<p>“It is just obscene we can’t insure our people.”</p>
<p>ceebrown: If people in your neighborhood go to Brazil for plastic surgery, you must live in a fairly nice area. If you feel that lack of insurance is obscene, why don’t you find someone in need of insurance, get out your checkbook, and buy it for them?</p>
<p>[USATODAY.com</a> - Mind the gap: Americans sicker than English](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-05-02-health-survey_x.htm]USATODAY.com”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-05-02-health-survey_x.htm)</p>
<p>"The upper crust in both countries was healthier than middle-class and low-income people in the same country. But richer Americans’ health status resembled the health of the low-income British. " Heres where I first read it.</p>
<p>alwaysmom,</p>
<p>Many of your quotes were mine. Thank you for acknowledging them. I’m not sure that a victory in NH changed any individual opinions about any of the candidates. In reality, if you tally the Edwards and Obama (and other) votes, there were indeed still a lot of voters in NH who did not vote for Hillary.</p>
<p>Did any of the Clinton supporters eat humble pie after Iowa? I think not. Nor should they.</p>
<p>The proverbial fat (and in this case, older lad(ies)) in NH may have sung, but that may mean nothing yet. ;)</p>
<p>None of us are rushing to judgment. We can still opine about a candidate. We certainly know her supporters will. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Y2K: I hope you realize that there are a lot of problems with universal/socialized healthcare, even in Canada and England, the model countries that proponents of the system like to point to. Countries are having trouble, but realizing that once you switch to that system, it is really hard to switch back. Issues include supply/demand of doctors, cost of education (especially with dentistry, for some reason), extremely high taxes, quality of care, when things are free- people take more than they need, and that the people who benefit from the system are not the ones paying for it."</p>
<p>I address the points you made in your post. First and foremost, Canada and Englands aren’t model countries for socialized healthcare, I would say Cuba and Sweden. When is having a supply and demand of doctors a problem in countries with Universal healthcare? Countries with socialized healthcare such as Sweden,The Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium and Germany have more doctors per capita than the US.<br>
<a href=“http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/05/30/which-countries-have-the-most-doctors-hospital-beds/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.risingsunofnihon.com%2F2007%2F05%2Fwhich_countries_have_the_most.html&frame=true[/url]”>http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/05/30/which-countries-have-the-most-doctors-hospital-beds/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.risingsunofnihon.com%2F2007%2F05%2Fwhich_countries_have_the_most.html&frame=true</a></p>
<p>Quality of care isn’t an issue in socialized countries, I assume that high quality care is directed linked to life span. See my above quote of USATODAY.COM.</p>
<p>America already spends the most per capita for healthcare, nearly 5,200 dollars, socialized countries pay half that per capita. If anything, making the mighty switch would decrease costs.</p>
<p>And your last point is the typical Republican talk. This point isn’t even valid especially since we would be paying less if we made the switch. Are you saying that those who pay into the system and who have benefited the most from capitalism should have the greatest access to healthcare? So who deserves premium access to healthcare? The New York City police officer who qualifies for food stamps or the investment banker? The single mother who works 70+ hours a week to support her family or the cosmetic surgeon? Striating access to healthcare to economic status is horrific.</p>
<p>IMO healthcare is like food. In a developed country, nobody should go without it. The government should provide it to those who can’t get it. It is a cruel country that allows its citizens to starve…or go without a doctor. We don’t allow that in our country- we have food stamps and medicaid.</p>
<p>But at the same time, those who can afford health care should have to pay for it. And it should not be provided by the employer. How many of us expect subsidized meals (for ourselves and our family) to be provided by our employers or the government? Why do we expect it for health care? </p>
<p>The problem with healthcare costs getting out of hand in this country is that most of the consumers do NOT directly pay for their care. They pay for it via insurance that is provided by their employers. So consumers don’t feel like they need to shop around for the best value (ie, best quality for lowest price). The competition among providers is not based on making the customer happy but based on bargaining with the insurance companies and Medicare. And the insurance companies in turn bargain with employers to determine deductibles, copays, etc etc. The consumer (patient) and provider (doctor) have the least control over who gets paid what for which treatment. That is what makes our system a disaster.</p>
<p>I spent five years with superlative healthcare in Germany. The best thing about it? No paperwork for me. If every American could spend some time with that kind of worry-free healthcare I think they’d be singing a different tune.</p>
<p>Mathmom: help me out here. Do Germany and the US have similar demographics? In a hopital in my city, about half of the babies delivered in 2005-2006 were to non-paying, “undocumented” immigrants. There wasn’t any
“paperwork” for those people to worry about either… But trust me, somebody was paying for their care and somebody was worrying about it. In Germany, those that qualify to opt-out of the state health program may seek private insurance. Patients are billed directly by the provider and are then reimbursed by the insurance company (opposite of here). Since you said “no paperwork for me”, was someone filling it out for you or were you under the care of the state?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, that is one way to look at it. However, the cost of providing services such as healthcare or education do not disappear … magically. One needs to look at the TOTAL fiscal charges imposed on wages and the payments made by employers on behalf of their employees. Although one could simply dismiss the employers’ payments, it is a bit harder to ignore the consumers’ participation at the gas pump. </p>
<p>On the way to the “free” doctor or “free hospital” the $8.00 per gallon can add quickly. The same for trip to the quasi free university. </p>
<p>The United States CAN have those so called freebies but does not have the appetite to pay for services via direct and indirect taxes. </p>
<p>Can you imagine a candidate running on a platform that includes the economics and social services of Belgium or England … or Cuba? Imagine the slogan, “I’ll deliver free medicine and free education in exchange of your SS taxes doubling to an uncapped 15.6% and a $3.00 per gallon tax on gasoline!”</p>
<p>"Can you imagine a candidate running on a platform that includes the economics and social services of Belgium or England … or Cuba? Imagine the slogan, “I’ll deliver free medicine and free education in exchange of your SS taxes doubling to an uncapped 15.6% and a $3.00 per gallon tax on gasoline!”</p>
<p>For some people, that looks cheaper than what they pay now.</p>
<p>“The United States CAN have those so called freebies but does not have the appetite to pay for services via direct and indirect taxes”</p>
<p>We can pay for all those things without our overspending, and without waging war in other countries, and cutting down on our over blown military contracts. Maybe we should just try cut down on waste to make society better.</p>
<p>xiggi: If you put it that way, it doesn’t sound so bad actually. Uncapped 15.6% and $3 gas tax?</p>
<p>Thats it? I would sign up for it but I doubt it would pay for all that.</p>
<p>Not that bad? </p>
<p>Tell that to the small business owners who would need to keep their vehicles running and see their SS taxes double on BOTH the employers and employee side. </p>
<p>Do the math … drive a car 20,000 a year at 20 mpg … added taxes $3,000 per vehicle. Social security on a 100,000 gross salary … add 15,300 in taxes, making it a 30,600 total tax for social secutity ONLY! Do the same on a “smaller” salary of $50,000. Still 15,300 in SS taxes and that does not include income taxes. </p>
<p>Before discounting the impact, one has to remember that the backbone of the US is composed by small businesses. Maybe, people who post here and own a small business could comment on how little this would mean!</p>
<p>So, what kind of health plan can $18,300 buy for a someone who drives 20,000 miles per year and starts as a small business owner? </p>
<p>And, before decreeing that we can afford those added benefits without increasing taxes, please take a look at a country such as Belgium for deficits and underemployment figures.</p>
<p>“Withouit arguing about all the details, for many people, your plan would be cheaper.”</p>
<p>That seems to be the way the game of politics is played. As a means to eliminate or state’s budget deficit, our illustrious Governor Corzine just proposed a massive increase in tolls on our three toll roads (50% plus inflation every 4 years for the next 20 years.) In lieu of other taxes, “for many people” Corzine’s plan will be cheaper. However, is it the best policy to place the cleanup of the state’s fiscal mess on the backs of the few who rely on the toll roads on a daily basis and exempt the rest? If the numbers work out from a voting perspective, it may be the perfect political solution - to hell with fairness or the poor who need the toll roads to get to work.</p>
<p>My problem is not taxation but what is done with the money that is collected. I favor constructive (eg health, education) rather than destructive (eg war) use of tax dollars.</p>
<p>“I favor constructive (eg health, education) rather than destructive (eg war) use of tax dollars.”</p>
<p>Don’t we all. However, the issue of “war” spending and its necessity is very debateable.</p>
<p>fundingfather- I do not like Corzine’s plan either- but and it is a very big but- give me a realistic alternative. I know the budget numbers- start with this one total State operating expenseses are between $5 and 6 billion anything else cut is direct returns to taxpayers in the form of rebates, municipal or educational aid. So with a 3 billion shortfall if it does not come from the operating expenses it will increase property taxes. The one thing I think should have been done 2 years ago is a zero increase budget- he proposed for this year- watch everyone scream including the fiscal conservatives.</p>
<p>Well, the teachers union is already screaming about a proposed property tax cap. </p>
<p>I would start with the elimination of double dippers – NJ is notorious for politicians holding multiple offices & collecting astronomical pensions. Also, any politician sent to prison should have his govt. pension taken away. And unspent campain contributions should be either returned or put into a general election financing pot. When sprung from prison, one of my county execs set up a foundation with his unspent funds, paid himself handsomely as the Director, and drove around in foundation supplied cars. I believe no more than a few hundred dollars was distributed to charity each year. This goes on with the full knowledge of our current governor & legal system. My current county (Essex) is probably tied with Hudson (where I grew up) for the most outrageous corruption.</p>
<p>" The New York City police officer who qualifies for food stamps or the investment banker? The single mother who works 70+ hours a week to support her family or the cosmetic surgeon? Striating access to healthcare to economic status is horrific."</p>
<p>The police officer reference is silly(says the wife of member of the NYC unformed services). The contract is what it is because of the union. Striating access to healthcare has nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>“My problem is not taxation but what is done with the money that is collected. I favor constructive (eg health, education) rather than destructive (eg war) use of tax dollars.”</p>
<p>I favor using MY money for healthcare and education for legal residents but no one else and I also favor using MY money (because after all the government produces nothing) to keep my family and me safe.</p>
<p>Actaully every study I have seen (and I work in the field) indicates that every American currently uninsured could be covered FOR FREE - that is, based on the current total universe of health care spending - once one takes the insurance companies out of it.</p>
<p>And I have personal experience of that. I belong to a single-payor health plan where the premiums are literally one-third those of the competing private insurance plans - for EXACTLY the same coverage - except that I get to choose from any provider (not those listed by some private insurance company), and I can avoid all wait times simply by choosing a provider accordingly, should I wish.</p>