| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/22/2005 1:57:57 PM | | Oh yeah, there is another important aspect of my healthcare plan: The government will pay up to 100% for extreme makeovers of ugly women. Who will not appluad me for that idea? | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/23/2005 8:30:48 AM | sarita
The contractors in Iraq are actually risking their lives more than the soldiers. Why are they doing it? Money. Contractors are being kidnapped weekly and shown on international TVs with a gun at their head. I don't see soldiers being kidnapped and shown on Al-Jazeera.
You're right, the soldiers are the ones in the body bags, or heading to Walter-Reed with limbs missing.
Conservatives need to stop spewing bs about how privatization efficiency par excellence, and prove they mean what they say by privatizing the military all the way, or admit privatization is a pipe dream based on conservatives' desire for ever-greater profits for corporations.
Again, this is an absolute. Privatization is not an 'all or nothing' proposition, some aspects of govt organizations are ripe for this, and some are not.
Like with people: you are saying we must either hate or love them, that there are no in-betweens. But there are many degrees of friendship or acquaintenceship, the world is not black and white, there are many shades of gray. You must have learned this by now.
Privatizing does not, in reality, make anything any more efficient. If anything, it makes it more criminal. All one has to do is take a look around at the endless thefts, bankruptcies and law-breaking of corporations. And this is what conservatives want for our social security, our schools, and everything (except the military of course!!!).
This is a vast overstatement, as a relatively small percentage of corporations are involved in this. Plus, for every corp. scandal you can name I can name a govt scandal of equal or greater nature.
Personally, I would like both groups to be above board, but unlike some I can accept that people have flaws, and since both corp and govt are comprised of people each of them will also be flawed. Neither is (by nature) better than the other, but each has its strengths and weaknesses, and we should use the most appropriate one for the task at hand.
MajMike | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/23/2005 9:04:00 AM |
Do you own any stocks? Cds? any type of annuity whatsoever?
I don't think you do because if you did and saw the return on any of those investments and compared it to what social security is doing for you you would be as pissed as people like me.
That's not what the investors who got their life savings wiped out in 2001 said...
The stock market is a pyramid game and a crap shoot and most people have no idea what the risks are of losing their savings. That's how the Social Security system saves them from themselves.
If you want to invest your expendable income, go ahead; but social security makes sure you're not begging from us when you've shot your wad. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/23/2005 9:10:20 AM | | Well, there needs to be a change in hospitals. They need to help regardless if you have insurance or a rich or not. I've seen too many go without help at hospitals, and puts life in danger. Don't know about health care personally, but it would cost. Just change some of these hospitals that's better than nothing. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/23/2005 10:44:07 AM |
I'm saying that my posts are my opinion of why the military isn't privatized.
And I'm telling you that your opinions are MERELY opnions. They are not the real reason why the military isn't privatized. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/23/2005 11:03:50 AM | You're right, the soldiers are the ones in the body bags, or heading to Walter-Reed with limbs missing.
So are the contractors. The contractors, however, don't head towards Walter-Reed, nor are their body bags draped in a flag.
And speaking of military efficiency (which is what we got into discussing - why conservatives will not privatize it, despite conservatives claiming that only through privatizing do things become efficient), here's yet another example of the U.S. military shooting one of its own:
Tillman's Family Critical of Army Investigation
WASHINGTON (May 23) - The family of former professional football player Pat Tillman says the Army disrespected his memory by lying in its investigation of his death in Afghanistan last year.
In interviews with The Washington Post, the Army Ranger's mother and father said they believe the military and the government created a heroic tale about how their son died to foster a patriotic response across the country....
Shortly after arriving in the mountains to fight, Tillman was killed in a barrage of gunfire from his own men, mistaken for the enemy as he got into position to defend them.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050523003109990003&ncid=NWS00010000000001 | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/23/2005 11:09:42 AM | | As this is moving further from the topic, why not give this topic: privatization of the military (a good topic for discussion), it's own thread? | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/23/2005 12:58:11 PM | varus
It one thing to have stocks or investment plans and bank the money off in the Channel Islands or in Brunei(high interest rates excellent safety and privacy, best of all no taxes), it's another to look at the basics and not be able to afford them due to excess profit taking. The American medical community is corrupt, they are as bad or worst than the Japanese medical community, the former is privately run, the latter gov't run. I think an American with an HMO paying $600 a month for individual coverage is getting the same treatment as a Japanese with National Health paying the same premiums. That treatment is in short LOUSY. Both systems are out of control and need to be corrected.
And as for your comment about Social Security...There's no money in the system and in 3yrs time the Republicans will be coming to you to fix the system with your money. When you are finished robbing the poor, rob the rich. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/23/2005 1:08:45 PM | sarita
Another good point in regards to privatization of the military is who controls it? A mercenary force works for money and its only allegiance is to money. Given an opportunity to make some easy bucks by terrorizing the locals I don't doubt that they would. If this was on American soil and there was no sizable force to oppose them... | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/23/2005 1:10:53 PM |
If this was on American soil and there was no sizable force to oppose them...
Ah yeah... I don't want to think about that. *shudder* | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/23/2005 1:23:02 PM | Great topic, .....wrong thread.
Please feel free to start a new thread on it, ...this thread already has a topic:
National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Yes/no/why/why not. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/23/2005 1:31:14 PM | sorry boss!
Back to healthcare.
I think Canada has proven that the best system is one run by the provinces. A federal system is too large and potentially will become corrupt. The American model of private health insurance is a great example of a system run amok. The insurance providers are corrupt and are engaging in excessive profit taking at the expense of their clientele and it's only a matter of time until the system becomes insolvent.
It would be interesting to see how many states have instituted state run health plans, what the fees are like and what is the quality of care as opposed to the private plans. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/23/2005 1:34:24 PM |
It would be interesting to see how many states have instituted state run health plans, what the fees are like and what is the quality of care as opposed to the private plans.
Foxfire contributed a post to this thread that gives some insight on this question:
Universal Health Care Initiative - Maine
DIRIGO HEALTH is Maine's universal access to health coverage plan. The new law is a plan to provide affordable health insurance to small businesses and individuals and to control health care costs. The legislation offers a phased-in approach with an ultimate goal to ensure that all of Maine's citizens have access to health care by 2009.
Hmmmm.... reminds me of Saskatchewan in '59. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/23/2005 1:57:19 PM | | Dirigo says nothing about their monthly rates in the fee schedules on the web. so it could be anywhere from $0.00 to $1,000 a month depending on how rich you are. It gets scary when it comes to sliding scales based on your wealth. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/23/2005 2:11:44 PM | Varus:
Please lose the insults (re: "diaper"), posts containing them will be deleted.
Persisting in posting in this way constitutes "trolling", regardless of how on-
topic the rest of the post is, it will lead to suspension of your POF forum
posting privileges should it continue.
Please observe POF forum posting rules. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/23/2005 2:24:21 PM | praetorian fall on your sword? that's what happens to incompetent Roman generals and governors
I know you have a vested interest in keeping insurance in the private sector. Isn't greed wonderful. Puts you in the same boat as a bunch of Japanese politicians and Chinese politburo members.
The system as is doesn't work, too much pork, too much redtape and too many crooks. And I do know how this works as I opted out-illegally I might add from the Japanese health insurance system I didn't enjoy paying $600 a month to wait for hrs in a waiting room and get 5mins of service. I opted into a Cdn supplemental plan that covers me everywhere in the world except Canada for $60 a month and maximum coverage of $1 million.
BTW did you read any of the posts? You'll notice I'm in favour of reforming the system, not turning it into a carbon copy of the Canadian, Japanese, Swiss or other European or Asian country with comprehensive gov't health care's system. And that's a problem that you'll have to face when there's no more money for the Republicans to steal and they come for your's.
PS How are your accounts in the Bank of the Isle of Mann? Mine are doing fine!
 | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/23/2005 2:53:42 PM | P. Quintanus Varus
Reprimanded for what? History?
Please let's stick to the facts. As you are an Allstate agent, an independent broker I presume, you must have some useable input on this. Stop spouting dogma for a moment and think? If there is a way to fix the system you might know better than a politician. After all a political hack's first thought is 'How can I fool all the people all the time' they don't believe in the sayings of WC Fields or Groucho Marx. | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/23/2005 3:45:25 PM | | FINALLY! something concrete! By all means research! It's your taxes and your wages that are being wasted by political and bureaucratic ineptness. So you should be doing due diligence! | |
|
| |
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 5/24/2005 10:24:38 AM | varus
You'd be bored within a week! you can only sit back and suck down planter's punches,fish, lol back in the deck chair and play shuffleboard for so long. Within a week you'd be stir crazy and ready to do something interesting.
And here I thought you portrayed yourself as an entrepreneur! | |
|
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 6/9/2005 2:41:24 PM | Supreme Court ruling opens door to private health care, say experts DENNIS BUECKERT
OTTAWA (CP) - The country's top court has delivered a powerful blow to Canada's single-tier system of public health care, striking down a Quebec law that banned private insurance for medically necessary services. The federal government insisted there's nothing to worry about, but most experts predicted the decision will lead to a parallel private system.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday that the Quebec ban on private insurance violates Quebec's charter of rights.
The Canadian Medical Association called it a "historic" ruling that could "fundamentally change the health-care system in Canada as we now know it."
In Quebec City, interim Parti Quebecois Leader Louise Harel said Quebec's public health system is threatened and she urged Premier Jean Charest to defend it.
But Prime Minister Paul Martin downplayed such concerns.
"We're not going to have a two-tier health-care system in this country," he said.
Martin said the extra $41 billion his government is investing in health care will improve the public system and protect it, especially by reducing wait times.
"Our purpose is to strengthen our universal public system and to provide timely access to medical services.
"So when we put in the $41 billion we also said we need proper benchmarks in place with all the province that will allow us to determine by how much waiting times must be reduced."
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler also insisted the ruling doesn't threaten medicare.
"On a first, quick reading . . . the importance, the validity and the integrity of the public health-care system has been affirmed.
"The issue is really, how do we enhance a system that is acknowledged ... to be a valid system? How do we enhance it in terms of equal access and waiting times and the like, rather than say that this is an issue where we can't enforce the Canada Health Act?"
Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh argued that governments can prevent the rise of private health care is by strengthening the public system.
"We are already on the way to doing that. That is the crux and the thrust of our approach."
But many weren't buying it.
"This is the end of medicare as we know it," said John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
"This is a breach in government monopoly health care in this country.
"It's going to open up litigation across the country in the other nine provinces as taxpayers there press for the same right which is the right to seek and buy insurance to cover private health care."
Charest had no immediate reaction, saying he wanted to read the judgment.
The case involved Quebec doctor Jacques Chaoulli and his patient George Zeliotis who argued that the ban on buying private insurance for health care infringed on Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Quebec Charter of Rights.
Zeliotis said his year-long wait for a hip replacement in 1997 violated his right to life, liberty and security under the Canadian charter, and a similar guarantee in the Quebec charter.
The Supreme Court split on whether the law violated the Canadian charter, but four of the seven justices who considered the case ruled that it violated the Quebec charter.
Chaoulli has long campaigned for the right to set up a private medical business, and once went on a hunger strike over the issue.
Public opinion polls have shown strong support for single-tier health care, with service based on need rather than ability to pay.
Pro-medicare groups such as the Canadian Health Coalition say pressure to strike down the rules of medicare came from health-care companies that want new market opportunities.
But political figures such as Senator Michael Kirby have argued in favour of permitting a greater role for private care. Chaoulli and Zeliotis received support from for-profit clinics in the Vancouver area.
Two Quebec courts had already ruled against Chaoulli.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/scoc_medicare;_ylt=As3ESrdNHIljbhjbauEy0ZJn.3QA;
_ylu=X3oDMTBiMjhhZWRtBHNlYwNjaWQxNjk2 | |
|
| |
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 6/10/2005 12:40:24 PM | It's not socialized, it's universal.
30% is private run clinics, labs, etc. covered by universal medicare. Private health insurance covers "extras", drugs, dental, etc.
This finding of the SC will likely be the next election issue focus. | |
|
mauser
|
Joined: 1/3/2005
Msg: 149 | |
| |
| National Health Care? Is it for the USA?
Posted: 6/17/2005 9:04:32 AM | Hi MildmildWest,
In the mid 1990's, C. Norman Shealy, MD, PhD wrote a book on the cost of disease care in the USA. (He has over 100 published papers and books on health-medicine in the literature.) In that book he stated that treating the problems related to smoking accounted for about 40% of health care cost in the USA. He probosed one insurance for smokersw and one for non smokers that would show people just how much smoking really cost. I saw some figures some years ago on smoking taxes and medical costs. For every dollar collected in taxes three to rour dollars were being spent on health care costs. Seems like a society can go broke on smoking in more ways than one.
Also believe so called medical malpractice cases should go to binding arbitration. If a party does not accept that decision then go to the Court of Appeals, you have already had your trial. For smoking have the Federal Govt. collect taxes as they do on hard liquor, at the factory door. The tax on cigs would be about $15 per pack. This would be necessary because no one should expect the smokers to admit it and pay the much higher insurance costs.
The pharmacutical companies state the high price of drugs is necessary to cover cost of developing new drugs. Seems like every one of them spend more money on advertising than they do or research.
Just some of my thoughts.
Peace,
MackTK009 | |
|
Home
login 
