Throwing down the gauntlet

[Bullets]

The rest of the world looks on with dismay at this sort of attitude amongst those who are supposedly in caring professions. We also find it perplexing when we happily provide the Great Satan of socialized health care, and yet strangely enough our economies haven't collapsed, society hasn't broken down, and everyone gets the care they need.

Sure, the system isn't perfect, there are many things that could be changed for the better, but the fact of the matter is, if I pick up a homeless, jobless and uninsured patient off the street who is having a STEMI, he will get stented, he will get the medications he needs (not plavix or heparin hopefully!) and he will get follow up and cardiac rehab afterwards. This doesn't break the economy, doesn't cost jobs and doesn't cripple us with taxation, hence our trouble understanding the vicious, cold hearted and frankly disturbing attitude displayed here.

The mark of true civilization is how we treat those less fortunate than ourselves.

The rest of the world looks on in dismay, while happily taking billions of dollars in American aid every year.

I would disagree with you that providing free health care doesnt break the economy, ect. Sure, if i want free health care, it can be done, ill move to a place like the Scandinavian countries where income is taxed at 60% to fund their systems, which i wouldnt call "working". Its an issue of entitlement, like why are other people entitled to my money? i worked hard, i pull extra hours, double shifts, overnights, to earn the money i need to have the things i want. Get your hands out of my pockets.

Now, with that being said, im not a total SOB. I CHOOSE to spend my weekends working with charity organizations to help those who have trouble providing for themselves, but thats my prerogative. Just like prehospital care or fire service, ultimately, most EMT's and FF are volunteer based, and those people, like myself, make a CHOICE to enter into this field to provide health services to the impoverished. And thats fine,in fact, thats the wonderful thing about this country, that people from disparate backgrounds can come together to help each other out. Look at the response following Katrina, or Haiti, or the South Pacific Tsunmai, ARC and the like were able to provide the services they did because of PRIVATE donations, and thats also the way it should be

You dont have a right to live to be 96 years old if your body cant function past 73, you dont have a right to be kept alive through artifical means. People die, everyone, we all run from it as long as we can, some can run longer, but that doesnt mean those who cant keep up should be scooped up by the golfcart and carried along. They slow humanity down trying to drag them along. You live your life and hope it goes well, but its a crap shoot and its ruining this planet. These medical facilities keep people alive well past their time, and now we face a global population facing insane proportions, and the US faces a looming mass retirement and draw on social services that a much smaller portion of the population simply wont be able to support, at which point this whole ship sinks.

 

[Smash]

Exactly how much foreign aid does America provide to Australia, New Zealand or the Scandinavian countries? I'd be fascinated to know as these are the countries with functioning models of socialized health care.

As for taxation and income, I do struggle terribly under that burden. Every afternoon as I finish work, knowing that I only have a minimum of ten hours break, and that I shall have to slave away working 4 days on, 4 days off with a scant 3 months paid leave every year. I climb into my new European sedan to drive home to my half million dollar home and ponder how terrible it is to have to prop up those greedy people who want to take all my money off me for nothing! I take my mind off it by weighing up where I am going to buy my next investment property or what my next motorbike will be, but it weighs heavy upon my mind

From my position way down the totem pole as a regular old ambulance driver it sure seems like the system works

Strangely enough at the same time, we are one of the countries that has got through the GFC relatively unscathed. For the most part people have kept their jobs and their homes, and business have stayed open.

So, can you give examples of where universal health care has crippled a nations economy because from where I'm sitting that's nothing more than tinfoil-hat hysteria.

So is someone not entitled to live past 45 because they lost their job and can't afford insurance to pay for their bypass? Does a 3 year old deserve to die of asthma because her parents struggle to make ends meet on minimum wage and can't afford to buy medications? If you lose your job tomorrow, can't afford to make payments on your house, the bank forecloses and you are left with nowhere to go, will you continue to happily embrace a system that says that you are not entitled to basic medical needs?

Living in a civilized country brings with it great advantages, but with these advantages comes responsibility.

 

[lampnyter]

I can do it without hesitation. Im a heartless :censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored:.

 

[46Young]

Says who? Where is the data? Where are the numbers?

I spent many years working in "underpriviledged" US neighborhoods, most of those people weren't even registered to vote. (or even had a permanant address) Thinking they would actually be bothered to take the time to vote, or protest, is beyond fantasy.

I doubt many would even wake up in time.

For many years and in many examples both past and present, those in power defend the status quo by villifying minority groups or creating ficticious threats.

When you look at US voter turnout for elections, in the 20%s where is this massive block of entitlement voters?

It sure does create a lot of mental security thinking there is some external force responsible for the problems of the US, but I often ask myself, who stands to gin the most by maintaining things how they are? I didn't see a whole lot of working people benefit from economic bailouts. Infact I didn't see any.

Have you ever got the feeling that one group of people was feeding BS stories in order to deflect attention off themselves by focusing attention on another group that nobody seems to be able to account for except by hearsay?

If say a florida company rips off medicare/medicaid with fraudulent billing to the tune of 1.7 billion, how many of these entitlement people would be payed for by that money. Would you vote for him for governor?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott

"Columbia/HCA fraud case detailsOn March 19, 1997, investigators from the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services served search warrants at Columbia/HCA facilities in El Paso and on dozens of doctors with suspected ties to the company.[19]

Following the raids, the Columbia/HCA board of directors forced Scott to resign as Chairman and CEO.[20] He was paid $9.88 million in a settlement. He also left owning 10 million shares of stock worth over $350 million.[21][22][23]

In 1999, Columbia/HCA changed its name back to HCA, Inc.

In settlements reached in 2000 and 2002, Columbia/HCA plead guilty to 14 felonies and agreed to a $600+ million fine in the largest fraud settlement in US history. Columbia/HCA admitted systematically overcharging the government by claiming marketing costs as reimbursable, by striking illegal deals with home care agencies, and by filing false data about use of hospital space. They also admitted fraudulently billing Medicare and other health programs by inflating the seriousness of diagnoses and to giving doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. They filed false cost reports, fraudulently billing Medicare for home health care workers, and paid kickbacks in the sale of home health agencies and to doctors to refer patients. In addition, they gave doctors "loans" never intending to be repaid, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies.[3][4][5][6][7]

In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims.[24] In all, civil law suits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle, by far the largest fraud settlement in US history.[25]"

I am sure he is completely innocent. In an OJ sort of way.




Is it possible, that the reason there is so much negative propaganda about universal healthcare is because some groups might lose a lot of money?

I wonder who those groups could be?

Pharm companies? Doctors? Insurance companies? Politicians getting paid by them? Politicians invested in them? Private individuals invested in those companies? Healthcare equipment suppliers and manufacturers?

Any chance at all?

Ever see a comparison on how much of the 26% of the GDP of the US these people get compared to the entitlement crowd? Because I can't find those numbers anywhere.



There most certainly is a reason.

Unions.

Many of those things you listed are performed by government employees. Who make up the largest group of laborers belonging to unions in the US. If we had workfare people who were doing that for their meager benefits, who in their right mind would hire a union government worker at the average salary of a government worker? That might create more of the have nots wouldn't it?

I seem to remember reading something about early in the 20th century chaingangs being abolished for road repairs because contractors couldn't underbid prison systems.

How many public works employees would lose their jobs do you think?



I really think the amount of these people is insignificant compared to the amount of government workers paid wages and benefits far beyond their value in actual positions. Those people have not only the incentive to vote, but the organization as well.

Tell me, what organization mobilizes entitlement people to vote? What do those people paying for that organization and mobiliation have to gain?

I have belonged to 2 unions in my time, and they were always sending me information on who to vote for and why in every election.

But unions aren't all bad, here are some of the things in the current healthcare reform they are proud of:

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/healthcare/

Are those things bad?

You are a smart guy, I think if you really start looking into some of the stuff you are hearing, you may figure out it doesn't really add up.

I understand your point on villianizing certain groups to shift attention away from the ones at fault. My claim as to the large numbers of entitlement abusers is largely anecdotal, mostly from my personal experience, both at work and from numerous encounters in my personal life (I've lived in some rough areas in NYC, such as Bushwick Brooklyn for one; I saw a lot). I don't see nearly as much entitlement abuse down here in VA, and it's weird seeing so many families that actually have two parents.

I realized early on that the bailouts were just one hand washing the other, and was of no benefit to the general public whatsoever. And that stuff Gov. Scott did was unbelieveable.

I still don't know what to think about the Obamacare Bill. "We need to pass the bill to know what's in it" was enough to make me highly skeptical. Of course the pharm. reps, doctors, insurance companies are going to be against it. That's understandable. It makes sense that certain politicians that are greased by these doctors, reps, etc. would seek to demonize the bill. I'm still trying to make sense of it.

I'm beginning to see the light regarding unions. I think back to stories I heard from my uncles:

They would work for seven or eight months out of the year, go right on unemployment for the rest, work off the books, and not even try to get legitimate work in the interim. People clocking in drink or high, and no one bothers them. People showing up at 1000, leaving at 1500, and having their buddies punch them out much later for some OT. Tuning up scabs, threatening their families, following them home, etc. One guy walked up to his supervisor during labor negotiations, punched him, broke his nose, and nothing happened to him.The work gets done slow, to make the job last, and then they need OT to get the job finished. You can't even change a light bulb; only the union worker is allowed to do that, whenever he feels like getting around to it. I feel that the unions drove up the costs of doing business so much that many businesses have fled to right to work states, or right out of the country.

I get the same advisoried about who to vote for from my union. At least here it's a right to work state. The environment seems to be what you would see if you blended a hardcore northeast shop with a deep south right to work situation. Understand that union was all that I knew for most of my life, and most of my family, and many of my friends were also union, and they all did well for themselves. Then I moved to SC to work for Charleston County EMS. You read about their mandatory holover policies. They made you do whatever they wanted; it was their way or the highway, no iffs, ands, or buts. I consider myself a productive worker, who follows the rules and does the job that I'm paid to do. They were very clicky, and did abuse their labor. This was evidenced by the constant turnover there, despite the good benefits, and generous pay for the area. That experience only served to reaffirm my belief in unions. I'm seeing things differently now, though.

 

[Melclin]

@OP, Nope. I wouldn't, I shouldn't and I'll never have too. I watched one of those chronicles of EMS things the other day and laughed at the look on the face of that British paramedic who was shocked by how much cost factored into US healthcare, even the emergency kind. That would be me, sitting there going pale, while an old bloke with chest pain chose between a trip to hospital and losing his house.

Strangely enough at the same time, we are one of the countries that has got through the GFC relatively unscathed. For the most part people have kept their jobs and their homes, and business have stayed open.

Not without some help from the mineral cash cow we're sitting on, but its still a valid point.

The rest of the world looks on in dismay, while happily taking billions of dollars in American aid every year.

Ridiculous argument. "Woohhh America F**k yeah" is all I hear.

I would disagree with you that providing free health care doesnt break the economy, ect. Sure, if i want free health care, it can be done, ill move to a place like the Scandinavian countries where income is taxed at 60% to fund their systems, which i wouldnt call "working". Its an issue of entitlement, like why are other people entitled to my money? i worked hard, i pull extra hours, double shifts, overnights, to earn the money i need to have the things i want. Get your hands out of my pockets.

If you want the government to take less from your pockets, it would be in your interests to fund a universal healthcare system. You would spend less per person than you would currently and you'd get better value for that money spent. Our government, last I checked, spends less per person on health care than does the American government. That's because prevention is cheaper than treatment, especially for chronic problems, but preventative medicine does not fare well in systems like yours.

Also, where on earth do you people get these figures from. 60% tax? I suppose the very highest European brackets would have recently hit 60% but its hardly an average of all countries with some form of universal healthcare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

I know I know, Wikipedia and all that, but its a reasonable illustration. Our highest income tax bracket is 45% and that's only on any dollar earned above 180k. Not 45% of 180k. 45% of anything you earn over 180k and a smaller percentage applies to what you earned before that. When I start on a qualified wage of around 70k per annum (about 15k above the average wage), I'll pay around 22% tax. Not terribly different to most Americans. As far as I can tell, its slightly less in some cases. Yet we manage to find the pennies for a decent universal health care system, maybe because its actually cheaper than your current system. Its all about priorities I suppose. I'm sure your war in Iraq has made you feel 700 billion dollars safer. I'm not making a value judgment about Iraq, I'm just saying you rarely hear conservatives moaning about the government's hand in their pocket when the costly controversy in question is consistent with their ideology.

Some Americans are perplexingly ideological. The cold war is over guys. Jesus won. Move on.

And thats fine,in fact, thats the wonderful thing about this country,e

That really has nothing to do with the issue of universal healthcare. Most countries and their citizens contribute in various ways to various disasters. It seems pretty common that Americans think they are more charitable that others. I don't know how that came about. Is there some reliable statistic showing more volunteer involvement or more charitable spending in the US than other developed nations kicking around somewhere?

The burden placed on the system by modern medicines refusal to let people die is universal. American doesn't avoid those costs. Also, employers are required to pay a minimum of 9% of an employee's wages into a superannuation fund for retirement, to offset the costs of retirement to the taxpayer. We may as well just start goose stepping and running a red flag up the side of our collective farms.

One of the few people I've ever argued with about this who made sense was Linuss. He's been strangely absent.

 

[46Young]

If I'm going to buy in to the idea that universal healthcare is the best choice, I'm going to need a little convincing. Can someone who believes that ther healthcare system is solvent explain how their system works, and then compare it to what Obamacare is supposed to be? Everywhere I turn, I hear nothing but bad things about Obamacare. I still don't exactly know what the bill entails. I'm not against universal healthcare per se, but I need someone to explain to my why and how Obamacare is supposed to work. Until then, I'm not buying.

Also, Melclin had a good point. In our system, preventative medicine doesn't fare well. There's no money in it. all the profit is in symptomatic treatment and surgeries.

 

[jrm818]

As for taxation and income, I do struggle terribly under that burden. Every afternoon as I finish work, knowing that I only have a minimum of ten hours break, and that I shall have to slave away working 4 days on, 4 days off with a scant 3 months paid leave every year. I climb into my new European sedan to drive home to my half million dollar home and ponder how terrible it is to have to prop up those greedy people who want to take all my money off me for nothing! I take my mind off it by weighing up where I am going to buy my next investment property or what my next motorbike will be, but it weighs heavy upon my mind

From my position way down the totem pole as a regular old ambulance driver it sure seems like the system works

So..um...what do your immigration laws look like? I think I could find something to do with my 3 months...

 

[thegreypilgrim]

Explain to me why that will work in the U.S. It obviously hasn't worked elsewhere.

It worked out rather well when FDR utilized a Keynesian program in implementing the New Deal which pulled us out of the Great Depression, created the middle class sector out of nothing, and caused an economic boom which lasted an entire generation. Far outliving the wartime efforts. Ironically, Regan used it Keynesian methods to great effect to overcome double-digit inflation in the 80s with MASSIVE increases in government spending - spending the likes of which we have not seen since - yet he is touted by conservatives as their prototypical "small government" hero. Nothing is further from the truth about Regan.

Since that time Keynesian systems have been dismantled and coupled with massive tax cuts for the wealthiest people at the expense of social safety net programs that effect a socioeconomically equitable society. Keynesian economics HAS been tried and used to great effect in this country but has since been abandoned. President Obama is, himself, thoroughly Keynesian but his policies have not been effective due to blatant obstructionism and radicalization of the GOP.

Furthermore, every other developed nation (literally every one of them) emerged from WWII with some version of the welfare state which they've done nothing but expand while we've chipped away at it. Are you prepared to suggest that Western European countries are in worse shape economically and socially than we are?

The role of the federal government is to provide national protective and infrastructure services. At the point they started giving my money to someone who did not earn it is the point where they legalized theft, created a nanny state, started legalized bribes for political votes, and started us on a spiral that only those with real intestinal fortitude on the Hill (like Ron Paul who has been saying this for 30+ years) can stop and reverse and eventually abolish these practices Constitutionally (which will be great when congress starts adhering to it).

Well, currently your money is being given to those who did not earn it but whom are working in Wall Street. Middle class workers are, for example, more educated on average than they were 30 years ago but have not seen the benefits of such an education. They aren't seeing any gains, whereas people in the top economic 1% have seen ENORMOUS gains in wealth. Furthermore, this concept of "not earning it" is derived from a profusely common American myth. That is the Myth of the Self-Made Man. The truth is no such person exists. Life is a lottery, and certain people simply have a leg up on others by virtue of forces external to themselves. There is always a certain debt one owes to society regardless of how instrumental one's own abilities were in one's success. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet talk at great lengths about this and that's largely why they've opted towards giving away their fortunes. It's not something they feel they have a "right to" and this perspective is shared by many successful people the world over. It's really only in America where you have CEOs taking personal salaries in excess of tens of millions of dollars a year. In other countries such behavior is not seen as anything other than greed. So, this idea of "I earned everything I've got and I made myself who I am" is just a pervasive American myth.

Secondly, most of the people who benefit from state aid are stuck in a cycle of socioeconomic disenfranchisement. Upward mobility is another myth beheld with tremendous fervor by Americans, but it's not something you can fairly expect of someone unlucky enough to be born into a disenfranchised state. Horatio Alger stories are nice and heartwarming but they do not bear resemblance to reality. For example, the National Center for Education Statistics tracked the educational experience for children who were 8th-graders in 1988 and sorted them by academic talent and the socioeconomic status of their parents. The results of the study can be found in this table. As you can see from the table, having a high degree of academic talent and high-status family increased likelihood of achieving a bachelor's degree, but family status mattered much more. Indeed, students who scored in the bottom quartile but had a family status in the top quartile were much more likely to finish college than students scoring in the top quartile but with a family status in the bottom quartile. So, this idea that people are poor simply because they're too lazy or worthless to change their situation is yet another myth which needs to change. Inequality leads to class warfare, and that's the direction America is headed towards.

Keynesian Economics was never meant to be use for long periods of time, but rather it was only supposed to "jump start" the economic system. I believe it did just that, albeit because of a war, though it continued to be used in the sense that government grew exponentially over the next few decades.

Disagree. Again, look at Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand. All Keynesian welfare states and have been for the last 65-ish years. They're doing rather well for themselves I'd say.

 

[thegreypilgrim]

If I'm going to buy in to the idea that universal healthcare is the best choice, I'm going to need a little convincing. Can someone who believes that ther healthcare system is solvent explain how their system works, and then compare it to what Obamacare is supposed to be? Everywhere I turn, I hear nothing but bad things about Obamacare. I still don't exactly know what the bill entails. I'm not against universal healthcare per se, but I need someone to explain to my why and how Obamacare is supposed to work. Until then, I'm not buying.

Obamacare is not universal health. It's a mandate that uses the existing privatized system which was actually suggested by Republicans in the 90s except now it's supposedly unconstitutional. If you want a good overview of how the single-payer system (what people mean when they say "universal healthcare" unless you're talking about a truly "socialized" system like the NHS in the UK - only one in the world as far as I know and there's still a private sector within the UK health system) is fiscally the best option and how it could work in America I strongly suggest you read A Second Opinion: Rescuing America's Health Care by Dr. Arnold Relman. Great overview of the topic.

Also, Melclin had a good point. In our system, preventative medicine doesn't fare well. There's no money in it. all the profit is in symptomatic treatment and surgeries.

Investor-owned insurance companies have no incentive to cover preventative medicine, since by the time people benefit from it they qualify for Medicare and aren't dependent on their private insurance provider for coverage any longer. Thus, by covering preventative procedures they lose out on honoring the claim and don't get any return on premiums since those using such services are by that point on Medicare.

 

[emt seeking first job]

Any time I hear this debate, I can't help thinking its both these issues together and several more.

Yes, people abuse social services. Yes corporate interests abuse there position. To what extent ($) there is no way to measure. There should be a system of checks and balances to limit this.

I have also noticed in the past 25 years or so this hidden tax we all pay, and some zealously in the form of cable TV, media, and consumer products.

How much to we spend on take out food (guilty here) that we could have saved by brown bagging and using a thermos ?

Ever go by the NYC Time Warner Building ? See all the luxury car service cars outside ? Who willingly paid for that ? Everyone who subscribes to cable who really has no time to watch all the stupid shows.

With the stupid shows on TV, in the 70s, maybe there would be a documenary about a motorcycle builder, or a small time gold miner, but why is there a weekly showe for years about something that could be handled ina one hour episode......?

Designer label clothes and accessoires. The old commercial, who was that in those Foster Grants ($15 sunglasses), now people who really should not indulge in designer frames, with a huge logo on them, who really shouldnt....

It goes on and on. Maybe there needs to be a huge crash and depression like the 1930s time build something up again. I was born in the tail end of the era when people use to do things(camping, fishing, sailing, etc), not buy things. and the things they bought to do things with did not put them into debt. All these celebrity endorsed products. $5000 bicycles, really meant for competition, not Larry the Yuppie lawyer on the bike path near his condo....

 

[emt seeking first job]

In the past five years or so, I have become somewhat of a minimalist. For example, I sold off on EBAY my Vinyls, Casettes and CDs (and a few 8 tracks, lol, yes my Dad like Red in that 70s show got me an 8 track from christmas).

I had a moderate collection.

I still like music. I listen to the radio or online radio in a genere I am in a mood for. I like the DJ banter and commentary. I might get xm/sirus for more of that.

One of my buddies, for example, known him since 10. He bought vinyl, enhanced cassettes (back in the day of boom boxes), then CDs, then DVD-Audio, then MP3s, all of the same songs. He even bought used vinyl of the same albums for the jackets to stick in frames and hang them up on the wall. It takes up a lot of space. And I really think he rarely touches it. He mostly listens to his XM/Sirus or just sits in his chair complaining he is "bored"

Not to mention every movie he bought on VHS, then DVD, then enhanced DVD with special bonus features, and now buying all the same titles on Blue Ray.

He makes 100k as a motion picture camera man yet he is in heavy credit card debt.

When he does not work for a certain amount of time, he loses his health insurance from his union and is content to go insured. If something happens, he puts it on a credit card. (that interest in effect the same thing as paying premiums after the fact)

All that money had to go someplace........its in someone's hands.

He is typical. Most in the USA have a neglibable or negative net worth.

 

[emt seeking first job]

Insurance companies are not the bad guys. Why expect them to operate at a loss.

As I wrote before, however, I think the insurance companies can be removed from the equation. Just the way in the USA there is free k-12, police and fire, there could be free medical care.

If someone wanted to pay for private, as they can with the above, let them. Let there be insurance for that.

We dont force parents into investment plans to pay for a K-12 education for their kids....

 

[Veneficus]

If I'm going to buy in to the idea that universal healthcare is the best choice, I'm going to need a little convincing. Can someone who believes that ther healthcare system is solvent explain how their system works, and then compare it to what Obamacare is supposed to be? Everywhere I turn, I hear nothing but bad things about Obamacare. I still don't exactly know what the bill entails. I'm not against universal healthcare per se, but I need someone to explain to my why and how Obamacare is supposed to work. Until then, I'm not buying.

Also, Melclin had a good point. In our system, preventative medicine doesn't fare well. There's no money in it. all the profit is in symptomatic treatment and surgeries.

It doesn't work and it is not going to.

It is a 1/2 assed measure that was supposed to be a step in the direction of reform.

But a large amount of democratic trial lawyers lobbied to make sure malpractice reform was not part of it. There is no way to save money on eliminating defensive medicine when there will just be more defensive medicine practiced on more people.

I like the idea of universal care, but I know it is not the panecea. But I would definately accept a system like the UK or NZ or AU over the degradation to pay to play medicine in the US. Insurance companies are simply going to price themselves out of the market attempting to maintain profits.

Having employers provide coverage drives up the price of goods which costs jobs. At some point employers outside of the government will not be able to provide these benefits to employees. Even with a mandate it will get to the point where it is cheaper to pay the fine or move out of the country.

 

[emt seeking first job]

It doesn't work and it is not going to.

It is a 1/2 assed measure that was supposed to be a step in the direction of reform.

But a large amount of democratic trial lawyers lobbied to make sure malpractice reform was not part of it. There is no way to save money on eliminating defensive medicine when there will just be more defensive medicine practiced on more people.

I like the idea of universal care, but I know it is not the panecea. But I would definately accept a system like the UK or NZ or AU over the degradation to pay to play medicine in the US. Insurance companies are simply going to price themselves out of the market attempting to maintain profits.

Having employers provide coverage drives up the price of goods which costs jobs. At some point employers outside of the government will not be able to provide these benefits to employees. Even with a mandate it will get to the point where it is cheaper to pay the fine or move out of the country.

If everyone gets a k-12 education, why can't everyone get a cradle to grave health care ?

Part of that is on after stabilizing, assesing if they should be in the country in the first place and if not Stat-Flight them home....

 

[Veneficus]

Insurance companies are not the bad guys. Why expect them to operate at a loss.....

nobody is expecting these companies to operate at a loss, but billions in profit while deffering the losses onto the government programs like medicare/medicaid or refusing to pay for "experimental procedures" like liver transplants which are performed all over the world every day, or denying claims until a person dies and stops making claims isn't protecting against operating at a loss. It is protecting the share price. Which really was never the point of having insurance.

 

[Veneficus]

If everyone gets a k-12 education, why can't everyone get a cradle to grave health care ?

Without total system reform, the cost would be absolutely prohibitive. As it stands now government health programs are nearing 1/4 the national GDP and raising. Simply offering coverage to everyone without controlling costs is simply futile.

That k-12 education compared to what is spent and achieved by the rest of the civilized world is also disproportionate. $7k on a kid a year to pass a proficency test is a waste of money. $7K a year on a kid to get universities to compete for their attendance would be a bargain. There is a reason that there are work and student visas for highly educated and capable foreigners. It is because the US cannot produce their own. Last I saw close to 35% of all top end jobs in the US are filled by foreigners. (I honestly don't remember where I saw the stat though, but even if it is off by 10% that is a major issue)

 

[Shishkabob]

Medicare/Medicaid is proof that federally run health programs will not work in the US.


(Aside from them being unconstitutional but too ingrained to be gotten rid of)

 

[emt seeking first job]

corporations act in the interest of preserving the corporations assets

governments act in the intrests of people

that is why I think health care should be paid for by the government, eliminate the insurance companies

an appendix operation costs the price of the operation not the price + the price of processing the claim....

I am realistic to realize it would take a lot to have this happen in my lifetime.

 

[Veneficus]

Medicare/Medicaid is proof that federally run health programs will not work in the US.


(Aside from them being unconstitutional but too ingrained to be gotten rid of)

Actually, just like social security, the original concept was set up very well. The problem came when the trusts were raided or borrowed against to fund other endevors. If the money collected could only be used for health puropses it would work fine.

I should also point out the system was also set up under the philosophy that each generation would be larger so it would always mean more people paying and less using. With the modern change in that dynamic to less children per generation, there is an increase in intake that would have to be adjusted for until equalibrium is reached. To my knowledge, only Japan has succeeded at addressing this shift.

 

[emt seeking first job]

Without total system reform, the cost would be absolutely prohibitive. As it stands now government health programs are nearing 1/4 the national GDP and raising. Simply offering coverage to everyone without controlling costs is simply futile.

That k-12 education compared to what is spent and achieved by the rest of the civilized world is also disproportionate. $7k on a kid a year to pass a proficency test is a waste of money. $7K a year on a kid to get universities to compete for their attendance would be a bargain. There is a reason that there are work and student visas for highly educated and capable foreigners. It is because the US cannot produce their own. Last I saw close to 35% of all top end jobs in the US are filled by foreigners. (I honestly don't remember where I saw the stat though, but even if it is off by 10% that is a major issue)

Of course control costs.

Eliminate the insurance part would reduce the cost of running the insurance company from health care.

And they could find enough US workers for hi level jobs at this point, they really could.....

And they let foreigner students in for the tuition money...