No country has copied the American Health Insurance system

U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study

reuters is LYING .. according to YOU ...

For equity, we compared the
percentage of the group at risk (e.g., percent
not receiving recommended care, percent
uninsured) by insurance, income, and race/
ethnicity on a subset of indicators. we also
included a few specific indicators of health
care equity to highlight areas of concern. The
risk ratios compare rates for insured relative
to uninsured; high income to low income; and
whites to blacks and Hispanics

Is this just paranoia, or can you back this claim up?

As it seems for some reason that you think everyone that works in public office is stupid and in no way could be capable of getting anything done.

Step 1: De-fund government agencies

Step 2: Blame government for poor results.

Step 3: Profit.

Unless someone can find a way to make medical profits RISE as patients get and stay healthy, doing it the way we do is going to continue to cripple our nation.

Spending on health did not always comprise such a large fraction of U.S. economic activity.
The percentage of our GDP devoted to spending on health care doubled over just the last 30
years.
8
This rapid growth in health expenditures creates an unsustainable burden on America’s
economy, with far-reaching consequences. Because of this cost, businesses that provide
health insurance to their workers are less competitive internationally and have fewer
resources to invest in innovation and new technologies.9
For employees, the increasing cost
of employer-provided health insurance contributes to the stagnation of middle class wages,
because salary increases are supplanted by an employer’s subsidies toward health care
benefits.
10-11
Additionally, the growing expense of private health insurance gradually redirects resources
that consumers would ordinarily allocate to everything else, from food to housing to savings
for their children’s education. Increasing spending on government health care programs –
primarily Medicare and Medicaid – consumes a growing portion of federal and state budgets,
crowding out other priorities while also increasing public debt and reducing private
investment in the economy.
12

Government control / intervention has been shown to be the most successful way to get the most bang for the buck with regards to the health of a population

Of course, the FDA claims to protect the public from unsafe, ineffective drugs. But the agency can make two different errors. One is to approve bad products. The other is to block (or delay) good products. Noted Henry Miller of the Hoover Institution: “Public health is harmed when potentially beneficial products are delayed, abandoned, or never tested at all.”

President Nixon: “Say that I … I … I’d tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it’s, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I’m not too keen on any of these damn medical programs.”
Ehrlichman: “This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am …”
President Nixon: [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: “This … this is a …”
President Nixon: “I don’t [unclear] …”
Ehrlichman: “… private enterprise one.”
President Nixon: “Well, that appeals to me.”
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.”

I've pointed it out before. It's the same reason why the GOP's incredibly stupid idea to "help us" by turning government assists like Social Security and Medicare into voucher systems will just result in fewer people getting the care they need.

The medical establishment in this country is locked into a mechanism where the prices, procedures, and legal requirements for what doctors do, are all set by forces OUTSIDE of the providers themselves. As long as that is the case, it doesn't matter whether you can choose from two, or a hundred different identically over-priced vendors. Until the interlocking of the AMA, and the collusion amongst insurance companies and the inadvertent meddling of the legal system is broken, we will continue to suffer. And the GOP's "solutions" as presented so far, will only serve to allow more corporations to have a slice of over-priced pie, and will do NOTHING AT ALL to help people like me.

You can't name 10 companies currently in the health insurance market

And the stupid thing (yep...I see all this hand wringing by you and the GOP as stupid)...is that ACA is almost exactly what the GOP proposed in 1993...Iknow Iknow-It's Obama's fault

So, your contention is that the other industrialized countries of the world pay less than American's because they're poor...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Alex Trebec wants to sell you a clue.

now whom is it that's doing the increased funding...you really don't know what you are talking about.

1000 insurance companies...I defy you to name 20...oh lets make this easy...just name 10 current companies currently in the health insurance market in America...bet you can't

Congress realized that the provision of federal funds for the construction of new health care facilities was contributing to increasing health care costs by generating duplication of facilities.

Congress's willingness to contemplate a more market-oriented health policy is directly attrib- utable to the fact that the regulatory strategy is in disarray. Existing regulation, which in some states includes hospital rate regulation as well as the entry and investment controls imposed by the federal planning law, has had only mini- mal success. Although regulators insist that a little more time, money, and jurisdiction will allow them to turn things around, their credi- bility wears thinner as health-care costs con- tinue to escalate. It is ironic that regulation could probably have carried the day if only it had succeeded in stabilizing health spending as a share of GNP and federal spending.

Well, we do pay more than $2500 per capita for a mediocre healthcare system than the best of the rest of the world...perhaps you can explain that without including the CEO "compensation", shareholders, doctors (the poor underpaid professionals that they are), and every other money grubber under the healthcare tree.

By most accounts, global funding for health has increased dramatically. According to the World Bank, development assistance for health grew from US$2.5 billion in 1990 to almost US$14 billion in 2005 (World Bank 2007). A recent article in The Lancet claimed that official development assistance (ODA) grew from US$8.5 billion in 2000 to US$13.5 billion in 2004 (Kates et al. 2006). In addition to the increase in ODA, there has been an increase in private funding for global health, which is said to now account for about a quarter of all development aid for health (Bloom 2007).

The increase in global funding for health has been accompanied by a rapid and large increase in the number of global health actors, transforming the global health landscape and making it more difficult to study.

omplementing this considerable effort to improve the innovation pipeline for diseases of the developing world, pharmaceutical companies are involved in large-scale medicine distribution and prevention initiatives. In 2011, the pharmaceutical industry had over 200 global partnerships underway across the world, in particular in developing and emerging markets. Each partnership is unique, but often involves healthcare system capacity building, educational programmes, and mechanisms to facilitate access to high-quality pharmaceuticals. Over the past decade global health partnerships (GHPs), as a form of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), have emerged with surprising force and speed as an innovative system to address global health challenges.

The Republican plan allows insurers to sell health insurance across state lines. This would greatly expand competition, enabling the more than 1,000 private insurance companies to each compete nationally. That vastly increased competition would reduce health insurance premiums and costs. It would also greatly expand consumer freedom of choice.

We hear liberal complaints about areas within some states that only have a couple of insurance companies competing. That is entirely due to government regulation.

On measures of access to care, people in the U.S. have the hardest time affording the health care they need—with the U.S. ranking last on every measure of cost-related access problems. For example, 54 percent of adults with chronic conditions reported problems getting a recommended test, treatment or follow-up care because of cost. In the Netherlands, which ranked first on this measure, only 7 percent of adults with chronic conditions reported this problem.

first, his motives, and the parameters of his proposed "discussion" are not genuine. He doesn't want to "discuss" whether or not there are similarities, and whether that means anything or not. He wants to begin from the certainty that the two parties ARE alike, and then fight every attempt anyone makes to point out that he's wrong. That is not a "discussion."

Oh! And I almost forgot! THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS!!!! IT'S ABOUT THE REPUBLICANS!!! SO IF YOU GUYS WANT TO START A THREAD ABOUT HOW YOU THINK THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE ALL COMMIES THEN START A NEW ONE ON THAT SUBJECT!!!

But, we all know the only source you quote is FOX...and they're entertainment not news...so, oh wise on, find some other source, other than Kaiser, and try to dispute my postings...I know you won't and can't...all that is said is Kaiser supports Universal Healthcare,...which, is admirable since curbing healthcare cost and providing uniform healthcare is the objective...but, no....our current world most expensive and mediocre healthcare system is "perfect"...just a bunch of hypocrites...the GOP has tried something like 43 times to repeal almost the exact healthcare system they advocated:

3) Just show me anywhere that democrats are looking for a universal wage...THIS IS ONE GREAT BIG LIE!!!

As long as you realize that it is your ASSESSMENT, and not a FACT, then you will be okay

I know what it's like to be paranoid, and I know (again both first and second hand) how it WILL distort a person's ability to perceive and to reason accurately. The fact that someone observes another, and/or reads things they say, is always going to be colored, and altered by the observer's prejudices, limits of knowledge, emotional disposition relative to the observed, personal desires, and so forth

In other words, if you are deluded, you will still THINK that you are not.

In a surprise move, the CPUSA (Communist Party USA) has announced a lawsuit against the Democratic Party and its leadership for the alleged theft of intellectual property. The plaintiffs claim that the entire so-called "new" Democratic agenda is, in fact, the product of a decades-long, painstaking campaign by CPUSA theorists, agitators, and underground subversive cells - which makes it the intellectual property of the Communist Party USA, protected by American copyright laws.

So that some spoiled Democrats could ride on our backs to power while throwing us crumbs in the form of minor cabinet appointments?

That is, I suspect that most Republicans know full well that Democrats and Liberals (they aren't identical) are not anti-American, or fools, or dupes. But a lot of them will pretend to believe that out loud, in hopes that it will help them to win more unthinking followers to their side.

Americans born before 1981 - 20% of population... 65% of them voted for Obama...

Democrat base is GROWING ...
Asian
Latinos
African-Americans
Middle-Class

as I thought. But rhetorical questions usually have a specific purpose, so I was wondering if you had one. For example (and I'm not making an accusation, just trying to figure out what if anything, your point was), since you specified that PEASANT revolutions usually end up leading to dictatorships (you said government by force, which I am translating to dictatorship, again, no intent to twist things),

So, what is the point of your question?

you will find that the vast majority of the time, ANY overturning of a government by force of any kind, was followed by a government based upon force.

It started at Bleeding Heat Libertarians and they’re making a point I made myself a few years back. If you think you’re not being taxed enough then all you have to do is write a check and send it to this address:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D37
Hyattsville, MD 20782

When I looked into it there was several million dollars sent in each year. I also did the same research in the UK and the US looks rather good by comparison. In the UK that year an entire 5 people had paid extra taxes and four of those were dead, leaving bequests, leaving just that one person who thought they were not paying enough tax.

You say this shit like you know what you're talking about...which clearly you don't:

Gift Contributions to Reduce Debt Held by the Public

Charitable giving overall increased by $6 billion in 2011, an increase of almost 4% from 2010, according to the 2012 report by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. Individuals gave $217 billion, compared with $209 billion in 2010.

"A little less than two years out from the end of the Great Recession, we're starting to see charitable giving increase modestly each year," said Geoffrey Brown, executive director of the Giving USA Foundation, which publishes the report.

Giving was highest in 2007, fell in 2008 and 2009 and only began to increase in 2010. The 2011 total for all giving, including foundations and corporations, was $298 billion, well below 2007's $311 billion. Giving for 2012 seems on pace to meet or slightly exceed last year's level, Brown said.

Lots of people donate to the federal government.

Oh, my.... Now we are about to have a peasant revolution Ming dinasty style! I understand that we are on a weekend, maybe one too many early in the afternoon. I think that I will one also, but I won't come back to type anything else

Thus, even if someone does want to pretend that they believe in Reagan's voodoo economics (supply side crap), they will have to contend with facts that prove it never happened as they wish to remember.

but the desire to avoid labor and taxes and the difficulty of storing and reviewing the enormous archives at Nanjing hampered accurate figures.[6] Estimates for the late-Ming population vary from 160 to 200 million,[9] but necessary revenues were squeezed out of smaller and smaller numbers of farmers as more disappeared from the official records or "donated" their lands to tax-exempt eunuchs or temples.[6] Haijin laws intended to protect the coasts from "Japanese" pirates instead turned many into smugglers and pirates themselves.
By the 16th century, however, the expansion of European trade – albeit restricted to islands near Guangzhou like Macao – spread the Columbian Exchange of crops, plants, and animals into China, introducing chili peppers to Sichuan cuisine and highly-productive corn and potatoes, which diminished famines and spurred population growth. The growth of Portuguese, Spanish, and Dutch trade created new demand for Chinese products and produced a massive influx of Japanese and American silver. This abundance of specie allowed the Ming to finally avoid using paper money, which had sparked hyperinflation during the 1450s. While traditional Confucians opposed such a prominent role for commerce and the newly rich it created, the heterodoxy introduced by Wang Yangming permitted a more accommodating attitude. Zhang Juzheng's initially successful reforms proved devastating when a slowdown in agriculture produced by the Little Ice Age was met with Japanese and Spanish policies that quickly cut off the supply of silver now necessary for farmers to be able to pay their taxes. Combined with crop failure, floods, and epidemic, the dynasty was considered to have lost the Mandate of Heaven and collapsed before the rebel leader Li Zicheng and a Manchurian invasion.

The Ming, described by some as "one of the greatest eras of orderly government and social stability in human history"

The Ming Dynasty's internal crisis came to a head in April 1644, when the capital at Beijing was sacked by a coalition of rebel forces led by Li Zicheng, a former minor Ming official who became the leader of the peasant revolt and established a short-lived Shun Dynasty. The last Ming ruler, the Chongzhen Emperor, committed suicide when the city fell, marking the official end of the dynasty.

Ryan and his party are so certain of these foundations his worldview rests upon that he can’t even be bothered to look down at the rubble all around his feet.

Curious Irish: Do you know if those calculations did or did not include the way that Bush 2 handled manpower for is wars? I.e. outsourcing all sorts of things, including hiring mercenaries? If they left those out, and they were counted as they should be, as being Federal government defacto employees (paid entirely by the feds), then the numbers might be even worse.

Reagan and his successors did have some success at restraining the growth of the state. But they did not overturn the old order. Why did the effort to limit government produce such modest results? American politics tends toward incremental changes absent a major crisis. The problems that brought Reagan to power (and later elected the 1994 Congress) were not deep enough to foster major liberalizations. But that does not mean the hope for limited government will come to nothing.

...


When Reagan took office, the federal marginal rate on income was 70 percent. After the 1986 reform, the marginal rate was 28 percent. What accounts for these achievements against the grain of history? Reagan’s political judgment and popularity mattered. But larger forces helped him. Reagan’s victory followed a decade of crisis for the New Deal political order. The old way of governing had promised to end risk, increase wealth, and assure justice. The Johnson-Nixon years delivered instead an unstable economy, rising taxes for all, and with time, a growing sense of stagnation and national decline. Things had to change. The only question was how much they had to change.

You don't understand why people set up the trusts, and the foundations and so on. They do it because it needs doing. Some COULD claim that the reason why charities and foundations and so forth are needed, is because governments aren't doing enough, but I wont, because I disagree with that. I do mention it though, because it's pertinent to the mistake you are making.

So, you want more entitlements for the middle class, and you want them the government to take them from the poor and give them to the middle class. Or better yet, you want the government not to tax the rich so that the rich would give better pay to the middle class

Despite claims to the contrary, the government rarely does anything to DIRECTLY shove money into the hands of the people they are trying to benefit. Most government programs, and policies, and especially the services and regulatory functions, are designed to try to generally manage the machinery of the nation, often (in the case of private industry especially) by way of hints, twists, influences, temptations, impediments, or even the use of advertising and the engagement of public attitude.

Despite certain groups in the nation which imagine that every time the Federal Governments acts, that they are trying to TAKE OVER private industry, that is almost never the case

You see where this is going, I hope.

A wise super rich person, would realize that they are getting off hugely on the cheap, if they pay a higher tax rate then everyone else, so as to fund a government that does a LOT of things to help the rest of the people around them, to in turn provide the rich both with safety, and with a ready supply of trained, skilled workers, so that the rich guy himself doesn't have to do every single thing required to get through his day.

Is anybody going to boycott their b.s.? Start demanding accountability? Demand that they get charged/brought to trial/imprisoned? Are you holding back taxes? Demanding GMO foods be banned? Refusing to pay anything? Refusing to abide? Pulling your money out of banks? Refusing to be pushed around by "security"? Protesting in any way?

Our government is not just controlled by the lobbyists, they ARE the lobbyists.

Is anybody going to boycott their b.s.? Start demanding accountability? Demand that they get charged/brought to trial/imprisoned? Are you holding back taxes? Demanding GMO foods be banned? Refusing to pay anything? Refusing to abide? Pulling your money out of banks? Refusing to be pushed around by "security"? Protesting in any way?

You're seething and seeing red because this man will go down in history as being better than Ronald Reagan and both Bushes combined.

New York Times pic of Obama with one of his college Pakistani buddies. Note (at the end of this article) the blow-up pics of their hands inter-twined around the smoke.
http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2012/09/breaking-obama-photo-holding-hands-with-gay-lover-pakistani-2445894.html

What does that have to do with anything?

I was showing how government spending has a direct result with regards to the economy and that Paul Ryan's family made their fortune doing just that.

Oracle is the leading provider of enterprise applications for state and provincial
governments. In fact, governments in all 50 U.S. states and nearly every Canadian
province and territory use Oracle technology as part of their IT solutions. In
total, more than 1,500 local and national government organizations run Oracle
Applications. And a significant number of these states, provinces, and territories
run Oracle software as the key accounting, financial management, and human
resources platform across all their agencies

As per market survey for sharing DBMS in world found brand leader is Oracle which shared market 50% in 2011. Therefore, Oracle is still major shared in database software now days. Another database software vendor like IBM (DB2 database) is sharing around 21.7% and Microsoft (SQL Server database) is sharing 17.4 in global market in 2011.

When you understand that under Obama the government has reduced in size along with the deficient you will be on your way to understanding.

"There are two really big spending stories that are changing the fiscal outlook in Washington," he says. "The first is that there's no new spending. Anything the president proposes will get rejected by the House. Secondly, through sequester and other cuts, domestic discretionary spending is actually falling."

In a way, policymakers backed into this shrinking deficit. Both the spending cuts and the tax increases are more the product of government stalemate than any deliberate action.

The economy is paying a price in slower growth. Even some conservatives like Makin are now warning that austerity has gone far enough.

"Deficit reduction means slowing the growth of spending and raising taxes. And nobody likes that. So you have to be telling the story of ... we're doing some short-run pain for long-run gain, but we're not doing too much of it," he says. "And that's why I think we've done enough austerity for now."

Which when you consider the views of one Paul Ryan you begin to see the hypocrisy that is alive and well in the GOP.

I agree, it will take a trick to refute facts and truths with regards to how money is cycled through the economy.

So, now you claiming the government is manipulating the market...gawd, what's next

Mystery Math- Monetary Base up 350%, M2 Up 35%?

And yet, the Fed’s 3.5x expansion of the monetary base over the past five years has only grown M2 by 35%, and year-over-year growth through March, 2013, was less than 7%. “In other words,” say our authors, “there is no evidence that the massive security purchases by the Fed have resulted in a sustained acceleration in monetary growth; nor is there evidence that economic conditions have improved.”

Well, it turns out that not only can’t the FED control the money supply, it can’t control the velocity of money either. And that means the Fed can’t create rising aggregate demand.

In other words, today's S&P 500 is 4.5% more expensive than normal. But the average dividend yield is a full 30% lower than what long-term investors are used to receiving.

OBAMA: And what we’re doing is we’re setting up a pool so that they can all pool together1 and get a better deal from insurance companies.2 And those who can’t afford it, we’re going to provide them with some subsidies.3That’s it.4 I mean, that’s what’s left to implement because the other stuff’s been implemented and it’s working fine.5

Plans offered will differ by the state. Some states have little competition.
It’s unclear that this will happen, or how much better “better” will be. So far, insurance companies have been reluctant to enter the exchanges. If and when they do, it’s likely they’ll collude to keep prices high.
Leaving them underinsured.
Second use of “that’s it.”
This is breathtaking. Again, “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln….”

OBAMA: The challenge is that, you know, setting up a market-based system,1 basically an2 online marketplace where you can go on and sign up and figure out what kind of insurance you can afford and figuring out how to get the subsidies, that’s still a big complicated piece of business.

The health insurance system is already “market based.” That is the problem.
No, multiple online marketplaces, plural: 18 State-based Exchanges, seven State Partnership Exchange, 1 Federal Exchange which the remaining 25 states will use. Obama jiggers the numbers to hide the complexity.

OBAMA: And when you’re doing it nationwide, relatively fast,1 and you’ve got half of Congress who is determined to try to block implementation and not adequately funding implementation, and then you’ve got a number of members of — or governors — Republican governors who know that it’s bad politics for them to try to implement this effectively2 — and some even who have decided to implement it and then their Republican-controlled state legislatures say don’t implement and won’t pass enabling legislation — when you have that kind of situation, that makes it harder.

Again, not by LBJ’s standards, who got Medicare up and running in one year. That’s because Medicare is a well-architected single payer system, and ObamaCare is a Rube Goldberg device (illustrated below). Except with more moving parts.
There’s a case to be made that there’s no reason for states to get involved in a “train wreck” by building their own exchanges, implying that ObamaCare will end up making Rick Perry look good. Yikes.

Would you clarify this ambiguous verbiage? Are you saying that the OP is invalid?

And "watch Glenn Beck"?

What is the point of that advice? It has been painfully clear to me that you have watched him and internalized his *ahem* ideas. He is not on TV anymore if you didn't know, but one could listen to him. Why listen to him when we have you, though? You do plenty to channel his fallacious reasoning and paranoid delusions around here

Actually, from my point of view the wildly off course has been the same 'off course' that lead to the OP. Every time it's been brought up, by anyone, publicly. This same crap happens. I'm sorry but, do they teach this in a class somewhere? If someone mentions the dirty word turn the argument into a fallacy by refusing to acknowledge the premise and attack any and every aspect of the person?"

Adam Kokesh, a 31-year-old former United States Marine who has long spoken out against military intervention in Iraq and other controversial issues, is planning what he calls an "Open Carry March on Washington" to "put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated & cower in submission to tyranny."

This would an excellent opportunity for you to prove that you know what you are talking about.

Why don't you provide us with a list of the terrorist acts committed by American Left wing extremist groups in the last twenty years. That would cover the Clinton, Bush jr., and Obama presidencies. Is that fair enough

It's so bad that the State of Nevada canceled the Republican State Convention---
---for lack of interest. I'm not kidding. From the Wall Street Journal:

Anyway, this thread has gone wildly off course (as politically charged things are apt to do), in large part because a lot of people stopped discussing facts and actual occurrences, and instead began attacking each other based on things like whether they used a phrase that someone much hated or feared use, in order to express an idea, while ignoring the idea and the facts themselves.

I think that we pay salaries big enough to the political and military leaders of our country, so they should work a little bit harder and find solutions that don't require anymore waste of our blood and treasure.