The practices of Christianity? Tell me....what do you think Jesus would do, confronted with a large number of people who lacked access to basic health care? Need me to give you a hint?

 

85%? I've never seen that number. However, I'll take it at face value.
62% of bankruptcies are medical related. Of those, 75% had health insurance.
Welcome to the real world. Medical costs are already high. The US is not the leader in healthcare. Our infant mortality rate is 43 (by the CIA factbook's numbers), which is behind even Cuba. Our life expectancy is 50th, right above Albania. One of the things all of the countries at the top have in common: a single payer health care system.

Again, I see this "socialism!!!!!!1" claim. Okay. Why aren't you protesting medicare/medicaid, social security, police/fire departments, every branch of government, etc. etc.
Also, if you were able to read beyond the preamble, you'd get to this clause:
"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This is the same clause that allows us to have an Air Force and Marines. And, by definition, a single payer system IS promoting it.




P.S- a healthy workforce actually improves the economy, due to increased productivity Also, in countries with a single payer system, health insurance companies still exist, and their health care is much, much less expensive.


http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-9343/PIIS0002934309004045.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

 

Well what do you know, the democrats broke the republican filibuster on the health care reform bill 60-39. It looks like there's no stopping it now.

 

...

...

You have got to be joking. That's impossible. Impossible.

I'm. Fucking. Staggered.

 

Sorry, that's supposed to be 43rd in the world, but we are behind Cuba (and Guam).

 

To the person questioning the math numbers here you go, about 300,000,000 Americans, 40,000,000 without insurance. 300 - 40 = 260, 260 / 300 = 86% with insurance. Round down 1% u have 85%. The 40 million uninsured is off of whithouse.gov.

As far as the 85% goes that will, as you say need free care (lol), Its not free. We will be taxed beyound belief. We are a country who can not afford to fund those who dont even want to work. How fair is it for John to goto work everyday of his life, fight and scratch his way to make ends meat and is taxed for mike to sit on his ass at moms house not working and chooses not to work to get lung cancer from his smoking and get free care. THAT IS SOCIALISM. Its not America.

You said;

Why not do this now instead of revamping an entire industry, further more put a cap on how much insurance costs. Did you know that insurance companies cant compete with other insurance companies in a differant state!? That why if you call they ask what state your in, For example, Geico ( i know its not health but still an example) doesnt offer all their differant types of insurances in all states. Why, cause they arent allowed.

Why not open interstate competition? If i find a company in Arizona offering insurance for 25% of the cost im paying in Maryland I cant get it because of laws and regulations. Where if you opened the market you would see alot more of the smaller companies being able to compete with larger companies. As any person knows, more competition, lower the prices. We see this all over the place.


The fact of the matter is, giving people Health Care and taxing and penalizing those who opt out of a gov't run program is bad. It might work in your big brother system in Great Britian but it will not work here. Big government is a bad thing. Our founding fathers saw this was bad (Britian) and made the federal government small for a reason. Its all in the constitution, its all there. If this bill passes it will be the ultimate down fall of America, and i say good, for as Tomas Jefferson wrote,

This will happen, the main goal of the federal gov't right now is to bankrupt the states 1 by 1. This will allow for an eventual full federal take over. Thus creating a totaltarian government. You will see states suceed and become independant. It will most likly not be all out civil war like before, but much worse.

 

300,000,000 Americans, 40,000,000 without insurance. 300 - 40 = 260, 260 / 300 = 86% with insurance. Round down 1% u have 85%. The 40 million uninsured is off of whithouse.gov. To answer your question.

America is rated 11th in the world in health acording to forbes. We spend more money on health than any other country. Our down side is 15% are uninsured. It just strikes me as odd that we spend the most already yet 15% are uninsured. Seems like alot of misapropriated money somewhere. (PS Britian isnt ever in the top 12. yet one poster said that their health system is working so great)


To make claim that "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof"

Gives our government the loop hole nessesary to control 1/6 of the nations pricate sector is absurd and unfounded. Also to state that the Federal Gov't is socialist like in behavior be simply implementing a protective force of marines and air force, Is bull. It states in the constitution again, mainly in the preamble, that we gave that right to the federal government. Furthermore, to state that a police for and fir department is in anyway socialist is unfounded as well. We the people, put those powers in place.

I would like for you to elaberate more on how these things are considered socialist.

I do consider Medicare, Medicade, Welfar, and others to be socialist, Hence the term socialized medicine... i think that says it in its self, oh wait im sorry Obama changed the term to "Universal Health Care."

As far as protesting ever branch of gov't.... please explain this further. I dont how everybranch is Socialist please elaberate.

 

The CIA World Factbook

Originally Posted by Resident of Maryland
Our infant mortality rate is 43 (by the CIA factbook's numbers), which is behind even Cuba. Our life expectancy is 50th, right above Albania.

Look it up yourself:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publica...Cuba&countryCode=cu&regionCode=ca&rank=181#cu

https://www.cia.gov/library/publica...=Cuba&countryCode=cu&regionCode=ca&rank=55#cu

 

Now try these explainations to the US ranking in healthcare, most of the data used by others in the rankings are from WHO.

https://smartgirlnation.com/2009/06...irly-misrepresents-the-us-health-care-system/

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9259

http://greatdivide.typepad.com/across_the_great_divide/2007/06/why-health-care.html

http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/06/06/united-states-health-care-ranking-who/


Life expectancy is one of the top rating points, if the homicide and accidental death (mostly transportation related) were removed from the data, the US would rank #1 in life expectancy. These are not healthcare issues, they are safety and cultural issues.

Next the infant mortality rate, if the cultural differences were separated the US would equal or better the rates of the UK & EU countries.

Next the responsiveness and distribution of healthcare, the US ranks #1 & #3 (tied with three other countries).

Next the "fairness" rating, this is measured by how much a person or family spends directly on healthcare. Well doh, a person living in a country that pays for healthcare through taxing it's citizens, will not have any appreciable direct healthcare costs.


The whole of the rating systems quoted by others as an indicator of the quality of US healthcare are slanted to make the solialist countrys look better than they are.

You can not excape the fact the US has high quality medical facilities and professionals. Even WHO acknowledges that. Many other countries send their critical patients to the US for advanced treatment.

We have a health insurance problem, we need to get the 15% who are not insured covered, the current healthcare bill does not do that.

 

If health care is better run by the government, universal health care is right. I don't care what you think the U.S. Constitution says.

 

Popular Ranking Unfairly Misrepresents the U.S. Health Care System

By: Richard G. Fessler, MD, PhD

Let’s be perfectly clear about this, the United States Health Care is second to none! Ask the tens of thousands of patients who travel internationally to the US every year for their health care...

-----

There is no documentation as to the number of patients who travel international to the US every year. Nor do we know how rich they are.

-----

“Health level” is a measure of a countries “disability adjusted life expectancy”. This factor makes sense, since it is a direct measure of the health of a country’s residents. However, even “life expectancy” can be affected by many factors not related to health care per se, such as poverty, homicide rate, dietary habits, accident rate, tobacco use, etc. In fact, if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA’s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth.2

https://smartgirlnation.com/2009/06...irly-misrepresents-the-us-health-care-system/

-----

The author of this article does not care about the fact that poverty shortens a person's life. Nor does the author care that the guns and gasoline culture loved by Sarah Palin's people is a national problem. Europeans are less likely to own guns and cars. In both respects they demonstrate their wisdom and the superiority of European culture. The author also mentions tobacco use. Americans are less likely to smoke than Europeans. That is one of the few areas we are better than they are.

To say that the United States provides the best health care if one can afford it is as meaningless as pointing out that a brand new luxury car gives better transportation than a thirty year old Ford Pinto.

 

I read your other links, tenguy. They were short on facts. I would like to know the number of people who visit the United States for health care every year. I want to know what countries they come from, and I would like to know how rich they are. I am reasonably confident that very few come from Western Europe and the British Commonwealth. If rich people come to the United States from impoverished third world countries for health care denied to poor Americans, I do think that is something we should be proud of.

It remains the case that Americans spend more for health care than any other country, and that according to the Central Intelligence Agency we score shamefully low on life expectancy and disgustingly high on child mortality. According to a Harvard study I have posted here several times, 45 thousand Americans die every year because they lack health coverage.

 

What's wrong with a thread going off topic for a bit? Most threads do. I'm surprised the thread was on topic for as long as it has been.

What are you, some kind of a thread gestapo?

 

US Senate approves health debate
The US Senate has narrowly voted to hold a full debate on a landmark bill designed to overhaul the country's healthcare.
All 58 Democrats, plus two independent senators, approved it. All but one of 40 Republican senators voted against.
Two Democratic senators whose support had been in doubt earlier said they would back the package, a key election pledge of President Barack Obama.
The White House said Mr Obama was "gratified" by the result.
A full Senate debate on healthcare reform will now begin on 30 November.


“ We're going to do anything and everything we can to prevent this measure from becoming law ”
Mitch McConnell Republican Senate leader

The House of Representatives narrowly passed its own version of the reforms earlier this month.
The legislation - designed to secure coverage for millions of uninsured Americans - could lead to the biggest changes in US healthcare in decades, if approved.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid says his $849bn (£508bn) bill would extend coverage to another 31 million people, or 94% of eligible citizens.
The legislation, which was outlined in a 2,074-page document, is said by Democratic aides to reduce deficits by $127bn (£76bn) over a decade and by as much as $650bn (£389bn) in the 10 years after that.
'Historic'
But Republicans say it will be too expensive, and have vowed to block it. Fewer than 60 votes for the initial measure would have left the bill vulnerable to Republican delaying tactics.


NEXT STEPS
<li class="bull"> 30 Nov - Senators return from Thanksgiving recess to debate and propose amendments to the bill <li class="bull"> At least three weeks later - Senators vote on final bill <li class="bull"> If passed, conference committee set up to reconcile Senate and House bills <li class="bull"> Both chambers vote on final version <li class="bull"> If passed, President Obama signs bill into law

A White House spokesman said President Obama was "gratified that the Senate has acted to begin consideration of health insurance reform legislation".
"Tonight's historic vote brings us one step closer to ending insurance company abuses, reining in spiralling health care costs, providing stability and security to those with health insurance, and extending quality health coverage to those who lack it," said Robert Gibbs.
Speaking after the vote, Mr Reid said he was looking forward to the coming debate and to "finally bringing quality health care to the American people".
But Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell said he would continue to oppose the motion.
"The American people are asking us to stop this bill and we're going to do anything and everything we can to prevent this measure from becoming law," he said.
Efforts to get the vote passed had focused on three centrist Democrats - Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana - who expressed doubts about the bill.
Sen Nelson said on Friday he would back the procedural vote, but Senators Lincoln and Landrieu declared themselves available only hours before it was due to take place.
'Deep reservations'
After confirming her support, Sen Lincoln said that it was important to start debating the issue and that Saturday's vote would "mark the beginning of consideration of this bill by the US Senate, not the end".
Senator Landrieu said there were "enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward, but much more work needs to be done".
All three Democrats continue to have deep reservations about the bill.


Under the Senate bill, most Americans would have to have health insurance, while private insurers would be banned from refusing to provide insurance because applicants had pre-existing medical conditions.
Insurance would be made more affordable with subsidies available to help those in lower income bands, the Democrats say.
People would also be able to take part in new insurance market places and be able to choose to buy government-sold insurance from 2014, a provision intended to help regulate the prices charged by private companies.
Large companies would be required by law to provide coverage to staff. The costs would be covered by government cuts on future Medicare spending.
If the Senate eventually passes its bill, it must then be reconciled with the House of Representatives bill and voted on again before the programme can become law.
Mr Reid's bill differs to the House bill in that he calls for an increase of a half percentage point in Medicare payroll tax for people with an income of over $200,000 (£119,779) per annum - rising to $250,000 (£149,724) for couples.
There is also a tax on high-value insurance policies that is not contained in the House version of the bill.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/8372210.stm

Published: 2009/11/22 06:12:48 GMT

 

Here's what I find so amusingly ironic about all this tenguy. When it comes to health care the fact that the US spends a lot more per person on health care than other countries, and the possible flaws in determining the quality of health care in the US must be taken into account.

But when it comes to public education in the US the fact that we spend more per pupil and apparently lag behind some other nations in quality of education. That situation is very serious and means we need to overhaul our entire public education system.

Two faced much, there tenguy?

 

"What's wrong with a thread going off topic for a bit? Most threads do. I'm surprised the thread was on topic for as long as it has been.

What are you, some kind of a thread gestapo?"

You are correct, Whitey44, I did not intend my comments to be taken as boot stomping.

My biggest mistake would be to stumble into a forum and think that others would provide insights into an argument from a different perspective.

I do want to point out the frivolous nature of avoiding actual quotes from the bill in question and responding with nonsense comments about how the folks overseas do it so much better than us and the doom that will fall around our ankles if we follow the path of foreign governments. That is a tactic of obstructionsts.

For the record:

We can all agree that the current health care system in this country is gap laden and broken. We can do something now or we can do something when we are desperate. But in the end, action must be taken.

I had hoped that those that oppose this view would offer solutions instead of the fear mongering the voters of this country are fed on an hourly basis.

respectfully,
A gent

 

Pardon my addition.

I forgot to mention in my previous post - Kudos to you Whitey44.

You have provided the insight and accuracy of argument that I had originally sought out. You post on the progress of the Senate Cloture is a breath of fresh air.

 

I liked the way you showed your mathematics. But the problem is that the number of Americans who don't have insurance is not the real problem. Its actually more of a sign of just how much trouble our healthcare system is in.

The system is seriously flawed and mathematically unsustainable and HAS to be reformed. Nearly everyone on all sides of the political spectrum know this and will not deny it.

Do you deny it? And if so on what basis.?

I'm going to say that most of what you are saying here is irrational and indications of brainwashing.

We (the US) will not be taxed beyond our belief. In reality solving the problems with our health care system would curtail the amount of money being poured into it, and actually result in more disposable income.

Illogical and actually impossible. The only way insurance works is to collect insurance premiums that exceed the amount of claims being paid out.

The problem with this is it ignores the reality. There is very little competition bewteen health care insurance companies now because the compainies have bought up most of the competition.

But I don't expect you to understand anything beyond your pre programmed response. That would defeat the very purpose of brainwashing.

A ......... look ......... Tez, old buddy, you are spouting pure pre programmed insurance industry propaganda that is designed to make you believe there are free market solutions, and just because none of those solutions have been found in the past 100 years and the problem has only gotten worse and worse, it will work this time.

Now, don't you see just a wee bit of a problem here, Tez. You seem like a smart guy, how come you say things that aren't really grounded in reality and may not even be possible?

Tell me why?

Tell me why not Tez?

Tell me why, Tez?

Really? What were those bad things? What was the reason for creating the government? How was our government made small, Tez?

Well you know I don't think Jefferson himself would argue that was one of his better literary moments. But just how much blood do you need to water that tree. Isn't it being refreshed with the blood of partiots every day?

And Tez there is absolutely no reason the constitution would be opposed to even universal health care. In fact I think it was in the late 1700's that the US government first undertook the responsibility health care to at least some people.

Tez, you remind me of my old grandma, standing on a chair and hugging her skirt to her legs screaming she sees a mouse.

Well it would strike you that way because you don't understand the problem. See the problem with uninsured people is they have to have health care but don't pay for it. That drives up the costs of both health care and health care insurance for everyone.

Then one of the reasons our health care system costs more and delivers less is in large part because private, for profit, health insurance companies make huge profits by being situated between the patient and doctor.

But Tez we don't have to go any further than the preamble of the Constitution before we see health care is one of the Government's responsibility.

What do you think it means when the Constitution says?

But I have a question for you. Are you opposed to Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, and welfare? Do you believe any or all of these programs should be eliminated?

 

My rankings were from the CIA. I don't think that the CIA is biased against it's own country.

Not to mention that the number doesn't include those who are under-insured. It's a little bit misleading to say it's "only" 15% of the population, when that number is 40 million.

The stereotype of the welfare queen already gets health insurance anyway.

Exactly. There's a huge difference between what it CAN do and what it DOES do. You can use any rating you want, because in the end systems with single payer health care are healthier than the US. The US has more MRI machines, sure, but that hasn't helped us since we're still ranked so low, now has it?

He's confusing the meaning of "promote".

Healthcare is 1/6, not health insurance. I will not deny the fact that health insurance makes up a large part of our economy. However, that should scare you that an industry that produces NOTHING is so powerful.

Army and navy are specifically mentioned in the constitution. Air force and marines are not

You can go look, if you'd like.

It's unfounded, eh? How so? Your tax dollars are used to fund them. You might not need them, because you might not have a fire/breakin/etc. Your neighbor still benefits from it.

They actually did have private fire companies at one point. The problem was that if somebody didn't have the seal on their house, the fire remained until it got out of hand and cause damage to other parts of the city/town.

Your tax dollars are used to fund them. It is pooled, then dished out. I'm not sure why this is so complicated.

 

News From the Front

Interesting fact - Under the Reid bill, it's estimated that 16 million American citizens will be force to pay the penalty levied on the uninsured, while 8 million illegal immigrants will not. Both will receive the same level of healthcare.

https://keithhennessey.com/2009/11/21/penalty-tax-inequity/