if I opt out of this plan, there will be added tax. Some say that I should willingly pay this tax, because it's the right, compassionate thing to do. I disagree. I also find fault with a system that forces everybody to have insurance, or they must pay a penalty.
Let's talk about that $20,000 number. I'd be curious to see how many people, within this forum, pay that much for insurance now. I know some must be paying that much, but I am not. This means a substantial increase in cost for me.
You mean that tax that does not exist and is just more false propaganda? You poor thing.
You may be referring to the transaction tax over the capital gains threshold, it probably won't affect you and it's total revenue will be about 0.1% GDP.
Yes, poor me. Well, we'll probably all be a lot less wealthy after Obamacare kicks in.
It's not false. You simply have to be considered wealthy by the Obots. While only two percent of the population falls into this category NOW, the liberals are sure to expand their definition of what wealthy is. An annual income of $250,000 is rich now. What will they consider rich tomorrow? How much profit is too much? Progressives are sure to have an answer, and they'll be all too happy to take your money in a compassionate way.
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/would-oba … obably-not
http://blogs.rgj.com/factchecker/2012/0 … on-houses/
Oh yeah the horrible poverty that hit all those other places who got public healthcare... wait no it didn't, all of the ones I am looking at had economic growth or upturns at around that time.
You said "Look at the 3% tax on anybody who sells their home as an example." which is false, either a lie or blatant gullibility for propaganda.
Yes, "anybody" was an exaggeration and a misunderstanding of the law, on my part. Still, it's not a lie, and you know it. Some people will have to pay it. Your statements make it sound like it's not going to happen at all. Do I need to provide additional sources to prove this?
You and I both know that our politicians are next to worthless. I've seen you say that before, and I agree. They can't do anything efficiently, save squandering our money, making promises, and campaigning. I don't want to give another nickel to Congress. Congress is less efficient than Enron, and I sure wouldn't invest in Enron. What we need is a smaller government that squanders less of our money. Obamacare's cost is estimated at $1.1-1.3 trillion dollars over the next ten years, and when was the last time any government estimate was low? You make it sound like healthcare will be better, costs will be down, and rainbows and unicorns will rule the land. The reality is that we have a massively inefficient government overseeing Obamacare, and we have absolutely no reason to believe that our politicians/government will somehow start to be more efficient. Our politicians can't be trusted with the money they "manage," and we shouldn't keep giving even more money to an inept legislative body. Socialism doesn't work when the politicians and the people who are running your government are inept. For that matter, no system works when that is the case. Since it is the case, why should we put even more money, a whole lot more, into a broken system? It simply makes no sense.
Does anybody pay $20,000 for their current insurance? If so, you might just benefit from Obamacare, maybe.
God that is weak, that assessment is for a family of 5 which means 4000 per person, which is relatively cheap not to mention that now your coverage is unlimited and you can't be denied care AND insurance companies won't be able to hire investigators to determine if you made even one tiny mistake on your application and on that basis cut you off entirely.
You will also benefit if you were uninsurable before because of pre-existing conditions, or if you could not afford insurance at all (now covered), or if you get really sick and would have run out your maximum coverage for the year (since that is now mandatedly infinite) etc. etc.
Oh also that family of 5 needs to be receiving no insurance care from their employer and be making more than 120 000 a year. Otherwise it's cheaper.
No it's not on topic because it's a different topic unless you think tax and change are the same thing... I really can't believe we are even discussing this, they are definitionaly different.
A family of four can pay up to $2,000 in penalty taxes for not purchasing insurance. When we're talking about a family that might make too much to qualify as poverty, yet has no extra spending money to purchase a $500-$1,200 a month plan, they are forced to opt for the lesser evil - a $2,000 penalty. Not only will that family NOT have healthcare, their penalty will go towards paying for healthcare of others.
This plan is ludicrous and will strongly impact lower-middle income earners. It won't touch the wealthy and the very poor will be okay.
In 2014, Americans will begin to see that Obamacare is a sham and they are the marks.
Josak, I admire your attempt to cling to a vestige of hope that this plan isn't just one big mess, but you're going to be sorely disappointed, my friend.
You say now that the penalty is non-compulsory and unenforceable, but that's just because the Democrats haven't yet put the wording in place. Without collecting the fines, the law will fail. Heck. it's going to fail anyway.
Additionally, the IRS can seize refunds for non-compliance, which makes it a bit more "compulsory" don't'cha think?
All you have to do is look at the cost of premiums and then add the cost of co-pays and deductibles. A family could have a deductible of up to $12,000 that they must first pay before Obamacrap kicks in. Add that to the cost of their premiums, and you should start to see some of the problem.
Even those who now have coverage through employers stand a chance of losing it. Check out what's happening around you, Josak.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … health+law
This is the tip of the iceberg. The ship known as Obamacare - is sinking. If you're on board - I hope you have additional scuba gear.
Ahh the doom and gloom predictions, I love it, does the plan need work? Sure, will it fail? I very much doubt it, tell me how many countries in human history have overturned a public healthcare bill? I'll give you a hint the number looks a lot like an o.
As for IRS taking out of refunds that seems perfectly reasonable.
Well, of course that's probably true. When large entitlements are enacted, they are almost never revoked. That's a conservative's argument.
27,000 people is not everybody -
Cuba has had cuts in their pitiful healthcare system. Sanitary conditions are also low for a pitiful COMMUNIST nation like Cuba. You even have to bring your own food, blankets and fans while you are paying a visit to the nearest emergency room.
In American hospitals, we have air conditioning and good food is provided. Why would anyone want to endure the torture of such a lackluster visit to a poorly paid doctor in Cuba? Not to mention poorly ran facilities?
You can go there and receive your healthcare if you like. I am pretty sure once regular people in America sees what is really going on, they will say "screw that."
As noted about half the number of people who come to the entire huge US which has plenty of land borders you can just drive across go to a tiny Caribbean island which is naturally much poorer and harder to get to, they must be doing something right, the market does not lie.
Cuba equals or surpasses all survival rates that are equally measured with the US except for cancer treatment.
P.S. Except for the poorest rural areas you do not ring your own food, fans, blankets or anything of the sort and foreigners don't go to the furthest rural reaches for care.
You're right. I have no idea why anyone would ever want to go to a tropical paradise.
Numerous economists, including several notable Nobel laureates, have argued about how inefficient government is; our government certainly proves that. Our Congress is filled with ineptitude and inefficiencies that would never be tolerated in the "real" world. No business or household could operate like our government does, yet we are discussing the very real likelihood of allowing this same inept, inefficient government to take over another massive entitlement. This makes absolutely no sense. I do not trust Congress to manage my healthcare any better than they have managed our economy and debt problems.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results." Let's throw more money at Congress. Maybe Congress will be more responsible and effecient with the next trillion dollars. . . Don't count on it.
http://studentfundingnews.com/2013/01/c … fficiency/
Unfortunately all the available data presents that results are better and cheaper under government management. Do we need to work on how inefficient and corrupt our government is? Absolutely, but we can't have 45 000 people dying (at the very least) yearly while we do so due to lack of insurance.
All of the data suggests this? I guess any economist who disagrees is wrong? Some of these guys were Nobel laureates, but I guess your data is better than their lifetime achievements within their field of expertise. . .
Yeah, so let's funnel more money into a system that is already so inefficient that it makes Enron look like a model business. I mean, sure our government can't even function without borrowing and printing mass sums of money, but it'll somehow become more efficient with the next trillion dollars.
#1 Am sure I can find just as many if not more Nobel laureate's willing to attest the opposite.
#2 We are talking about healthcare specifically not economics in general.
Other governments are just as bad as ours and manage it, their results are better on this issue, I would agree with some of those economists that government does need serious restructuring to take on more economic roles but on this issue either way it is still better than the alternative.
I am a socialist but if tomorrow everyone wanted to hand control of the mining sector to the public I would oppose it on the grounds that our government would need a complete clean slate etc. but on this sort of issue other similar (and worse) governments have proved more than sufficient.
Thanks for the laugh. Separating the government takeover of a trillion-dollar industry from the economy or from any economic system is like trying to separate the fruit from the jelly; they're one and the same.
You want to socialize healthcare, because you believe that the government will spend your money more efficiently than you will. When has our government ever accomplished that?
France is the shining example for all socialists who wish to emulate that kind of healthcare system. Unfortunately, France's healthcare system has never once, since its latest version's inception in 1989, been able to pay for itself. In fact, it loses billions each year. That's not because it has a lack of tax revenues; workers pay 21% of their entire income for health insurance, with only a little over half of that being covered by their employer. What a bargain, and while America spends only 8.4% of its GDP on healthcare, France spends a staggering 11% of its entire GDP on this great deal (insert sarcasm). Even then, they have to carry their own separate insurance to cover the 23-30% of costs not covered under France's system and not discussed when socialists, like yourself, talk about how much healthcare costs in France. France now has co-pays, another added cost of healthcare that socialists never seem to mention when they talk about how great socialized medicine is. They had to add this though, because their healthcare system was too far in debt. Finally, you have the economy. French business leaders have long complained that they are not hiring as many people, because they can't afford additional healthcare costs. That means fewer people are employed, revenue diminishes, and greater government assistance is necessary. Yeah, socialized healthcare sounds great! Best of all, we get to have our exceedingly efficient government administer this wonderful system. I'm sure we're going to have the best healthcare in the world, and it won't cost more than a quarter of your entire income. It's a bargain!
8.4%! Where did you drag that number up from? America spends a world beating 17.6% of GDP on health care.
Indeed. All the figures show US is top of the world on health costs.
Yep. Good catch. That's your expenditure, in the UK. Check the rest of the stats, however, and you'll find they are accurate. Look, I'm willing to own and correct any factual errors I make. I just want all the facts. Some people who love Obamacare and socialized medicine never provide some of these very real statistics. They simply talk about how great the care is and fail to mention the cost or the problems associated with socialized healthcare. France's health system isn't as great and cost effective as it is being portrayed.
Please insert 16%-17.6% for America's costs, but take the the time to reread what I wrote. Even if America's costs are extremely high, it doesn't really make France's statistics that great. France's system has major problems, and it is, by just about every account, a better plan than Obamacare. Some people say we need to have healthcare like Western Europe. Obamacare is not like healthcare in Europe.
Here's a recent article about the differences between Obamacare and European (French) healthcare:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/2 … le-system/
OK, hat's off to EA.
But that 17.6% isn't for Obama care, it is pre Obama care.
I want to pick up on your comment that France's healthcare fails to pay for itself. How exactly is none profit making and free to user health care actually supposed to pay for itself?
By user health, are you talking about socialized healthcare?
Taxes should cover costs. If they don't, costs need to diminish, or revenues/taxes need to increase.
The cost of US healthcare with Obamacare - will be MUCH higher than it is now. And less affordable for many.
So even France's pretty screwy system is cheaper AND offers universal coverage, cheaper by about a third.
That's without even beginning to look at the more successful socialized healthcare systems.
Let's take a quick look at health results based on non life style results. Maternal mortality rate per 100 000 in France: 8 , USA 21. Just over a third of ours.
Deaths per thousand live births on equal survival grounds: USA: 6 , France 3.4. Just over half of ours.
SO the example you give of a pretty bad socialized system is cheaper, universal and provides much more successful care.
Thank you for making our argument for us.
Better care for childbirth, anyway. About the cheapest of the major care set. On the snide side, it also looks very good in the stats - countries touting their health care will be well advised to pour money into that particular part at the expense of others.
How long to people wait for a mammogram or a cat scan? An MRI? A heart or liver transplant? How many people get transplants? Are optional surgeries, not necessary for life, available?
There are an awful lot of facets to health care (at least if no other possibilities for birthing death is looked at), and from hearsay of patients in other countries, socialized medicine isn't nearly as rosy as it's presented to be. I, for instance, asked for cataract surgery in a short time - it was done less than 2 weeks later and I understand that kind of thing just isn't done in Europe.
There are plenty of facets to healthcare it is difficult to find facets however that minimize the effects of lifestyle choices.
I can't speak for everywhere as I don't know everywhere, the law in New Zealand (where I am now) however is no more than three weeks wait on any essential surgery (excluding transplants where one might have to wait for an organ to become available) and as of quite recently 60 days maximum for optional surgeries (like cataracts).
I am not suggesting the system is perfect but if you look at patient satisfaction surveys which surely address this issue specifically you will see universal care trumps non universal care in that area too.
This poll Gallup covers the OECD on that matter the US is below average despite being by far the richest country on that list, the second richest per capita and spending a higher percentage of it's GDP on healthcare than any of those nations.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122393/oecd- … marks.aspx
Would have to disagree that it's difficult to find a facet of healthcare that isn't affected by lifestyle; it's impossible, not merely difficult. Just saying that there can well be other reasons for better survival rates than the quality of care, and birth is certainly a major one.
It's interesting that Americans have the second greatest faith in their healthcare, but truthfully I wouldn't put much faith in patient surveys. Example - take a country where nothing happens quickly, where patience is the name of the game for most activities, and the survey will look much different than a country demanding instant gratification. Such as the US. Plus, as gallup indicated, there are cultural problems; people in the US distrust anything national while other countries put MORE faith in anything of that status.
I will say, though, that I think most Americans would find it intolerable to wait either 3 weeks for essential surgery OR 9 weeks for optional. I know I was pretty P.O.'ed with a wait of 2 weeks for optional and would expect essential within 3 or 4 days, a week at the outside, if there were no medical reasons to wait.
Most New Zealanders would be too, but that is the legally mandated maximum you can wait, any longer than that and there is a full inquest, it is also worth noting that NZ like most of these nations still allow you to purchase private care (and even give tax deductions for doing so) their socialized care provides a high quality base but for those who can afford more the option is certainly there, at about the same price as American insurance. If I have purchased insurance here then I certainly don't expect to be waiting more than a day or two.
This system just kicks ours all over the block AND it is like 450% cheaper.
Josak, if you believe that NZ provides the same level of care as the US for less than 1/4 of the price, I've got a nice bridge for sale. Either someone is playing fast and loose with numbers or the level of care isn't there.
Half the price I might believe; there is a great deal of fraud in the system, our sue happy society raises costs enormously, we cover the cost of producing new drugs for the world and there are other reasons as well. I just do not believe 1/4 the cost.
THat's because you don't see just how inefficient the US system is.
Turns out my figures were slightly wrong though.
NZ spends just over one third so its about 295% more expensive in the US.
According to Wikipedia anyway.
NZ does not have a particularly amazing system compared to most of the Western European, Scandinavian and Australian ones because it is poorer than most of those countries but it beats the US in all medical statistics I have found except cancer.
Oh also remember in NZ no one is profiting from providing care, they don't have to a pay an insurance companies profit margin, just the cost of treatment.
The producing new drugs for the rest of the world nonsense is just that, we produce and sell those drugs, usually it is profitable not costly.
US companies do not sell new drugs for enough money in other countries to recover research/testing costs. They sell it for enough to cover production + profit. US buyers are left to cover the research costs, which are almost always many times that of production for the entire patent period. The end result is that US citizens are picking up the real cost of new drugs for the rest of the world.
Even if that is the case (I will run it up when I have more time) total research medical spending in the US is 94 Billion, a pretty insignificant figure and at least part of that is refunded by sales, don't forget that other countries invest in research too, Australia for example invests a larger percentage of it's GDP in medical research than the US, it just has a smaller GDP so the argument is pretty useless fro explaining the high cost.
That puts it about 1/2 the total spent on drugs; one of the higher numbers we pay. Not so insignificant, and although there are other things besides drugs being researched, drug research will be the bulk of research monies being spent.
I note as well, that it will be about the same spent on the cost of insurance plans; I believe that is the profit figure.
http://www.kaiseredu.org/issue-modules/ … brief.aspx
This is the direction I was going in a previous post. We pioneer the way in many cases, and other countries benefit. Socialized healthcare ends up looking more advanced than it really is while we pay the price. Our healthcare is expensive for this and other reasons. We have great healthcare that is expensive. Had we looked at controlling these expenses, we could have helped people better afford insurance. This would have skewed our statistics and rankings in a positive direction. Instead, Obamacare is the law of the land, and nobody, not even Josak, says it's great policy. The best Josak can say is that it's better than what we have. I disagree. Change isn't always progress.
Not true, this is a comparative measure, for other systems to be benefiting of ours they need to be spending less than we do, yet by percentage of GDP: Japan, Israel, Sweden, South Korea and Finland all spend more and several others have pretty much the same spending. So really we are benefiting off the research of those nations.
Spending as a percentage of GDP is immaterial; spending per capita is what counts. That we put a great deal more of our GDP into the war machine helping to protect these countries, or into foreign aid that benefits them directly, does not mean that they are supporting our health costs OR that we should be spending more.
But tell me - what great medical discovery in South Korea is now in use in the US if they are supporting us so heavily?
Spending as percentage of GDP is not immaterial, the wealthier a nation is the more money it is likely to invest into research, it's just common sense, what matters is how big a sacrifice a nation is making for medical research which it shares with the world, the US is making about what one would expect from the richest nation on earth, less by percentage than some poorer nations but still commendable if not spectacular.
As for medical research I am no expert but I believe the robotic surgery procedures that are allowing far more complex and life saving operations were largely invented in Japan and South Korea.
So Finland spends more of it's GDP than us on it's healthcare research yet still spends way less of it's total GDP on health spending and has some of the best health statistics in the world that completely annihilate ours.
Sorry - I'm not socialist enough to think that the US has a "duty" somehow to support not only it's poorer citizens but the rest of the world as well. If the rest of the world wants the benefit of the drugs we research and produce they can help pay the real cost of those drugs.
Japan may well have developed some robotic instruments; south Korea I doubt.
You keep harping on a percentage of GDP. Yes, the US could divert money from other things into health care, even providing even more support for poorer nations as they do it. Why? We already spend more per capita than anyone else - there just isn't any reason to think that spending more will help much. There is also the question of what we would give up to do that - infrastructure? Military? Space? Other research? Entitlement programs (SSDI, food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.)? Schooling?
Of course, the obvious answer is military - that way countries like Kuwait can just go suck eggs when others invade them. And space. Space is always a good whipping boy, yet a great many of our medical advances have started from the space program (that and the military!).
No, Josak - it isn't a matter of simply declaring that we need to spend a greater percentage of GDP on health and thereby lower our standard of living. The only thing you should be looking at is spending per capita, and we are already over the top there. Far better to straighten out the system before doubling or tripling the costs, and that's something govt. has never managed to do.
I never suggested the US has some duty to other nations, it develops these drugs for it's own use, it sells them because there is some profit in doing so it does not create them for others, it makes less of a sacrifice in that sense than several other nations anyway. I never suggested expanding spending on medical research!
What we need is an efficient system that will allow us to bring our spending in line with that of what Europe has, or Australia and NZ, the thing that prevents that is not medical research and it's paltry 2.7% it's the inefficiency, the lack of insurance for the poor causing bigger problems down the line and the profiteering of the insurance company middle men.
Feel free to have that cutting stuff conversation with yourself but it has nothing to do with anything I have talked about, what we spend is not the problem it is how we spend it.
I also don't understand how you have problem with other nations benefiting from our medical research but think it's fine for us to spend on maintaining an army to help other nations militarily. So much hypocrisy.
I don't think we're communicating very well. Not unusual for me in the forums!
I keep reading your posts that others spend a greater percentage of GDP as saying we need to do the same - that is, increase spending. You are not advocating that - great! And I do fully concur that the biggest and best thing we can do is bring our system under control with very much needed changes in where the money is going. There is absolutely no reason, for instance, for the enormous sums spent on lawyers and insurance for malpractice. Or the payments to vets that get a Dr. appointment when nothing is wrong but also get paid transportation to the hospital, in the city they wish to visit (my son worked at the VA hospital here and the horror stories about both irresponsible vets AND the care they get would curl your hair).
We could, for instance, require hospitals to charge the same for same procedures; raise the cost to large insurers/companies while lowering it for non-insured/small insurance companies/small companies. We can revamp malpractice law. We could provide small, 24/7, clinics in the next room to every ER and deny ER care to the indigent with a head cold. We could require non-profit hospitals to stop spending huge sums on advertising. We could stop giving ambulance rides to people that consistently use it as free transportation. There are lots of things we could do to curtail spending without affecting quality at all, but we never do. Just keep spending and crying about it.
Yes, we could look at our costs and try to make sure they are under control. We didn't need to socialize our system in order to do this. There's nothing wrong with our healthcare. The problem lies with how expensive it is.
Pretty much. Personally, I find the legal problem of malpractice to be a huge one, but so is the more recent change to HMO's, hospital contracts and such that is just as damaging. That shifts the entire burden of paying for the poor that can pay little to nothing to small companies, individuals and people already badly strapped because they have no insurance but do have a good enough job to pay for their care. Just not theirs and 5 more people as well.
For my cataract surgery last year I found a private doctor that would give me about a 30% discount for cash - he didn't have the hassle of dealing with the insurance company plus it helps his cash flow. Nevertheless, I still don't doubt that his price for a contractual surgery was even less, assuming he was willing to sign the contract with a big company or insurance plan, and that still left me paying more, without insurance, than the insurance company would. There is something wrong with that picture when it comes to health care. A volume discount is fine when you're buying a fleet of cars, not so good when you're buying a new eye or heart.
I'll let the article speak for itself. It says quite a lot.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/busin … .html?_r=0
I have already answered that, the US is the second biggest nation on earth and the wealthiest nation on earth, it is not surprising that we have good scientific advancement, we still do not spend as much on it by percentage as several other nations do however so by that logic we should be seeing them be really pricy and inefficient too and yet they are not, it's an overblown issue with little actual impact on our healthcare costs.
Our entire research and development cost comes to just 2.7% of GDP compared to our 17% of GDP spent on healthcare. Not to mention some of that is recovered by profit.
By percentage is the only relevant scale, there are nation with one 20th of our GDP being discussed any other measure would be ridiculous.
When somebody disagrees with your statements, maybe it's because they think your answer had no reason behind it. I was just trying to be polite, but your snarky comment makes me regret that decision. If a capitalist said that red was red, you'd try to prove it wrong with statistics that you manipulate and interpret to fit your socialist agenda. Never once have I heard you acknowledge any statistic or source that did not serve your purpose or prove your point. There are some statistics that actually go against your beloved socialist views, and it is not thoughtless for someone to believe those statistics over your biased, spun propaganda.
Get mad all you want, if you don't rationally or factually back your statements it's the only reply it deserves, "I don't buy it" is an unqualified or backed statement and is thus worthy of derision in a debate.
Of course there are statistics that back other points, the fact that you have never seen me deal with such a statistic is utterly irrelevant.
Nothing is spun or twisted, if you care to have a look over this discussion you will see all or nearly all my points are based on independent factual data, yours... hardly ever.
Spoken like a true socialist. You seem to get quite angry when somebody simply disagrees with your data. See, I love data; I just don't believe you are using data correctly. Also, you never seem to accept data which disproves your beliefs. You simply gloss over the data, make a pithy comment about it, or spin it until you find one fact that serves your purpose. That's where we disagree.
America is wealthy. We spend billions on medical research. Other countries benefit. It doesn't matter whether or not they are spending the same percentage of their lesser resources. They benefit from our wealth and our spending. Trying to justify the fact that Zimbabwe or some other nation is spending an equal proportion of its resources is pointless. It doesn't mean that those countries are not benefiting from our mass wealth and our medical research. It's true that we benefit from their research too, but they're not as wealthy and don't do as much research. Then again, I expect that kind of reasoning from a socialist. Aren't you all about distribution of wealth and resources? Now, we have to distribute credit, when less credit is due to some nations. Don't get me wrong, I don't expect other nations to contribute as much when they don't have the resources, but when they don't, you can't then turn around and say that they did just as much as we did, proportionately, so they must not have benefited from our hard work and our expenditures.
You sure about that?
"5. “US prices have to be high to recover $1.7 billion in R&D costs per new drug and recover what lower prices abroad do not recover.”
a. The $1.7 billion figure is inflated from unverifiable R&D costs which companies have strong incentives to inflate from the start. Half the “costs” are estimated profits that companies would have made if they had not invested in R&D for new products vital for their survival. Another half are costs subsidized by taxpayers. Then the $1.7 billion estimate is based on the most costly 20 percent of new drugs but attributed to all drugs – a three-fold distortion. Just these three factors mean you divide by 12 to get $0.14 billion. Another third of the total comes from backing in a high amount for the unknown cost of discovery. And there’s more… See “Demythologizing the high costs…”
b. The BMJ article “Foreign free riders…” drew on data from the National Science Foundation, companies and government to conclude that companies earn back all expenses and make a profit at Canadian and European prices. US high prices simply make extra profits from government protections from free-market competition.
c. The USA is the primary market where drug companies raise prices each year on last year’s models because they are protected from free-market competition.
d. Pharmaceutical companies will make solid profits under bundled payments that rein in high prices.
e. Cancer drugs should be relatively cheap. First, most R&D is paid for by others, not companies. Second, trials are smaller and shorter than for other drugs. Third, in most cases we have no verifiable evidence that manufacturing costs are higher. Why, then, are cancer drugs priced higher than statin drugs? Most cancer drugs cause serious harms and provide little additional benefit, with exceptions.
It has little to do with a lack of competition. Research and development both cost a lot.
"When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/busin … .html?_r=0
"In real terms, spending on American biomedical research has doubled since 1994. By 2003, spending was up to $94.3 billion (there is no comparable number for Europe), with 57 percent of that coming from private industry. The National Institutes of Health’s current annual research budget is $28 billion, All European Union governments, in contrast, spent $3.7 billion in 2000, and since that time, Europe has not narrowed the research and development gap. America spends more on research and development over all and on drugs in particular, even though the United States has a smaller population than the core European Union countries."
In other words, pharma is taking you for a ride!
No, other countries that benefit from our research are taking us for a ride.
Can't you read? Or is it a case of "my capitalist masters are never wrong".
You're really quite emotional, aren't you? When somebody disagrees, you have to erroneously claim that they are uneducated. It seems like some kind of a sad defense. Perhaps I struck a nerve?
May we just debate, minus your cute little statements about whether or not I'm literate?
Here's an article that explains why most of Europe has failed to compete with America when it comes to medical innovation. It also explains the rising cost of medicine. . . .in Europe.
Why Are Our Medicines So Expensive?
"We know from other countries that most medicines can be produced at a fraction of the price they cost in Europe."
"Instead, the EU should be promoting open innovation and should work to bring down the prices of essential medicines, both abroad and within its borders."
"Reading the agonizing stories of cancer patients in Greece who can no longer afford the medicines that keep them alive, or immigrants in Spain who no longer get costly AIDS cocktails because their health care is being revoked, it is clear we have our priorities wrong."
"For decades, Western countries have relied on an innovation model that provides generous incentives to pharmaceutical companies to develop and test medicines. Public funds support much of the early research for new medicines, and companies that bring new drugs to market receive tax credits and patents that let them charge monopoly prices and make high profits."
Do you pay American tax incentives? So you see, I'm right. We know that, statistically speaking, most of the medical innovations the world enjoys have been coming from America. That's evidently provable. We pay for innovation that you get for free, because we Americans pay taxes that are used as incentives for our innovators.
http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/Biosoc … _Costs.pdf
"b. The BMJ article “Foreign free riders…” drew on data from the National Science Foundation, companies and government to conclude that companies earn back all expenses and make a profit at Canadian and European prices. US high prices simply make extra profits from government protections from free-market competition."
From your post -
""For decades, Western countries have relied on an innovation model that provides generous incentives to pharmaceutical companies to develop and test medicines. Public funds support much of the early research for new medicines, and companies that bring new drugs to market receive tax credits and patents that let them charge monopoly prices and make high profits."
And I always thought that we were western countries!
BTW, EA you do realise that the link you posted says almost exactly the same as was said in the link I posted?
We know that America is at the forefront of medical innovation. You want to dispute the cost of this innovation, specifically pharmaceuticals?
Forbes disagrees with your source:
"There’s one factor that, as much as anything else, determines how many medicines are invented, what diseases they treat, and, to an extent, what price patients must pay for them: the cost of inventing and developing a new drug, a cost driven by the uncomfortable fact than 95% of the experimental medicines that are studied in humans fail to be both effective and safe."
"A new analysis conducted at Forbes puts grim numbers on these costs. A company hoping to get a single drug to market can expect to have spent $350 million before the medicine is available for sale."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherp … -medicine/
We're arguing apples and pears!
You were claiming that as an American you were bearing the cost of R&D to the benefit of none Americans. I'm arguing that as a European we pay the costs of R&D as well.
It isn't Europeans that are taking advantage of you, it's Pharma.
Americans are paying for the American research and development you enjoy. I never said, ". . .to the benefit of none Americans." Let's make this as clear as possible:
"Ninety five percent of the new drugs coming on the market are developed for sale in the United States. They are paid for by American consumers, while other countries, such as Canada, Germany and France, free ride at our expense. The United States is the last major country that allows the market to set prices high enough to compensate pharmaceutical companies for their R&D investments. Obama Care will increasingly control pharmaceutical prices as costs rise and federal and state funds fall short. Major pharmaceutical advances will stop (How well will government labs work?), and the rest of the world will lose along with Americans."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderic … -steps-in/
I suggest that you read the link I posted and then follow it up with the link you posted.
Are you talking about this link that you posted?
http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/Biosoc … _Costs.pdf
Are you placing greater value in your links than mine? Is that your point, that your myth-busting site trumps my sources? Forbes versus what Biosocieties?
Please let me know what your point is here.
The two Forbes links you posted contradict each other. So yes, I think my site heavily researched by an expert in the field beats your site written with political bias.
That's your point? You put a lot of value in a source that few have ever even hear of prior to your posting. Forbes is well known and respected.
How do they contradict each other? Please provide exact quotes, not paraphrasing.
Here's a quote for you (Bloomberg BusinessWeek is typically considered a liberal-leaning publication):
"Dr. Mark B. McClellan, commissioner of the Food & Drug Administration. With retail prices that typically average twice those of other developed nations, 'the U.S. is paying the lion's share of the cost of developing drugs,' McClellan told BusinessWeek. 'That is not a sustainable or fair situation.'"
"He's right. And it's not just that the higher prices Americans pay for drugs fund half of the industry's research efforts. U.S. taxpayers also support most of the world's government-funded basic biomedical research -- as much as 80%, by some estimates. So if it weren't for U.S. dollars, many breakthrough drugs simply would not exist."
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/200 … always-pay
Yes, that's my point, I do place more value on the work of a professor who spends his working life studying health care costs than a journalist who will probably write on many different topics however august the publication he writes for.
What would be the point of my spending time analysing the links you posted, you've obviously made up your mind and if you aren't convinced by more erudite and experienced writers than I, why should you be convinced by me?
You are convinced that you are carrying the lions share of R&D costs, against evidence to the contrary that you are being taken by Pharma, as we all are.
"What would be the point of my spending time analysing the links you posted, you've obviously made up your mind and if you aren't convinced by more erudite and experienced writers than I, why should you be convinced by me?"
I'm convinced that you can't provide specific examples. How do my two sources contradict each other? Let's see quotes, not paraphrasing. If you are going to make a claim, you need to be able to back it up. Please, prove it with quotes.
Easy, just read the links I posted and make up your own mind.
It's not a position I'm used to, teaching teachers!
http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/Pharm_ … s_2012.pdf
How about you backing up your claim?
What a cute statement. Now, let's see a substantive post.
Let's see quotes. You say my sources contradict each other. Why are you being so evasive? Why won't you prove your point? Let's see contradicting quotes from my articles.
Cute logo, it almost has me convinced of the superiority of your argument.
"b. The BMJ article “Foreign free riders…” drew on data from the National Science Foundation, companies and government to conclude that companies earn back all expenses and make a profit at Canadian and European prices. US high prices simply make extra profits from government protections from free-market competition."
From your post -
""For decades, Western countries have relied on an innovation model that provides generous incentives to pharmaceutical companies to develop and test medicines. Public funds support much of the early research for new medicines, and companies that bring new drugs to market receive tax credits and patents that let them charge monopoly prices and make high profits."
I know it's a repeat but you seemed to miss it the first time round.
If I had used the word "socialism," the logo probably would have been even more effective at convincing you. Go figure. I'll try harder next time.
I didn't miss it. I expect that businesses that provide 95 percent of the world's pharmaceutical discoveries will be highly profitable.
I'm still waiting, however, for the contradictory statements in my articles. Was that just something you said to try to win the argument, or was it real? Let's see quotes. All you keep doing is comparing your article with mine. You made a statement about my articles but won't back it with proof.
Again, another contradiction. "Americans are paying for the American research and development you enjoy. " and you claim that enjoyment does not equal benefit!
You published earlier that the cost of drugs in the EU was high but here you claim that we "ride free at our expense". One journo going off on an anti Obama rant certainly carries more weight than anybody else.
Again, a post which supports my claim that pharma is ripping us all off but you claim proves that the US is bearing all the cost.
The same pharmacy companies that are responsible for 95 percent of the world's pharmaceutical advancements are very profitable. How can that be?!?! If they're that successful, I would hope that they are profitable.
95% of pharmaceutical advancements come from America. Do you pay American taxes? Our tax money is used, across the world, to further research. We spend a lot more than Britain, or all of Europe for that matter, on research and development in pharmaceuticals. Yeah, you benefit from American taxpayers' money being spent on medical research.
America, the country you consider totally capitalistic, is the world's dominant leader in pharmaceutical advancements, easily outdoing the rest of the world. Capitalism is saving millions and millions of lives.
If socialized medicine is so great, why are so few pharmaceutical advancements coming from those countries? Ninety-five percent of pharmaceutical advancements come from America; what percentage of pharmaceutical advancements come from socialized countries, a laughable 2 or 3 percent?
Drug companies consider all their developments to occur in the country that houses their HQ no matter what country the developments are actually made in.
As many drug companies have their HQ in the US it follows that all their developments will be attributed to the USA.
Read about how many "new" drugs are actually putting people in hospital and shortening their lives.
This is your hypothesis, an unsupported claim? Six of the twelve largest pharmaceutical companies in the world are American. If you look at it this way, half of the biggest pharmaceutical companies produce roughly ninety-five percent of the advancements in pharmaceuticals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ph … _companies
We can both agree that medications can be harmful. You'll get no argument from me on that point.
And then of course are the good drugs that save people's lives on a daily basis, or keep people mentally well so they can lead normal lives.
It is neither my hypothesis nor an unsupported claim.
I would like to to prove that it is an unsupported claim as you would accept no evidence from me that it is a supported claim.
I provided proof. You did not provide proof but instead, claimed that I wouldn't accept proof from you. . .
That's your point?
What proof did you provide? Saying it ain't so is not proof!
By the way, do you realise that US drug companies get roughly half their income from abroad?
Read the post and source for proof. It's obvious. . .and still available to those who didn't read it thoroughly.
What you're saying is that the most successful innovators in the pharmaceutical industry earn slightly more than half of their profit off of the 300 million people who live in America. The remainder is earned off of the 6.8 billion people who live in the rest of the world. Yep, that's my point. America is paying more than you are, but you still reap the benefits of capitalistic innovation, American ingenuity.
I read your post, it said
"This is your hypothesis, an unsupported claim? Six of the twelve largest pharmaceutical companies in the world are American. If you look at it this way, half of the biggest pharmaceutical companies produce roughly ninety-five percent of the advancements in pharmaceuticals."
Followed by a list of drug companies!
And you call that proof!
How many of your successful innovations hospitalise people or have little effect on them at all?
Plenty of America's pharmaceutical innovations are great; some are a failure too. I don't deny that. I do, however, have a realistic view about the cost of innovation, who is paying more than their share, and where those innovations are taking place. America is the leader. America pays the most.
Oh what do I care, I'm not American, you carry on being ripped off by your drug companies if it makes you happy.
You carry on benefiting from capitalist achievements for which you don't pay your fair share because of government price fixing of pharmaceuticals.
No, you've got that wrong. We do pay our fair you are being ripped off.
Still I can understand your reluctance to believe anybody apart from the drug companies who are ripping you off. No wait, I don't understand your willingness to lie down and be fleeced.
http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/BMJ-Fo … Oct_05.pdf
You've posted the same sole link how many times now? I get it. You believe your source over everything ever published about pharmaceutical companies or at least over the three links I've posted. You're reminding me of Charlton Heston. He was clinging to his guns; you cling to your link.
And no matter how many times I post it, you still don't want to believe it!
The link I posted is peer reviewed, can you say the same for Forbes?
http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources- … ew-process
"And no matter how many times I post it, you still don't want to believe it!"
Repetition persuasion isn't going to work. You can post it even more, and that won't make it statistically correct.
I posted three links, two from Forbes and one from Business Week. The last source was even from a liberal-leaning publication! Here's one that you seemed to have missed.
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/200 … always-pay
Are you serious?
Here's a peer-edited journal that discounts your article:
"In the dynamic bio-tech industry, the picture is grimmer for Europe: the U.S. accounts for no less than 'three quarters of the world’s biotechnology revenues and R&D spending.' Genentech, Amgen, you name it—if you’re talking about a successful bio-tech company, chances are you’re talking about a company that’s located in the United States, not in Europe. "
"In Europe, even more than in the United States, pharmaceutical companies face onerous obstacles to healthy business functions. Government price controls on drugs arguably present the greatest impediment to a flourishing European pharmaceutical industry. "
http://american.com/archive/2007/januar … art-attack
To prove it's a peer-edited journal, here's what Wikipedia says about it:
"AEI (American Enterprise Institute) scholars' research is presented at conferences and meetings, in peer-reviewed journals and publications on the institute's website, and through testimony before and consultations with government panels."
Right, here is the first of our contradictory posts which you claim explains why Europe has failed to compete with the USA. It doesn't, but then you conclude with the claim that it proves that most of the worlds medical innovations come from the US, it doesn't.
What does this mean t you? "We know from other countries that most medicines can be produced at a fraction of the price they cost in Europe." It says Europe, not the USA.
And again, not a mention of the US -"For decades, Western countries have relied on an innovation model that provides generous incentives to pharmaceutical companies to develop and test medicines. Public funds support much of the early research for new medicines, and companies that bring new drugs to market receive tax credits and patents that let them charge monopoly prices and make high profits."
Western countries include the US but also includes European countries as well.
Look at the survey again, the results are not in order, the US was 22nd by my count not second.
I did misread it - sorry. Interesting, though, that far more people are happy with availability of quality care than have confidence with the system. Those seem at odds to me - that 81% are satisfied that they can get quality care, but only 56% are confident of the system.
Typical poll, seems to me.
I knew that was coming. We're stuck with Obamacare, and all of your statistics represent an entirely different and arguably better system, the one we often see in Western Europe. Using those statistics to promote Obamacare is like using Rolls Royce statistics to represent a Chevy. They're both cars, but they are very much different. IF we had the same plan, you could use your statistics with fidelity. We do not have the same plan, and thus, your statistics are a stretch.
France's system has issues. IF, IF, IF we had to socialize our healthcare, and I strongly do not believe we needed to do so, why didn't we look to the best systems and improve their faults? I know some will say we did this, but whether or not we did so, we ended up with a lemon. Obamacare isn't good policy, and it's not what they have in France, the UK, or any other country in Western Europe.
What are they saying in Europe? I doubt anybody in Europe is envious of Obamacare. I doubt anybody in Europe considers Obamacare to be a superior plan to what they already have. I really wish we didn't have socialized healthcare; IF we have to have socialized healthcare, why can't it at least be a good plan, one that improves upon the best plans currently being used?
Well see there I agree, Obamacare is inferior to the European systems, that is due to an attempt by Obama and his administration to compromise (well intentioned if perhaps misjudged) on socialization, I think Obamacare IS however a step in the right direction which will lead hopefully to taking the next step all the way.
I also believe that Obamacare is superior to the system it is replacing as a step closer to the yet more successful overseas models.
I do not want socialized healthcare, but I really disdain Obamacare. Obamacare is, by far, inferior to those of Western Europe. Your statistics are irrelevant, because the systems are completely different.
Not irrelevant because they show the results of a system Obamacare is a step towards.
The only thing Obamacare is a step towards is bankruptcy. Either that or, if cost is maintained at "projected" levels, and great many more people dying from lack of care...
According to the Harvard study on the matter just in human cost it will save more than 45 000 lives yearly so that is bunk.
Then Harvard is either neglecting to raise the cost by a factor of at least 2-5 or it lies.
You cannot provide healthcare for additional millions while saving money at the same time. Add in the profit for insurance companies and it is absolutely insane to even consider that the cost won't skyrocket.
Obviously those people cost money to insure which is why Obamacare has a tax to fund it!
Cost rises are rubbish too, it's possible we will see a $200 per year rise in the short term then falling off again and Obamacare actually prevents insurance companies from raising premiums after 2014.
You should actually read the bill.
If it's one step closer to these systems, then your statistics are only fractionally relevant, even by your own admission.
Not only is Obamacare inferior to the European system, it's inferior to nearly ANY system in the industrialized world. It's certainly much worse than what we previously had. The CBO continues to put out stats indicating more and more Americans will not have coverage.
This is a moronic plan and it will fail, there is no doubt of that. When it does fail, it will take the Democrat down with it. Mark my words. It's already starting to happen.
Here's my take on the whole thing:
America has great healthcare but our costs are through the roof. Our statistics aren't good, because a lot of Americans do not have insurance. It's hard and wrong to force a healthier lifestyle and mandatory insurance. Instead of socializing our system, why didn't we look at streamlining costs so people who currently can't afford insurance can get it, if they want it? Our expensive system seems like the first place we should have looked, and a place we never really have fully explored. Instead, we trashed the entire system in favor of Obamacare, a system that is inferior to plans that are out there and, in my opinion, to what we already have. Do you really need to replace an entire engine when all you need is an alternator?
Socialised healthcare is the best and has worked wonders for us in Australia since before I was born - I am now going into my mid 40's. [Now, all we have to do is get rid of our current government who want to start charging extra per visits.]
PS Its not totally free. We pay for it through our taxes. On my last tax bill it cost about $450.00 per annum ($60K salary) for both myself and one child (husband has his own tax assessment).
That's almost free. How the heck is it paid for?
We can find no evidence to support the widely believed claims from industry that lower prices in other industrialised countries do not allow companies to recover their R&D costs; so they have to charge Americans more to make up the difference and pay for these "foreign free riders." We also explain why the claims themselves contradict the economic nature of the pharmaceutical industry.
The latest report from the UK Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme shows that drug companies in the United Kingdom invest more of their revenues from domestic sales in research and development than do companies in the US. Prices in the UK are much lower than those in the US yet profits remain robust.
Companies in other countries also manage to recover their research and development costs, maintain high profits, and sell drugs at substantially lower prices than in the US. For example, in Canada the 35 companies that are members of the brand name industry association report that income from domestic sales is, on average, about 10 times greater than research and development costs. They have profits higher than makers of computer equipment and telecommunications carriers despite prices being about 40% lower than in the US.
http://www.pharmamyths.net/foreign_free … _96359.htm
Just heard on the news that the UK government has spent £43 million on developing a flu treatment, Tamiflu, that proves to be no more effective than Paracetamol!
The makers, Hoffmann-La Roche, are a Swiss company.
by Jezzzz7 years ago
I hear every day about how Obama is not telling the truth about health care reform. I would like to be educated about the subject. What is he saying that just get under your skin about health care...
by Judy Specht4 months ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new...
by Susan Reid2 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces...
by Jim Hunter5 years ago
From our Dear leader."The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system." –in remarks after a health care roundtable with physicians,...
by theirishobserver.2 years ago
At Last - A Patient's Bill of Rights Good afternoon,It seems like everywhere you go in this country, you hear story after story of Americans who have been let down by the private health insurance...
by Dan Harmon2 years ago
A most interesting article in this morning's paper, the Idaho Statesman.Seems that they think they need around 5,000 sign-ups per month (through March) to pay for the program (there is a 1.5% tax on each policy...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.