Controversial Michael Moore Flick 'Sicko' Will Compare U.S. Health Care with Cuba's - page 65

... Read More

  1. by   teeituptom
    Quote from Baptized_By_Fire
    This was also said in the 1970's when our economy was way worse than it is now.


    Wasnt that after another illegal war, just like this one.
  2. by   Simplepleasures
    Quote from HM2Viking
    very well stated! Where have you been hiding? I have missed your posts!
    Thanks, Ive been ill and without health insurance its been impossible to access the care I need at this time. I guess I am a prime example of what happens to a person with a chronic illness that cant afford Cobra payment.Universal healthcare would have allowed me to go and see the doctors who treat the specific problems that are affecting my health so seriously at this time.My eye condition has become worse due to inflammatory ocular disease which could have been better controlled could I have seen a rheumatologist.
    Last edit by Simplepleasures on Aug 22, '07
  3. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from Jolie
    OK. I'm consistent. I paid for college 100% out of my pocket, as hubby and I do for our healthcare.
    except that your schooling cost was partially subsidized by tax dollars. Ie no student pays 100% of the cost of tuition there is essentially always some taxpayer involvement in paying for the cost of higher education. This is not an attack it is just put out to place some context about the finance end of higher ed.

    Health insurance by definition is pooled risk. Some people will pay for more than consume while others will consume far more than they contribute through premiums. A tax based system will deliver better care at lower cost per individual.

    As my grandmother the ex-republican turned scandinavian socialist put it "Its better to make enough money to pay taxes."
  4. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from spydercadet
    please let me know what industry that the federal government has taken over and made it more functional and economic? lets see? postal office? - no. public school system? - no. irs? - they're always fun - no.

    why do 85% of the people who are happy with the current system have to give it up for 15%. and my husband is from germany, i have a friend from romania and canada, none of them think national health-care is a good idea. they all have personal horror stories and are all young and in good health. i can't imagine what they would be saying if they were older and/or in poorer health.
    the po is a bargain. for 40 cents you can mail a 1 oz letter anywhere in the us. (no private sector entity will make that guarantee.)

    public schools do need improvement but it is in the area of closing achievement gaps for very specific groups. (spec ed, minorities etc.)

    i think it is nuts to say that 85% of the population of the us is happy with the current system. we spend way too much money on care vs prevention activities. by having uninsured patients we increase the cost of care which does lead to increased costs for you. the us rations care as it is through denial of coverage and transplant by bake sales. i could survey any system and find disaffected patients. the vast majority of patients in single payer countries are quite happy with their coverage btw.





    <h3>won't this result in rationing like in canada?

    the u.s. supreme court recently established that rationing is fundamental to the way managed care conducts business. rationing in u.s. health care is based on income: if you can afford care you get it, if you can't, you don't. a recent study by the prestigious institute of medicine found that 18,000 americans die every year because they don't have health insurance. that's rationing. no other industrialized nation rations health care to the degree that the u.s. does.
    if there is this much rationing why don't we hear about it? and if other countries do not ration the way we do, why do we hear about them? the answer is that their systems are publicly accountable and ours is not. problems with their health care systems are aired in public, ours are not. in u.s. health care no one is ultimately accountable for how it works. no one takes full responsibility.
    the rationing that takes place in u.s. health care is unnecessary. a number of studies (notably the general accounting office report in 1991, and the congressional budget office report in 1993) show that there is more than enough money in our health care system to serve everyone if it were spent wisely. administrative costs are far higher in the u.s. than in other countries' systems. these inflated costs are directly tied to our failure to have a publicly-financed, universal health care system. we spend at least twice more per person than any other country, and still find it necessary to deny health care.
    http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...#canada_ration</h3>
  5. by   marvelous_truth
    Quote from baptized_by_fire
    this was also said in the 1970's when our economy was way worse than it is now.
    reply...
    i am unsure what you have incorrectly used to measure the economy. its far worse.


    not so. i initially received need-based financial aid when i was in lpn school. that enabled me to work as a nurse, and to obtain merit-based (read capitalist) financial awards later on for the rn program, and now for the bsn program (in addition to out-of-pocket). i also now make enough to pay out-of-pocket for family health insurance. these outcomes are what you have defined as freedom, are they not? and, btw, i don't feel like i have more freedom of choice in these areas than before.

    reply...
    thats great for you now, but has placed future generations further in debt, aided the continual loss of middle class




    i took a required health care economics course for my bsn program. it was taught by someone who was not for uhc, but did welcome all view points on the subject to be voiced.

    if you think about it, what monetary system is not fraudulent? we could go back to paying our doctors with chickens.
    reply...
    the constitutional monetary system
    Last edit by marvelous_truth on Aug 22, '07
  6. by   reesern63
    Quote from teeituptom
    Wasnt that after another illegal war, just like this one.

    Nice!
  7. by   marvelous_truth
    Quote from teeituptom
    Wasnt that after another illegal war, just like this one.

    Our economy can be compared to a giant credit card. If there is a war, more money is borrowed from the future generations that must repay.

    WAR= heavy borrowing from the bank which results in more money supply in the economy. Like a Credit card it continues to increase the minimum payment due and the interest on the amount due with little or none going to the principle.
  8. by   reesern63
    Yeah, I think Tom gets that.

    Quote from marvelous_truth
    Our economy can be compared to a giant credit card. If there is a war, more money is borrowed from the future generations that must repay.

    WAR= heavy borrowing from the bank which results in more money supply in the economy. Like a Credit card it continues to increase the minimum payment due and the interest on the amount due with little or none going to the principle.
  9. by   teeituptom
    Quote from reesern63
    Yeah, I think Tom gets that.
    Then how come only the Oil and Military Industrial Complexes are allowed to make such a usurious profit at the soldiers and civilians expense.
  10. by   reesern63
    When you figure that out, let me know, because I sure don't understand why that happens.

    Quote from teeituptom
    Then how come only the Oil and Military Industrial Complexes are allowed to make such a usurious profit at the soldiers and civilians expense.
  11. by   marvelous_truth
    It has been said that SONY was a clever acronymn and a front company for the Rockefellars (Standard Oil of New York). These banking families have been duping us citizens further into their submission and using a false capatalism and false free market and any other mask to profit at our expense to make class seperation and division while they destroy our nation.

    As one of the bankinging elite members bodly stated, he cared not who made the laws as long as they made the currency.

    Quote from reesern63
    When you figure that out, let me know, because I sure don't understand why that happens.
  12. by   ZASHAGALKA
    http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/...th_care_fi.php

    "There is indeed a very compelling moral argument to be made in favor of some sort of government sponsored health care finance, which is simply this: no one should die, or suffer unduly, because they don't have the money to pay for treatment. Some of my libertarian readers will say that this still doesn't give the government the right to take the fruits of our labor by force, but in fact, I find this argument fairly convincing.

    However, that doesn't mean that I should therefore be in favor of a single payer system. The fact that some people cannot afford some good, even a really important and valuable good like food or healthcare, is not a good reason to nationalise the production of that good. We do not collectivise the farms in order to ensure that everyone will have food; we give those who cannot afford food the money (or food stamps) with which to buy it. Section Eight vouchers are generally regarded as a much more successful system than housing projects (though arguably they could be better funded and structured.) If we are worried that some people cannot afford healthcare, there is a much simpler solution than constructing a giant government-run system; we could just give them the money to buy it."


    The difference is the difference between actually wanting to take care of those in needs as opposed to wanting to use that need as a proxy to socialize/collectivize a significant portion of the encomy.

    I have long argued that those that want to socialize healthcare are only interested in this issue as a proxy to advance an otherwise failed political agenda.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Aug 22, '07
  13. by   ZASHAGALKA
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...on_whos_h.html

    John Stossel:

    "The New York Times recently declared "the disturbing truth ... that ... the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care."

    As usual, the Times editors get it wrong. . .

    The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people -- 45 million -- without medical insurance. As I reported in previous columns, our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state.

    Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.

    For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine. "

    ~faith,
    Timothy.

close