|
|
|
|
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/15/2008 12:53:45 PM | | What a hoax, comparing "public" healthcare differences between european countries and America. Completely different systems of "public" healthcare. We have a "private" healthcare system. But I do see some evidence to support your claim. Look how many Americans head over to Canada to get treatment. No wait, sorry it's the other way around. My bad. But then there is all the new drug theraphies & medical device innovations produced by those great systems. Oops, my bad again. Dang it!! It's US drug companies on the leading edge of treating illness. And it's American companies bringing innovation to medical technology. But, those wonderful european systems are cheap. Take my mother-in-law as a case study. Diagnosed with pancreatic cancer last July. Alive today and cancer free in Texas. DEAD in Canada and Europe, because the chemo she got here is NOT available in those really good systems. | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/15/2008 1:00:42 PM | More Americans head to Canada for heathcare than the other way around.
The difference being that when Canadians are sent to America to get care that can't be provided in Canada, it is still paid for. (Except elelctive procedures)
Americans go to Canada and Mexico for lasik, for medications and for other treatments on a regular basis. You just don't hear about it! | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/15/2008 1:07:02 PM | 39 countries that have lower child mortality rates then america
america has lower life expectancies than many other countries in the world
america has the greatest spread of inequalities in all industrialized countries
america has the highest rates of poverty
america has a *growing* workforce of poverty wage workers
people are afraid to do anything because of this inequality gap. health "insurance" provided by the employer forces people into ZERO choice.
Socialized medicine lifts people out of poverty. Its because of social programs that lifted people in america out of the depression.
I live in Toronto, and I have several problems with our health care system. Its been destroyed by our conservative governments over the years to prove its a failed system, yet through the struggles of the system we have, it still provides EVERYONE with good quality care, and the freedom to choose.
Americans "claim" to pay less taxes which gives them the freedom to choose. Point of fact, Americans pay 0.3% less in taxes than we do, ours are more transparent, give or take a mortgage write off (foreclosures anyone!) and they still have to pay premiums, co-pays, deductables and the threat of decline is always a problem...this if you are not in the 45 million that can't afford these costs, or the unlucky 18,000 a year that die because of this crisis...
Americans who deny this basic human right for those 45 million should be downright ashamed...you are killing your own people because of your ideological fears... | |
|
| |
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/16/2008 1:59:34 PM | Boy that whole post is a laugh. Where do you get that .03% tax figure, I'd love to see the source on that. The taxes in canada are prohibitive enough to relly make you think twice about starting a business or living here, that is a certainty.
Socialized medicine did not lift anyone out of the great depression, it was the second world war that did. If that was the case Cuba, venezuela and north Korea would be all in the G8 oddly enough none of these nations can claim to be bastions of economic wealth.
In regards to the 45 million figure its pure bunk. No doubt derived from michael moore. After you take out of that figure, the illegal immigrants, the people who have quite a job and are moving to another (temporarily uninsured) and the rich who have no need for such insurance, then lets get at this real figure.
Whatever that figure is, percentage wise it is no greater that the percentage of canadains who have no access to healthcare (due to wait times, die before treatment) or whom only have access to poor healthcare.
If you want a system of poor quality and poor access but free then you have socialized medicine. In other words you get what you pay for. | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/16/2008 2:14:02 PM | Who is the single largest private employer in America?
Wal Mart!
The vast majority of their employees don't get insurance and can't afford to buy their own.
It is now 47 million Americans. Illegal immigrants are not included in that figure.
The number is rising, not falling!
It is the non-partisian Congressional Budget Office that provides such figures. Both Republicans and Democrats depend on the CBO for acurate analysis of budgetary concerns. If you ever worked in a legislature, you would know how highly regarded those departments are at both the Federal and State levels. | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/16/2008 2:31:39 PM | You call my post a laugh, yet you didn't even accurately counter one aspect of what I said.
sorry i was wrong about how much less americans pay then we do, you actually pay 0.2% less in taxes (average) then Canadians. i did look it up, and no i won't do YOUR work for you. you have the number go find it, i know you have reading problems, but maybe there will be a nice graph for you, there was one where i found the data :D
i didn't say socialized medicine lifted *americans* out of the great depression, it certainly helped britain. but to say unemployment insurance and Social Security didn't help, well, there is no helping you...
the 45 million you are right on about again! i'm so sorry, its actually 47 million, i just can't seem to get my numbers straight...must be an off day. in case you want to freak out and blame aliens for that "bloated" number, try going to www.census.gov..they would probably have a better clue than your "opinion"
your assessment of the canadian system, people dying from treatment and wait times etc can happen, no doubt, that is in every system, even yours sadly. but here its a problem stipulated by conservative cutbacks and lineups because we have over 35 million in line. its rare, but it happens, the percentage unfortunately for you, doesn't mean the system is in a crisis, it means its still better then getting no treatment, still better since a doctor will put you in front of the line instead of an insurance company taking you out of one because of costs or "experimental" excuses etc.
Your assessment is ladened with pure repuglican propaganda. There is no "poor" healthcare in this country, sorry. but "poor" people can access it
so, your demon tales, exaggerations, lies and bringing up 3 vastly different countries as examples of why uni health care hasn't lifted them out of poverty, is just allowing your own repuglican conventional wisdom to trump the facts
*-EDIT: Keep the personal comments out of it folks or I will bench you.--TheMadFiddler-PoF Forum Moderator-*
| |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/16/2008 2:49:13 PM | one more thing
you should consider opening a business here. take Wal Mart for example. They can take 100% of their profits out of the country. They can cluster bomb entire areas. They don't pay ANY taxes and if Canada were to collect the tax abatements they received we could put every child for 10 generations through university...
Now, if I, a Canadian citizen, were to open a business in Canada and operate it like Wal Mart, I would be put in jail...
since you are American, think about it, you can benefit greatly here. pay lower than poverty wages and pay no taxes, this is a corporations dream
Now of course, you can take the Wal Mart example and x100 to that. A conservatives brainchild...gotta love the greed! | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/16/2008 2:57:45 PM | I never said your figure of 47 million was inaccurate, It is important to know what this figure is comprised of. A large part of those people will be illegal immigrants, people changing jobs or too rich to care. If you want to deal with the issue of the uninsured it would be helpful to discuss those whom it might actually affect.
If you want to talk about socialized medecine it's just a debate as to wether or not you want to sacrifice quality and access for universality. The Canadian system is great if you have a broken arm or need a hang nail removed. Whenever you have anything more complex than that you will either:
a) Wait a very long time for treatment
b) Receive poor or substandard treatment
c) Choose to go to the US and pay for it yourself
when you have demand that is unlimited how do you limit supply? Either the government can constrain treatment quality and quantity via budgets or the individual can determine on his own when a treatment is too expensive and choose not to pay.
The Canadian system is riddled with inefficiency and people receiving treatment they would never ask for if they had to pay out of their own pocket. The result, those that need care can't get it or if they do it is of a substandard quality.
If people in the US want this universality they should be aware that their is a price to be paid when the government determines your quality and access to care.
*-EDIT: Also Edited. Same Reason. -TheMadFiddler - PoF Forum Moderator -*
| |
|
| |
| |
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/16/2008 3:31:44 PM | As I stated earlier, I'm finding that accurate accounting of the position and plans of the candidates is scarce and even contradictory in some cases. I'm finding it hard to wade through all the BS that has been published on this topic.
Having said that, the only real information I've skimmed off the top is this:
McCain thinks the current system is flawed since it has it's roots firmly in the 50's and 60's where the employer carried a significant portion of the employees medical benefits. Back in those days, people stayed in one job, were upwardly mobile in the same company and would retire with adequate medical coverage. The problem was with the "outsourcing" ((my word)) for medical coverage (in the 80's?), culminating in all these HMO plans which do not travel from job to job with the employee. If you should leave the company, ofttimes you would be left with little to no insurance coverage (if you could afford it at all). Also the trend of staying with one company is nearly non-existant these days, which makes this type of health care problematic at best.
McCain seems to be saying that employees should invest in their own medical coverage to relieve all the stress on Medicare and Medicaid. This coverage would travel with the employee, from job to job, such as a 401k does.
Did I get that correct, or am I missing something here?
BTW I'd cite my source, but have been reading about this topic for well over a month trying to decide which candidate has the better plan for reform. I'll post my opinion on Obama's plan after I receive feedback (please) on this synopsis of the McCain stance.
Please and thank you. | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/16/2008 3:46:26 PM | In the US, the government's opinions on health care have not changed much since the time of Nixon:
University of Virginia Check - February 17, 1971, 5:26 pm - 5:53 pm, Oval Office Conversation 450-23. Look for: tape rmn_e450c.
Ehrlichman: "Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …"
President Nixon: [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: "… the less care they give them, the more money they make."
President Nixon: "Fine." [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: [Unclear] "… and the incentives run the right way."
President Nixon: "Not bad."
If anything, the US Government has aligned itself more-so with those whose interests are to gain financially by inserting a monetary obstacle between people looking for medical services and those who offer it, than in the time of Nixon.
You have an individual who needs health care and a non-profit hospital available to give it. Between the two is the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical corporations looking to extract as much money from the transaction as possible. The insurance industry serves no purpose other than to make money. It benefits no one by its existence other than the shareholders. The pharmaceutical companies are unnecessary and again look only to line the pockets of the shareholders. Medical research should be in the hands of the Universities and all profits returned to University's research departments, not into the pockets of the rich.
The government has aligned itself with the interests of the rich and have turned their back on the average citizen. Time for a change. I good place to start would be to turn off the talk radio and understand how things really are. | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/16/2008 3:52:02 PM | http://www.oecd.org/document/17/0,3343,en_2825_495698_38148433_1_1_1_1,00.html
Here's the link to the latest OECD data, as far as I can tell the tax wedge (as is refered to in Oecd terminology) is less in the USA than Canada. Although data is subject to interpretation, how do you get your .2% less taxes in the USA than Canada? | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/17/2008 7:20:22 AM | Dodger,
Not attempting to speak for Nologo, but I'm guessing the marginal tax rates were calculated as follows: (Nologo, please correct me if I'm wrong)
Canadian Income Tax: 15.0%
US Income Tax 14.6%
(15.0%-14.6%)/14.6%*100
2.7 %
That's if we're referring to the same tables. Although I would probably calculate the difference using the actual total $ values for income tax in each country. | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/17/2008 10:20:57 AM | If he was refering to the marginal tax rate for the lowest level of each country his statement would still be inaccurate. IF his arguement is so weak that he has to make up blatently false statements to bolster his claim, I think that speaks volumes about the credibility of his position. Point of fact the taxes Canadians pay when you include everything are much higher that in the USA. Most tax lobby groups will have differring figures although the average tax canadians pay in total is between 40% and 50%. The fraser intitute uses a figure of 44.8%.
In the US a group called tax foundations rates the average rate of tax at 30.8%.
Every canadian knows that the taxes we pay are wayyyy more than in the US. If you are trying to make the arguement that our socialized medicine does not affect the amount of taxes you will pay, this arguement is Fallacious. | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/17/2008 10:21:48 AM | First of all America is not quite the same as any other country on earth so to say that America should model itself after another country's healthcare system is a mistake. America must resolve it's healthcare issue in it's own unique way.
We are a capitalistic country with socialistic features with an ongoing ebb and flow of these two opposing idealogies.
The concept of universal healthcare seems on the surface a compassionate humanitarian idea but the nuts and bolts of it and what it really means for all of us here is somewhat undefined. Mandatory insurance ? Tax increases ? Government agencies ?
Forcing employers to provide health benifits ? These all have certain consequences with questionable outcomes that may or may not improve the quality of live for Americans in general.
One aspect I've not seen much of in these discussions which often include a theme of greed and envy is the fact that insurance companies in the past 10-12 years have made a lot of money resulting from concerns about rising costs of healthcare back in the Clinton era. From what I've seen and from what I recall HMO's didn't really reduce the cost of healthcare for the general public or improve it's quality. The benifactors of governmental intervention were insurance companies. When you go to the healthcare provider with a healthcare concern the treatment you recieve unless you opt to pay for it yourself is determined by a third party who works for an insurance provider who may or may not have medical training but is not accountable for any error or lack of treatment you recieve and they don't know you from a hole in the wall. New medicines, treatments and innovative proceedures become avialable almost on a daily basis but no matter how effective they are they won't be covered by your insurance plan until they've been around for ten years or so till they become standard.
Government works at an even slower pace. I've seen state and government run facilities where treatment proceedures are archaic simply because it's cheaper.
I have serious reservations about government interventions with the healthcare industry not only because of government's track record of inefficiency but because of the real possibility of healthcare becoming worse instead of better as a result of unintended consequence.
I'm not saying America's current healthcare system is perfect, it's not but I don't think government is the answer. I don't think more insurance is the answer either.
I think that if we want a healthier America and better utilized healthcare system then we should be focusing our efforts on health education so that people don't wind up in the ER because of a stuffy nose or an MI resulting from a steady diet of KFC or lack of exercise or because they bought some OTC medicine incompatable with a prescribed med. I don't mean to offend anyone and I'm not certain of the statistics but given some of the things I've seen I'd bet that the high cost of healthcare and insurance has a direct correlation to a lack of basic common sense knowledge of many healthcare consumers and we all wind up paying for it. Basic hygiene, diet and exercise, safety measures , increased exposure to health related concepts and encouraging self responsibility would probably do far more in reducing the cost of healthcare and insurance than any other health plan promised by any politician. | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/17/2008 12:05:14 PM |
I think that if we want a healthier America and better utilized healthcare system then we should be focusing our efforts on health education so that people don't wind up in the ER because of a stuffy nose or an MI resulting from a steady diet of KFC or lack of exercise or because they bought some OTC medicine incompatable with a prescribed med. I don't mean to offend anyone and I'm not certain of the statistics but given some of the things I've seen I'd bet that the high cost of healthcare and insurance has a direct correlation to a lack of basic common sense knowledge of many healthcare consumers and we all wind up paying for it. Basic hygiene, diet and exercise, safety measures , increased exposure to health related concepts and encouraging self responsibility would probably do far more in reducing the cost of healthcare and insurance than any other health plan promised by any politician.
While I agree with you in principal (as we suffer the same difficulties in Canada) better health education doesn't address the needs of serious illness that may or may not be related to poor dietary or lifestyle habits.....If 47 million Americans have no insurance, no amount of education can address the compendium of issues they may have. The infant and child mortality rates in the United States are worse than just about in any other Western industrialized country. According to the National Institute of Medicine, 18,000 Americans die every year because of lack of health insurance.
A large study (about 3 million patients?) was done by the Lancet, one of the world's largest medical journals. The attempt of the study was to seek what correlations might be made between advanced stage cancer and a individual's insurance status. The Lancet reported that uninsured are more likely to receive a diagnosis of cancer in one of the later stages, than those with private insurance. And their chances of survival are diminished. Many of these cancers are detected by routine screenings at early stages.
I recall reading somewhere that GWB had polyps removed. Most colon cancer arises from polyps, which can only be detected by colonoscopies. Since I regularly listen to GWB soundbites, I recall hearing him say at one time that everyone has access to health care in the USA - after all, you just go to emerg. But you can't get a preventative colonoscopy in emerg, at least I don't believe so. So the only time an uninsured person would end up being diagnosed with colo-rectal cancer is likely to be in emerg after the disease is in it's final stages. It would be very difficult to trace back the issue of colo-rectal cancer to education, and if it was a clear-cut case of an individual eating a crappy diet for their entire lives, don't they also deserve an early diagnosis? If there's a problem with Medicaid cancer screening outreach or inadequate funding or whatever it may be, that needs to be addressed as well. In any case, being uninsured means an increased risk of dying from cancer unnecessarily, and many people feel that's wrong.
Another poster in this thread highlighted the differences between socialized medicine and single-payor. In Canada, we have socialized medicine. I believe that what many Americans are actually proposing is not socialized medicine, but single payor.
Truman proposed a national health insurance plan run by the federal government. Americans could pay monthly fees and the fund would pay for medical expenses and lost wages, and it was optional. It was not socialized medicine, but it formed the basis for Medicare in the USA. It would seem that this is a fairly ideal model for the USA to emulate nation-wide for all citizens.
Be well everyone...... | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/17/2008 1:09:19 PM |
The difference being that when Canadians are sent to America to get care that can't be provided in Canada
So why would I want government run healthcare? I can get all the services I need here in the US. Why would I want to switch to an inferior system that would require me leaving my own country to get all my healthcare needs met? Sounds like the answer to the question nobody asked. | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/17/2008 3:36:12 PM | Normally I don't cut and paste but since this article may be helpful to some uninsured preson reading here I'll post it;
DENVER -- Colon cancer is one of those topics no one ever wants to talk about. The good news is, it is a preventable cancer and doctors recommend getting screened at age 50.
And there's no excuse, since most insurance companies will pay for it. But even if you don't have insurance, you need to be screened, doctors say.
Dr. Tillman Farley, with the Salud Health Clinic in Fort Lupton, said his mission is to make sure all his patients know about one of the few cancers that is 100 percent preventable.
The Children's Hospital has the most pediatric experts in Colorado.
True
False
"If everybody stays up to date with their colon cancer screening, really, nobody should die from colon cancer," said Tillman.
Who should be screened? Anybody over the age of 50, African Americans over the age of 45, and anybody over the age of 40 who has had a parent or a sibling with colon cancer.
"Really, the best way to screen for colorectal cancer is a colonoscopy, which is where the doctor uses a light to look up through the entire length of the large intestine," said Tillman.
Kenneth Hammond had a colon cancer scare. He knew he needed a colonoscopy but he didn't have insurance. Thanks to the Salud Family Health Clinic and the Colorado Colorectal Screening program, he got a colonsocopy and some peace of mind.
"Just makes it more positive, and I don't have to worry anymore," Hammond said.
"People shouldn't wait until they think they have something because the whole point is, early on, it's an invisible problem you don't know you have, and that's the point where we can catch it and cure it," Tillman said.
Thanks to Amendment 35, the tobacco tax windfall, Coloradans who have no insurance and have a very limited income, can get a free colonoscopy. Patients of Denver Health or Salud Family Health Centers can call their clinic to see if they qualify.
This is one of several programs avialable throughout the country. Free, low cost or payment plans if a person wants to get something done there's always a way.
As for studies about people facing death because of no health insurance consider insurance limitations, compliance with treatment and people even if they had insurance would not go to the doctor.
47 million americans without healthcare insurance seems a bit high to me and I'm not sure how that figure was arrived at but assuming it's accurate I'd have to ask why they don't. Are 47 million americans unemployed with no means of support ? Do all of those 47 million americans have no car to drive and no bills to pay ? I'm not intending to sound heartless but we tend to take our health for granted here and often if it's a choice between a new car or a health insurance plan the car will win out. For many who budget monthly bills healthcare doesn't get a second thought. This is one aspect of healthcare that should be included in education. There are affordable catastrophic health care plans that many could buy into if they chose to do so. I also wonder why it is when we think about the evil rich coorperations that we focus on the oil companies or wal mart and not the insurance companies who could likely afford to lower rates and include those with existing or pre existing health issues rather than force the middle class into picking up the tab under the guise of universal health care | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/17/2008 4:33:00 PM | still attacking me isn't going to bait me or prove your argument
for those that want to know...
the figure i presented was for "The percentage of gross earnings given up in tax, including any social security contributions. Calculated for a single worker without children, earning 100 % of the average wage"
facts... | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/17/2008 4:54:15 PM | | It is just common sense, if you are going to DIE because you don't have health insurance, then perhaps you would prefer to have a system that wouldn't condemn you to DEATH! Of course, if your life or your children's lives mattered to you, then you would prefer a system that would allow them to live. | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/17/2008 6:44:37 PM | [still attacking me isn't going to bait me or prove your argument
for those that want to know...
the figure i presented was for "The percentage of gross earnings given up in tax, including any social security contributions. Calculated for a single worker without children, earning 100 % of the average wage"
facts... ]
Don't wan't to attack you, just the evidence you present. I looked at the same bar charts you did. 0.4% or 0.2% I say more like a full 2 percent less paid in taxes on this small select category.
You have to admit that to state that a canadian pays a lot more taxes on average than an american. If you start to include all the additional hidden taxes a canadian pays and start including all the special tax exemptions an america will receive (ie capital gains exclusion and mortgage interest) the tax burden clearly higher for a canadian.
Nothing personal, just a point of fact Canadians taxes are higher than an americans. | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/17/2008 6:50:53 PM |
It is just common sense, if you are going to DIE because you don't have health insurance, then perhaps you would prefer to have a system that wouldn't condemn you to DEATH! Of course, if your life or your children's lives mattered to you, then you would prefer a system that would allow them to live.
...and that's not even counting the many consequences of LIVING through a catastrophic health care crisis where a person loses everything they own and the "trickle down" effect this has on the economy, sort of like the current housing crisis..... | |
|
| So you think universal health care is good for America huh?
Posted: 6/17/2008 11:46:25 PM |
47 million americans without healthcare insurance seems a bit high to me ...
Here's a link to an article that makes mention of the 47,000,000 uninsured....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/opinion/26fri1.html
True, there will always be those who simply won't look after their health, but I don't think that these are the folks that can be targetted by any health care system in any country. But that number could never even approach 47,000,000. When I had a Canadian relative living in the USA he was personally paying about $600 a month for insurance. That's a lotta moolah.....it would have been cheaper to get home to Canada for medical care, except that he was living in Scottsdale Arizona at the time.
The child mortality rate is quite surprising, especially considering that mothers in the Czech Republic could apparently get better child care. That may be because every other western industrialized country has a guarantee of health care for each and every one of its citizens, especially children. The children are not of an age where they can make a decision regarding their health care, not can they buy-into educational opportunities.
Thanks for posting the article about the colonoscopy screenings in Denver. It made for an interesting read; hopefully someone will take it to heart.......But moving forward and beyond those who die from fatal illnesses, can you just imagine how many tens or hundreds of thousands of additional people unnecessarily suffer from non-fatal but treatable disease?
Be well........ | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
