Obama and EMS - the roll-on effect of universal health care

bonedog

Forum Lieutenant
181
0
0
It seems people are fearful of government involvement in healthcare and the money they will have to put out.

I guess this fear isn't realized in the bail out of the insurance/banking failures, which would be a large shot in the arm towards a universal system.

Rationing healthcare related to lifestyle choices is a slippery slope. We all see the results of these choices, however, where and who could draw these lines?

Obesity is rampant, maybe there should be legislation targeting the corporate food giants who add glucose/fructose.

What about females who choose not to procreate until after 30, should they not be covered for breast cancer?

I guess the whole universal health care discussion is a mute point now as you have overwhelming voted for Obama.... as MM would say " Good on ya mate"
 

JPINFV

Gadfly
12,681
197
63
What about females who choose not to procreate until after 30, should they not be covered for breast cancer?
How about mothers over the age of 40 who give birth to a child with Downs syndrome?
I guess the whole universal health care discussion is a mute point now as you have overwhelming voted for Obama.... as MM would say " Good on ya mate"
Since when was 52% of the popular vote an "overwhelming" majority? Besides, there's always the filibuster.
 

karaya

EMS Paparazzi
Premium Member
703
9
18
It seems people are fearful of government involvement in healthcare and the money they will have to put out.

I guess this fear isn't realized in the bail out of the insurance/banking failures, which would be a large shot in the arm towards a universal system.

Rationing healthcare related to lifestyle choices is a slippery slope. We all see the results of these choices, however, where and who could draw these lines?

Obesity is rampant, maybe there should be legislation targeting the corporate food giants who add glucose/fructose.

What about females who choose not to procreate until after 30, should they not be covered for breast cancer?

I guess the whole universal health care discussion is a mute point now as you have overwhelming voted for Obama.... as MM would say " Good on ya mate"

I tend to get a chuckle when people from other countries try to weigh in on American issues they know little about.

The bailout is a huge fear in terms of the amount of money it will cost taxpayers which so far is in the trillion dollar region and is expected to rise. When the bail out passed a few weeks ago that dealt the death blow to universal health care for some time. The money is just simply not there. To suggest that the bail out is a shot in the arm for universal health care is economically absurd.

Exit polls showed that Obama was elected as a result of economic concerns in our country and not his universal health care proposal. As a matter of fact, when the banking collapse began to rear its ugly head a few weeks ago the political issues shifted toward the economy and hardly anything was mentioned about universal health care since.

Obama's own acceptance speech even suggested that this will be a long hard road and that his goals may not even be achieved in the first year or during his first term. His programs will require major tax increases in order to fund his trillion dollar plus entitlements and economically speaking, this is something Americans are not in a position to stomach.

Obama is faced with some enormous challenges. How can he keep his campaign promises and do it without dipping into American wallets during this economic crises?

This county is sharply divided. JPINFV is right in his fact that 52% of the vote is hardly "overwhelming". With the state of the economy and the mounting U.S. debt, universal health care fell off the radar screen weeks ago and it will be a long time before it reappears.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

wxduff

Forum Crew Member
64
0
0
Can we do some math people?

Lets say that the current cost of an HMO is 100%. And let's remember as I said before that because HMO's run on profit, 31% of you're insurance costs go to towards profit.

Alright, now lets take 100% and subtract 31%

What does that equal? 69%. This is the MAX cost to you of universal healthcare in comparison to your HMO. The real number would probably lower in the paperwork and administrative savings alone.

So take you're income. Subtract your HMO cost, and add 69% of that.

So compare you're income under an HMO, and then compare it to Universal Healthcare.

Low and behold, you have MORE money, as well as the satisfaction of knowing you're helping others.

Win-Win? Yes?

I thought so.

So enough of this bs that you're going to pay more if there's universal healthcare. Ok?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JPINFV

Gadfly
12,681
197
63
Would you please provide the source that shows that 31% of HMO revenue is profit?
 

karaya

EMS Paparazzi
Premium Member
703
9
18
Can we do some math people?

Lets say that the current cost of an HMO is 100%. And let's remember as I said before that because HMO's run on profit, 31% of you're insurance costs go to towards profit.

Alright, now lets take 100% and subtract 31%

What does that equal? 69%. This is the MAX cost to you of universal health care in comparison to your HMO. The real number would probably lower in the paperwork and administrative savings alone.

So take you're income. Subtract your HMO cost, and add 69% of that.

So compare you're income under an HMO, and then compare it to Universal Healthcare.

Low and behold, you have MORE money, as well as the satisfaction of knowing you're helping others.

Win-Win? Yes?

I thought so.

So enough of this bs that you're going to pay more if there's universal healthcare. Ok?

The cost's we are referring to are the tax subsidization that will be necessary to maintain such a program. What little premiums that are paid in will be no where near enough to sustain such a program.

Obama's plan is to reduce the uninsured by 26 million or so by 2010. The federal tab to enact his program is estimated at a whooping 1.7 trillion dollars from 2010 to 2019! Guess where that will come from? And don't say people who make more than $250,000 per year. That proposed tax increase will only generate about 50 billion a year.

Here's the kicker to all of this... Obama still plans to increase foreign aid to fight global poverty by $845 billion dollars above what we are already spending over the next 13 years! No wonder he's been endorsed by so many countries! They get some of our taxes too!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
M

Melbourne MICA

Forum Captain
392
13
18
I can almost guarantee that there would not be a constitutional amendment any time soon regarding health care. For a constitutional amendment to succeed, it would need approval to be proposed by either 2/3rds of both houses of the federal legislature or 2/3rds of the individual state legislatures and then passed by 3/4s of the states either through the legislature or through state convention. It's not designed to be an easy process to undertake. If anything, it's much more likely that any sort of health care plan would simply not be taken up by the supreme court.

I guess that depends on how desperate for change in health care people really are, how much the political parties stand to gain and how effectively the case is then argued.

I seems you don't need a constitutional amendment to implement a universal health care reform agenda.Minnesota has a universal health care programme. So it would appear it can be done state by state.

"The Healthy Minnesota bill, SF1689/HF1856, makes a commitment for the state to achieve universal coverage by 2011"

http://www.healthyminnesota.org/

The republicans are not going to win votes by going against the limited government banner that they claim to hold.

That very much seems to depend on the circumstances and how well existing systems are functioning. It is also reflected in the perception of how many voted aparty stands to lose at election time by holding out against a wave of public disquiet and desire for reform.

Here's the way Bushs (partial) Nationalisation of your banking sector was reported in different place around the world. Just two years ago any self respecting republican would have probably smacked you in the mouth for suggesting such heresy from a republican official, especially the executive branch.

http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/20/651884
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/financial-crisis/us-banks-partnationalised-1498992.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/14/us-banks-bailout-bush/print
http://debtonation.org/2008/09/comrade-paulson-nationalised-banks-socialism-for-the-rich/

People change, parties change, circumstances change.

As I stated earlier, I find it funny when people throw out rankings in life expectancy since the field is so packed? What level would be good, then? The United States is ranked 30 in the Wiki article (going by member UN nations and not by countries plus territories) with eight countries being within a year and 20 within 2 years. Furthermore, you have to look at the size of the country. Ironically, actually, the closest country in population size to the US is Japan, the number one country by life expectancy. The US has a little over twice the population as Japan.

I think thats cherry picking the facts, no offense intended. The truth is your own population (and politicians) thinks your health care system is a disaster not just because its inefficient (most health systems can make a claim for that title) but because it actually excludes a huge segment of the population from access. (47million). Various studies and analyses have been done over the years and we could choose to ignore them.

The US is ranked 37 in the world for health care according to the WHO.

http://www.who.int/whr/2008/en/index.html
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN07651650
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0505/p02s01-uspo.html

Some argue against the methodology. If it's wrong then exactly where does the US system "rank"?

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2008,1106-peron.shtm

Some even think its a "socialist" or commie plot.

http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/1107Peron.pdf

But that 47million number just keeps coming back to bring us back to reality.

Now here's the kicker, we have 30 times the land area as Japan. If health care is a right, shouldn't people in the less populated areas have the same access to health care as people in the cities? Well, you can't just go around plopping tertiary health care centers in the middle of no where to insure a town of 5000 has equal access to health care.

This is always going to be a problem - its a practical reality for sure. You don't need to necessarily have tertiary medical centres but there are always large central regional hospitals that cater for most things.Helicopter and fixed wing retrievals from rural and regional ares are common here as they are else where and move patients pretty effectively where tertiary care is required.

We can keep debating these points endlessly at we still arrive back at the same destination - where we started.

The US needs health care reform badly. There are an unacceptable number of your citizens being left out and neglected and this reflects poorly on your countries standing in the international community. Nobody's perfect of course but what is Americas excuse if these are harsh criticisms - the Richest, most technologically advanced nation on the planet.

Lots of countries like the idea of universal coverage for their populations. They like it in economic and practical, political terms and they like it philosophically - it seems like the right thing to do for people.

The US needs to get over the cold war mentality and simply embrace systems that are functional, effective and meet the needs of the population.
(This doesn't necessarily mean a universal system by the way).

The US will not metamorphosis into a new "commie" or "socialist" state because you adopt a universal scheme of health care.

But you have to try something at this point even if it seems a radical departure from you're philosophical or dogmatic position.

MM
 
Last edited by a moderator:

karaya

EMS Paparazzi
Premium Member
703
9
18
We have not completely neglected those 47 million as you suggest.

What's interesting in this thread is that there is no mention of our Medicaid program which is funded by both the State and Federal government and is designed for the needy, especially children. Uncle Sam foots about 60% with the states picking up the rest of the tab. As of 2005, nearly 50 million people were receiving their medical care from Medicaid at a cost to the government of nearly $300 billion dollars!

Your points (Melbourne MICA) as to our health care system, at least in the beginning of this thread were eloquent and somewhat thought provoking and showed some intelligence. However, your last post concluded with a simplistic analogy that you perceive Americans as some sort of commie fearing morons that just can't seem to comprehend what's in our best interest especially if it works for other countries such as Australia or Canada.

Your country has absolutely nothing to gain if we do or do not adopt a Universal health program. What's it to you where we rank on the flawed WHO rankings? Yes, we may be 37th, but even with your Universal health care, Australia ranks 32nd. Not exactly a sweeping revelation in numbers is it? And we have nearly 16 times the population you have!

Yes, you are correct that our health care system suffers. Is Universal health the sweeping answer or even part of the answer? I doubt it giving the poor health habits we Americans have eaten, smoked and drank ourselves into and that includes the poor and rich alike.

Our economy is teetering on upheaval and everyone wants a bail out. Obama made his first press conference today with the entire subject on the economy. As I said in a earlier post, Universal health care is well off the radar for the foreseeable future. There just is no money in our coffers to pay for such a program.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ffemt8978

Forum Vice-Principal
Community Leader
11,025
1,475
113
Doing it state by state is different than having the federal government do it. States have different powers and responsibilities than the federal government. But if each state does it individually, then it's not "universal" healthcare now is it?
 

karaya

EMS Paparazzi
Premium Member
703
9
18
Doing it state by state is different than having the federal government do it. States have different powers and responsibilities than the federal government. But if each state does it individually, then it's not "universal" healthcare now is it?

Pretty close. Massachusetts passed a law that went into effect last year that requires everyone to have health insurance or face a fine. The state also developed their own subsidized universal health plan that varies in premium depending on income. However, the state underestimated the number of uninsured residents and the budget for universal care has ballooned to more than twice as what was originally estimated.

In addition, the number of primary care providers in Massachusetts has not increased thus putting a burden on the health care system in which long waits for medical procedures (similar to Canada's problem) plague Massachusetts.

Massachusetts may be a good model to watch to see how they overcome their financial funding problems and overwhelmed primary care providers. The concept for the care seems sound in theory, but is clearly off to a rough start.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
M

Melbourne MICA

Forum Captain
392
13
18
We have not completely neglected those 47 million as you suggest.

What's interesting in this thread is that there is no mention of our Medicaid program which is funded by both the State and Federal government and is designed for the needy, especially children. Uncle Sam foots about 60% with the states picking up the rest of the tab. As of 2005, nearly 50 million people were receiving their medical care from Medicaid at a cost to the government of nearly $300 billion dollars!

Your points (Melbourne MICA) as to our health care system, at least in the beginning of this thread were eloquent and somewhat thought provoking and showed some intelligence. However, your last post concluded with a simplistic analogy that you perceive Americans as some sort of commie fearing morons that just can't seem to comprehend what's in our best interest especially if it works for other countries such as Australia or Canada.

Your country has absolutely nothing to gain if we do or do not adopt a Universal health program. What's it to you where we rank on the flawed WHO rankings? Yes, we may be 37th, but even with your Universal health care, Australia ranks 32nd. Not exactly a sweeping revelation in numbers is it? And we have nearly 16 times the population you have!

Yes, you are correct that our health care system suffers. Is Universal health the sweeping answer or even part of the answer? I doubt it giving the poor health habits we Americans have eaten, smoked and drank ourselves into and that includes the poor and rich alike.

Our economy is teetering on upheaval and everyone wants a bail out. Obama made his first press conference today with the entire subject on the economy. As I said in a earlier post, Universal health care is well off the radar for the foreseeable future. There just is no money in our coffers to pay for such a program.

I take your point and agree that my closing remarks were simplistic. It was not my intention to flag wave and in so doing rub peoples patriotic sensibilities the wrong way - that's the last thing any of us need at this point in time. The truth be told health care is a massive problem everywhere including in my own country.

If I may defend at least a couple of my remarks however.

When I referenced the WHO rankings I hyperlinked the Who site and a couple of others that mentioned the rankings, But I also referenced some web pages critical of the methodology used. One was even suggesting the ranking was a biased socialist leaning analysis done by the chairwoman of the committee doing the report. Thus I was trying to avoid a bias on my part.

Our WHO ranking leaves much to be desired without a doubt and is heavily influenced by the shameful health statistics associated with our indigenous population. Their current life expectancy is 17yrs less than the Australian average. It's our national disgrace and has been for decades. We're working on it but finding real solutions elusive.

I know for a fact that Americans are not "commy fearing morons". The US has produced masterly works of political analysis, some fearless critics of policy offered from both political camps and from individuals who spoke out (particularly during the hottest period of the Iraq war) against the tide of public mood and the kind of fear-mongering for which the Bush/Cheney administration has now passed into folklore.

Krugman, Chomsky, Woodward, Friedman (Thomas and George) - some right wing some left just to name a few. (Krugman is a staunch supporter of free market economics for example).

There are many great voices of moderation within the political parties themselves and within main street America.

For any affront I caused by making injudicious remarks on this front I apologise.

Yet there remains disquiet that the McCain camp felt there was mileage to be had from their perception that there remained an undercurrent of public sentiment about anything "socialist" by attaching this highly symbolic tag to Obamas policies especially when he was mooting the idea of universal health care.

I am certain that the perceptions of the American people are far more sophisticated than the republicans understood and the result of the election seemed to express this.

There's no doubt Bush and co. drove political commentary and policy to the far right making it all the more incongruous and ironic that he ended his term of office "socializing" a fair sized chunk of the banking sector.

Your country has absolutely nothing to gain if we do or do not adopt a Universal health program. What's it to you where we rank on the flawed WHO rankings? Yes, we may be 37th, but even with your Universal health care, Australia ranks 32nd. Not exactly a sweeping revelation in numbers is it? And we have nearly 16 times the population you have!

On this quote however I will beg to differ and not perhaps in the way you might be expecting.

The rest of the world has everything to gain by successful health care reform in the US. However insipid and corny this remark may sound, the US IS the beacon of the western democracies. None of us can afford to have your nation anything less than number one in pretty much everything - especially health care.

Your size, your wealth, your prodigious abundance of talent, your technological innovativeness, your innate ability to see past the obvious to lateral solutions for problems, the openness of your society, your extraordinary ability to embrace,to harbour and to coalesce both conservative ideology and liberal thought into the same breath,........and on and on.

You could run out of ways to describe why we all look to you in the US to be a champion. When you fail, we do too.


Obama was perceptive enough to recognise that he was talking to all of us in Grant Park. I sat glued to the screen for five hours right from the first count.
I was terrified at the prospect of him losing as much as I admire John McCain personally.

When he strode onto the stage to a cacophony of human voices that would drown out a football crowd or the detonation of an atomic bomb all present knew we were witnessing a transcendent moment in world history as much because we needed it to be than because it was for him being there.

By the time he had finished his acceptance speech you could see a pot pouri of American society all smiling, all crying, all embracing each other like lifelong friends.

It was a moment to savour for an eternity.

America is about to embark on a new journey of self discovery as only you Americans can. You will embrace change, you will step past dogma, past partisanship and you will wake to a new era that we will all follow because you did it in the way that only America can.

When health care comes into focus as it must, probably in a couple of years, your players will right a new programme of health care innovation that will become the template for others to follow. I believe it will include some level of universal coverage but with a twist. The twist we in other countries who use such systems with only moderate success hadn't thought of yet.

And when you do, we will be watching, listening and definately paying attention. Under Obama, perhaps for the first time in long time you will also be listening to others as well. It will be new coalition - a coalition of the ready, willing and able. Yes We Can.

"The reason I have seen farther than some is because I stood on the shoulders of giants".

MM
 

karaya

EMS Paparazzi
Premium Member
703
9
18
Well I must say it is certainly refreshing to discuss political views with someone as yourself who has clearly some intelligence of the facts. I do respect your view points and they are certainly some points that I will store in my memory banks and see how they compare with the future of our next president.

Although I respectfully disagree with your outlook on Obama, I do realize that I may be wrong about my assertion of the man as well. The proof is in the pudding as the say and we'll see what is in store for us in the next four years.

I was not one of the millions who was mesmerized with Obama'a aura as you were. I found it disturbing that his campaign developed a "creepy cult like" following. School children singing songs about him, people chanting "change" and strong political portrait posters that were reminiscing of the ones in the eras of Lenin and Mussolini. Not to mention terrorist organizations openly endorsing his candidacy.

I just couldn't find it in myself to vote for a man who was a Senator for 140 some odd days before he decided to run for president. We just don't know anything about him; at least in the area of public office.

But now Obama is my president and I will give him the respect as my president. The campaign is over and it is time to move on. I do look forward to see what develops in the next four years.

Again, Melbourne, I have enjoyed your thought provoking conversation. Some of my friends supported Obama, but could not discuss any facts with reasonable intelligence. They were completely driven by the idealogical media. You at least have taken the time to look at both ends and for that I doff my chapeau.

Thank you.
 

Greentag

Forum Ride Along
1
0
0
Whatever can get EMS more money to get better equipment and training for more life saving interventions is good for me.

Good statement; also economically benificient. Allow me to elaborate(note the root word "bore"). Je suis Canadian. Love beer, hockey, ...eh? The ambulance service in our Province(state) got taken over by a private company. The buget for our ambulance service previous to them was about 11 million. Afterwards about 80 million anualy. They got that amount of money because they proved that if you treat people sooner, with a highly educated prehospital service, the amount of money spent per patient at the hospital or rehab is significantly reduced. We/they are working on evidence based protocols and constantly involve us in different research to see if we can't teak patient care. The basic thought in our SOCIALIST health care service is to keep our patients healthy so they can pay taxes longer ;)
 

karaya

EMS Paparazzi
Premium Member
703
9
18
The basic thought in our SOCIALIST health care service is to keep our patients healthy so they can pay taxes longer ;)

You can't be serious? Do you not procreate in your Providence to born future taxpayers?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
M

Melbourne MICA

Forum Captain
392
13
18
Well I must say it is certainly refreshing to discuss political views with someone as yourself who has clearly some intelligence of the facts. I do respect your view points and they are certainly some points that I will store in my memory banks and see how they compare with the future of our next president.

Although I respectfully disagree with your outlook on Obama, I do realize that I may be wrong about my assertion of the man as well. The proof is in the pudding as the say and we'll see what is in store for us in the next four years.

I was not one of the millions who was mesmerized with Obama'a aura as you were. I found it disturbing that his campaign developed a "creepy cult like" following. School children singing songs about him, people chanting "change" and strong political portrait posters that were reminiscing of the ones in the eras of Lenin and Mussolini. Not to mention terrorist organizations openly endorsing his candidacy.

I just couldn't find it in myself to vote for a man who was a Senator for 140 some odd days before he decided to run for president. We just don't know anything about him; at least in the area of public office.

But now Obama is my president and I will give him the respect as my president. The campaign is over and it is time to move on. I do look forward to see what develops in the next four years.

Again, Melbourne, I have enjoyed your thought provoking conversation. Some of my friends supported Obama, but could not discuss any facts with reasonable intelligence. They were completely driven by the idealogical media. You at least have taken the time to look at both ends and for that I doff my chapeau.

Thank you.

Its been terrific participating. What goose said you should never talk about politics? What more important subject is there? Especially in these times?

I guess will all move on to more "interesting" ALS topics but if there remains a little life in this thread I'm happy and keen to continue to bring a southern hemisphere perspective.

I'm thinking I might have a look at how various universal programmes compare from different regions in a little more detail.

I certainly know I need to familiarise myself much more with the intracacies of the US health care system.

You'll have to tell me how it affects you personally - without giving away your bank account details of course!!!

Cheers::)

MM
 
Top