S.C.H.I.P.: Chump Change!

Far more alarming is an absence of conceptualization regarding the far greater debacle, national public subsidized healthcare. While Liberal America is chomping at the bit, the impending devastating economic equations are already known. The following article illustrates a precursor to the impending outcomes should Hillary or Obama get to the White House.

Cheese Headcases:

“Wisconsin reveals the cost of "universal" health care.”

“And, wow, is "free" health care expensive. The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes.”

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010374

Wisconsin will soon be a Republican State.

Can someone on here other than Michael Moore argue for socialized medicine, and can those people then tell me why anyone would want to become a doctor anymore. Here's an idea for price control, and a small effort, make generic drugs more readily available.

I would settle for the government allowing me to write off what I pay for health insurance every year.

quote:

The following article illustrates a precursor to the impending outcomes should Hillary or Obama get to the White House.

yeah, because we all know that the president is all powerful and can pass any law, without the vote of congress . . .

The govt, quite notoriously does not do anything well or economically. Why in the world do we want them involved in healthcare.

Most civilized countries, except the US, have universal health under one form or other... And are better off for it than the US.

The USA has a lower life expectancy than virtually all other countries in a similar economic class, including those with national healthcare systems, such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Sweden.

In 2001 Canadians paid $2,163 per capita versus $4,887 U.S., according to the Los Angeles Times

Without the "devilish" universal healthcare, current estimates put US healthcare spending at approximately 15% of GDP, which is the highest in the world. Despite this, only an estimated 84.3% of citizens have some form of health insurance coverage, either through their employer or purchased individually.

You can reduce the price of healthcare all you want, but never the cost of healthcare. Whether it comes out of our pockets individually or collectively, modern medicine, with all its marvels, never comes on the cheap.

Artificially depressing the price (read: giving away for free) only increases demand and decreases supply. This is as immutable as gravity.

I don't tell you how to run your country there Flashman, but do tell me when your civil war starts.

Cases in point.

Police forces are usually socialized albeit private cops guard gated communities and corporate premises.

Fire protection services are usually socialized albeit chemical, coal, nuclear & petroleum facilities have employees trained to do this.

Cities and munipalities that own their own electric power stations have lower electrical rates and more secure supply than those that rely on private utilities. The example was San Diego being scrwed by Enron while have brownouts while Los Angeles had all the power it needed.
And fck the "environmental laws prevent investment" stupid story. It is simple. No one wants a power station or an oill refinery in their backyard.

The big three automakers often prefer to locate in Canada. Health costs are easier to manage in the short, mediumn & long term.

The propaganda in western countries is more insidious (discrete, hidden) than the communist or faschist propaganada that exists in the rest of the world. Western news media, movies, television, entertainment, political pundits, anchormen,`"experts" are all chosen & slanted to tow a government/corporate line.

I find watching Nip & Tuck very entertaining. How to get rich on sagging teats.
However is that medicine?
Where`s Marcus Welby for the ordinary guy today. BTW the CI & military doctors are on the public dole. Are they not...socialized. If it were cheaper why are these services purcased from an HMO? Give it time. Jeeeze.

quote:

Originally posted by flashman:
Most civilized countries, except the US, have universal health under one form or other... And are better off for it than the US.

The USA has a lower life expectancy than virtually all other countries in a similar economic class, including those with national healthcare systems, such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Sweden.

In 2001 Canadians paid $2,163 per capita versus $4,887 U.S., according to the Los Angeles Times

Without the "devilish" universal healthcare, current estimates put US healthcare spending at approximately 15% of GDP, which is the highest in the world. Despite this, only an estimated 84.3% of citizens have some form of health insurance coverage, either through their employer or purchased individually.

I agree with most of your comments. The sad thing is that we Americans are being screwed by a private/insurance-based system that costs far too much ... and delivers way less than it claims to do.

Not to mention the many millions of people in our country who cannot afford medical care insurance.

Also, please note. that we in the USA embrace our Medicare, our Social Security & our Bush-initiated Senior Drug Coverage Program ... but we never think of calling those socialized programs.

The world "socialized" is mostly used by those who are in favor of holding on to the mediocre status quo.

But is any health care system perfect... of course not!

But why do we in the USA have to put up with a crummy system that costs FAR TOO MUCH and that provides mediocre to poor results??

quote:

Originally posted by sarctonpsu:
I don't tell you how to run your country there Flashman, but do tell me when your civil war starts.

I don't want to tell you how to run your country either. But you asked for someone else than Michael Moore to argue for universal health care (call it what you will...).

As for a civil war, mmmmm, looking at the accident waiting to happen that is the explosive social situation in most large urban areas of the US, I would argue that you are closer to a civil war than we are, by far.

quote:

Originally posted by Scottological:
You can reduce the price of healthcare all you want, but never the cost of healthcare. Whether it comes out of our pockets individually or collectively, modern medicine, with all its marvels, never comes on the cheap.

Artificially depressing the price (read: giving away for free) only increases demand and decreases supply. This is as immutable as gravity.

Of course, there are arguments to be made against UHC. But which is the lesser evil?

I tend to go with the one that benefits the most people.

We must be realistic about what it means to have universal (read: socialized, single-payer, whatever) healthcare. It will surely mean more basic care for more people, but it will also mean the rationing of the rarest and most expensive technologies/medicines/treatments. (again, market forces, like gravity, are not reversed by insisting they do not exist.)

I have personally seen the level of negligence that goes on in today bargain HMO's - the best analogs for government healthcare. My sister, who was gravely ill for years, was nearly killed by her HMO on many occasions. Oh yeah, but she never saw a bill. So at least they've got that going for them.

In contrast, she now pays dearly for private health insurance and has prompt access to the best New York City medicine has to offer.

Whatever happens in the US, I hope they do not abolish the ability to purchase healthcare services privately. Lives depend on it.

Hey don"t worry about the cost.
They will just tack it on the cost of a cigar.
The rest will go into some crooked politicians pocket.
Just like all the lotto money that was supposed to pay for education remember?
LMFAO.

quote:

Originally posted by Scottological:
We must be realistic about what it means to have universal (read: socialized, single-payer, whatever) healthcare. It will surely mean more basic care for more people, but it will also mean the rationing of the rarest and most expensive technologies/medicines/treatments. (again, market forces, like gravity, are not reversed by insisting they do not exist.)

That is where I have a moral problem. Reserving these treatments strictly for the wealthy seems unacceptable anyway you look at it.

quote:

Whatever happens in the US, I hope they do not abolish the ability to purchase healthcare services privately. Lives depend on it.

Most countries that have universal healthcare have develloped (or are developping) hybrid systems.

Medical school tuition is quite affordable in Canada because perhaps 90% of the costs are financed through government programs.

What happens all to often is a student attends a medical school in Montreal and then goes to San Diego when he graduates.
Essentially bought off by better salary, arguably better weather and the chance to treat more gun shot and stabbing victims

In the mean time the great white north is left with the bills and less doctors.

Hockey players also go south but they barely get thru high school.

Flashman wrote: "Most civilized countries, except the US, have universal health under one form or other... And are better off for it than the US. The USA has a lower life expectancy than virtually all other countries in a similar economic class, including those with national healthcare systems, such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Sweden."

As a resident of the US I will say I wish there was a fair way that was econimically feasible to provide healthcare for all American citizens.

What is missing in this debate and is the obstacle making the task nearly impossible is the simple cost due to population. The recent records show world population by countries Flashman notes as:

USA #3 most poulated in the world with 302 Million

UK #22 with 60M
Canada #36 with 33M
Austrailia #53 with 21M
Sweeden #88 with 9 million people

The largest country on Flashman's list has a population that's 20% of ours. As idealistic as I am at heart it is not always possible to govern (or insure health care) for 302,000,000 people in the worlds' 3rd most populated country. The larger our population gets the more difficult to achieve the goals our forefathers laid out for this nation, and unfortunately many idealistic goals that concerned people across the globe wish that the US and all countries could, I believe.

A valid point. However, if states (or large mucipalities) were responsible for managing the system -- rather than the federal government, who would only set the guidelines -- this problem would be less important. Even in Canada, provinces are responsible for health care though the principles of UHC were established by the federal govt.

My prediction (which I admit is dismal) is that the USA will not change to a universal health care system until at least 50% of our population has no health insurance of any kind.

There are just too many lobbyists (with billions of $) from the medical, insurance and pharmaceutical companies who will continue to run the show by giving or withholding funds for politicians.