|
I will point you all at a very interesting link, especially to those Euro-lovers out there:
World Economic Stats - Debt as a % of GDP
This chart shows the following countries debt as a percentage of GDP (what the country "makes"). It basically describes how much "credit card debt" the country has because it is spending more than it makes (all figures 2007):
Canada: 25.1%
UK: 38.35%
USA: 43.98%
France: 54.27%
Germany: 57.68%
Japan: 90.78%
Italy: 100.35% (nearing economic collapse, btw - their income cannot pay their debts)
This means that the US, with all of its military spending and being the last superpower left in the world, is still not as broke, on a normalized basis (% of GDP basis), as France, Germany, Japan and Italy. It also does not have the punitive taxation rates and VAT seen in these countries. Where does the debt come from for the big European countries since they have no military budget to speak of? Yep, social programs, which cannot pay for themselves even with the punitive taxation.
As it stands, the US's Social Security and Medicare will fail (be unable to be funded by taxes) in 2017 or so. The US government has done a terrible job of managing these entitlements, and will do a terrible job of managing national health care should that tragedy come to pass. Furthermore, the porous US border allows millions of illegals to enter the country (something not seen in Europe) to further soak up benefits (public education, emergency care at the very least right now).
There is simply no way we can continue as a country spending what we do, whether it be on "guns" or on "butter" (as the classic economic question is sometimes phrased). Trying to do both is economic suicide. What needs to happen is that taxes should be raised, social benefits cut, military spending tightly controlled to allow 2 regional simultaneous conflicts and money saved be put to reducing the debt. Deficit spending (the amount above revenue spent by the US government on a yearly basis is approaching 1 trillion dollars a year!!!) must be eliminated.
What US citizens fail to realize is that they are the government; the government is us. It is not some distant entity that has a pile of money. It is no different than your household. It gets money in, it sends money out. The only difference between your household and the government is that their numbers have more zeros. How long would your household last if 50% of what you made went to servicing your debt and you continued to spend money you didn't have?
Both the Republicans and Democrats are to blame for this, they just spend the money differently though the Cold War victory and the conflicts in the Middle East have certainly not helped matters. Shifting our spending will only give everyone health care up to the point where our government collapses, it will do nothing to actually fix the problem until the government starts spending less than it gets in. And for those anti-military people out there, I direct you to the Federal Budget Summary wherein you will see the 2007 budget:
$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2]
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
Yep, that is right. We spend 1.255 trillion dollars on entitlements (social security, welfare, unemployment and medicaid/medicare) to 548.6 billion in military spending (less than half the entitlements spending). The total budget is 2.8 trillion, which means that entitlements already consume 44% of our total federal spending. And you want to add more entitlement programs!?
|
Since canada is at the top of the list, does this make us the best model to follow? With our small military, high tax rates, VAT (called gst and pst here) and social programs?
Of course we are coming off of 15 years or so of heavy cuts to social progams, and large budget surpluses that went to pay down the national debt.
It might be that we think conservative means 'fiscally responsible', not moral majority up here still. For the most part.
*misses the red tories*
Very scary statistics. As a 'fiscal conservative' I have been railing against the wave of entitlements that are being pushed by both the Left and the Right in this country. From bloated defense budgets to giveaway social programs, we seem to be headed to financial insolvency.
Perhaps it seems mean, but do the taxpayers really need to underwrite everyone? Why are we even contemplating giving the auto industry $30 Billion? Why did we give financial institutions $700 Billion? Has it helped anything? Why are we looking at a costly Universal Healthcare plan? As we sink into unpayable debt there seems to be an urge to put even more strain on the resources by adding more entitlements to the pile (Amnesty, healthcare, pork spending, corporate bailouts).
My solution? F 'em. If a company is supposedly 'too big to fail', we should try out the hypothesis. Is it too big to fail? Or is it just fearmongering? Are companies that label themselves 'too big to fail' too big? Should the courts mandate they split up into smaller 'able to fail' companies?
Universal healthcare? Why? Why is healthcare a right? Mortgage paydowns? Why? Is having a house a right? What's next, car loan paydowns? Student loan paydowns? I'd like to get in on any of those programs. I predict we will see a massive petition for individual homeowner relief if the mortgage paydown plans being bruited about in Congress ever gain traction.
Increasing taxation will just cause capital to go into hiding, rather than having it out in the market making wealth. Instead of taking a chance on buying stocks or starting a corporation, all that capital will end up in offshore Cayman Island accounts where Uncle Sam can't grab it. We all suffer then.
When America goes Chapter 11 (and believe me, it can and will on our present spendthrift course), there's going to be a lot of pain and sufffering, not just here but world-wide. I am not trying to be 'cruel' and 'mean-spirited', but by funding all these feel-good issues we are merely delaying the inevitable. You don't give a person with a malignant tumor a handful of opiates and tell them not to worry. You cut out the malignant mass and try to save what can be saved. You don't give a compulsive spender more credit cards and tell them not to worry. We need to plan twenty years out, not just two like our politicians seem to believe.
How true Patrick. Looking through history we can see examples of how entitlement programs cripple an economy. Ancient Rome's entitlement programs are a great example. We seem to not have learned anything from history.
Rome, LOL!
Looks at Italy's debt.
|
Interesting discussion. In my World Geography class yesterday we were discussing this very topic. It seems that the United States is on it's way to a European style social welfare system while many European countries, notably Sweden, are turning away from it. Sweden is notable in this regard because they are the country that is often held up as a model of a successful social welfare system. But, as always, the attitude will be that it hasn't worked in the past because the right people weren't in charge. This seems to be a common atitude on both sides of the aisle.
|
|
LinkefiedWhile I appreciate you desire to state your case, just providing a link without providing analysis as to why you feel it's important does not help much. Additionally, I don't understand what this has to do with this discussion. The only thing that really applies to entilements, as it is being discussed here, is Article 25, Section 1. However, even in that section there is no requirement that the government be the one to provide them.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.To illustrate my point, I direct your attention to Article 23, Sections 1 and 3.
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection
Notice that even in counties that do provide a great degree of social welfare from the government, there are not many where the government gives a guarantee of a job. Therefore that section is interpeted to mean that jobs are a right that are not secured by government spending.It should be noted that security in the cases mentioned are already provided for by existing government programs and therefore do not provide an impetus for additional social welfare programs.
I would also point to Article 26, Section 3 as an example of a right that many people, who otherwise see the Decleration as a mandate for government spending, tend to ignore.
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
It could very easily be argued that people who support socialized medicine and other social welfare programs but oppose school voucher programs are in just as much opposition to the Decleration as people who support school vouchers but oppose social welfare programs.
|
My solution? F 'em. If a company is supposedly 'too big to fail', we should try out the hypothesis.
I've been saying that ever since Fannie May and Freddie Mac went under, Let them fail . In the short run a lot of families would be hurt but in the long run it would be better for our country (US) and for the rest of the world as well. We have lost all sense of fiscal responsibility and have sacrificed long term solvency for short-term profits. We have trained 3 generations to be spenders instead of savers, wasting our money on disposable products instead of products that last a lifetime or more.
|
|
You could just raise taxes. Or stop spending One Trillion Dollars a year on the military. Source.
P.s. Sweden isn't turning away from the Welfare State at all. Reform is not dismantling it.
|
so you'd rather have large sections of the population dying painfully of treatable diseases, because the economy will not pay them a living wage?
If the government doesn't help it's citizens then that government is a tyrant and should be cast down,
So you would rather have a government that controls large sections of the economy, mandating wages, employment, allocation of resources, and more?
If the government bases its existence on control of the economy then that government is a tyranny. The US has helped to cast down more than a few of those types of tyranny in the past.
|
ummm didn't President Clinton eliminate the national debt? I do seem to remember that he did. Fortunately for the US, we then elected fiscal conservatives to office and once more raise our national debt to astronomical levels. It was a shame them tax and spend liberals had to go and clean up our debt. Good thing we got them fiscal conservatives to get it back for us. I just hope that this new President isn't gonna clean up our debt...
|
|
so you'd rather have large sections of the population dying painfully of treatable diseases, because the economy will not pay them a living wage?
If the government doesn't help it's citizens then that government is a tyrant and should be cast down,
So you would rather have a government that controls large sections of the economy, mandating wages, employment, allocation of resources, and more?
If the government bases its existence on control of the economy then that government is a tyranny. The US has helped to cast down more than a few of those types of tyranny in the past.
Hey that sounds exactly what George Bush is doing right now! Cool huh
Buying up stocks and propping up corporations and in some cases nationalizing corporations. It most certainly has major control over resource allocation, mandates wages, supplements employment (government employment is one of the largest industries in the country), and certainly more.
|
|
ummm didn't President Clinton eliminate the national debt? I do seem to remember that he did. Fortunately for the US, we then elected fiscal conservatives to office and once more raise our national debt to astronomical levels. It was a shame them tax and spend liberals had to go and clean up our debt. Good thing we got them fiscal conservatives to get it back for us. I just hope that this new President isn't gonna clean up our debt...
Actually, it was the Republican congress who forced Clinton to balance the budget or face a government shutdown. Then somebody convinced the Republicans that the best way to stay in power was to spend money like a bunch of drunken sailors, which led us to the point we are at now.
|
|
so you'd rather have large sections of the population dying painfully of treatable diseases, because the economy will not pay them a living wage?
If the government doesn't help it's citizens then that government is a tyrant and should be cast down,
So you would rather have a government that controls large sections of the economy, mandating wages, employment, allocation of resources, and more?
If the government bases its existence on control of the economy then that government is a tyranny. The US has helped to cast down more than a few of those types of tyranny in the past.
Hey that sounds exactly what George Bush is doing right now! Cool huh
Buying up stocks and propping up corporations and in some cases nationalizing corporations. It most certainly has major control over resource allocation, mandates wages, supplements employment (government employment is one of the largest industries in the country), and certainly more.
Clinton left a surplus from the national budget he didn't pay off the national debt. Under Clinton our national debt was around 3 trillion but thanks to the neo-cons it ballooned up to 11 trillion.
Interesting discussion. In my World Geography class yesterday we were discussing this very topic. It seems that the United States is on it's way to a European style social welfare system while many European countries, notably Sweden, are turning away from it. Sweden is notable in this regard because they are the country that is often held up as a model of a successful social welfare system. But, as always, the attitude will be that it hasn't worked in the past because the right people weren't in charge. This seems to be a common atitude on both sides of the aisle.
I've been fascinated lately reading about Denmark's economy and contrasting it with that of the US. Their standard of living is among the highest in the world. They've got a huge welfare state, but among the freest markets in the world. Unlike us, Denmark doesn't infringe upon employers' rights to hire or fire people as they see fit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/da.html#Ec on
|
|
You could add the UK, France, Germany, and Japan debt to US costs. After all, the USA helped rebuild all of those countries after WW2, especially Japan's infrastructure and economy.
The US (or any other country for that matter) could reduce it many ways, but in doing those methods could make a country lose face. Example, dont send supplies to countries ravaged by a natural disaster. I know that seems prudish, but isnt there organizations outside the government that deal with things of that nature?
The point is, sometimes the goverment, needs to quit doubling up on things where they are already being taken care of, that is just one of many many situations....
Clinton left a surplus from the national budget he didn't pay off the national debt. Under Clinton our national debt was around 3 trillion but thanks to the neo-cons it ballooned up to 11 trillion.
The neocons have a lot to answer for. Abandoning fiscally responsible governmental spending has delivered us into the mess we are in now. Add in the mortgage deregulation debacle and the shameful fearmongering during the election that has scared consumers so bad that they refuse to spend a penny because Armageddon is coming and you have a receipe for a very interesting 2009 (and I mean that in the Chinese curse way).
so you'd rather have large sections of the population dying painfully of treatable diseases, because the economy will not pay them a living wage?
If the government doesn't help it's citizens then that government is a tyrant and should be cast down,
No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that everyone DOES have access to healthcare, it's called insurance. Even if you don't HAVE insurance you can still get help. Getting the government involved WONT make healthcare better, it will only jam the system up.
I speak as a person VERY familiar with health insurance, with a very medically fragile daughter. Let me spin a scenario out for you:
[Scene: Universal Healthcare has passed.]
HR at Curtin's work: Since there is now government healthcare, we will no longer be sponsoring your health insurance Patrick. We just can't afford it with all the extra health taxes.
Curtin: But I have had a very good experience with Blue Cross Blue Sheild!
HR: Well they are still an option for you, you'd just have to pay for the entire policy.
Curtin: I already pay $170 a week for the sponsored policy, I don't think my paycheck could handle $340. After all the other taxes that would leave me about $100.
HR: Sorry. But you have US Health now!
Curtin: Great
Flash to later. Curtin needs to switch over daughter's healthplan. He calls number and waits 1 hr for a pickup.
Government health care rep: Welcome to US Healthcare services.
Curtin: Yes I need to get approval for my daughter's medications.
Rep: One moment (sifts through computer files). Mr. Curtin, it seems you daughter Eliza has an awful lot of medications.
Curtin: It's Alysha. And yes, she does, dozens of pills a day.
Rep: Are you sure all these pills are neccessary? It seems a lot for a 15-year-old to be taking
Curtin: Well, considering she would go into a Grand Mal seizure without them, then yes, I would deem them neccessary.
Rep: With your special status, I can't help you. You need to come in to our offices in person.
Curtin: Do you have Saturday hours?
Rep: <faint sound of laughter> No. Monday through Thursday 10-4.
Curtin: <sighs> OK, a day at work lost. Can I set up an appointment?
Rep: Sorry, it's first come first served.
Curtin: Can you give me a sense of the wait time?
Rep: It usually runs 2-3 hours. <more faint laughter sounds>
I could go on with this, but it really isn't scientific, just a gut feeling from dealing with governmental agencies what a slice of healthcare bureaucracy style would look like.
This concludes Monkey Libertarian Theater. Thanks for watching!
If I'm reading the numbers rightly- Ireland had a GDP Debt ratio of 96% fifteen years ago but has hammered that down to 24.8%.
In any case, US corporations are shutting up shop all across the land and the Banks are paralyzed, so the good times wagon is most definitely shuddering to a stop.
Regardless of how well one managed one's finances, once the US sneezes, the world catches cold, or in our case, pneumonia. That said, considering just how bleak things are looking, I'm not sure where one could go globally to weather out this storm (luckily, we have the option of working pretty much anywhere)...
|
|
so you'd rather have large sections of the population dying painfully of treatable diseases, because the economy will not pay them a living wage?
If the government doesn't help it's citizens then that government is a tyrant and should be cast down,
No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that everyone DOES have access to healthcare, it's called insurance. Even if you don't HAVE insurance you can still get help. Getting the government involved WONT make healthcare better, it will only jam the system up.
Partick,
And let me paint a scenario that happened to a friend of mine who does have insurance. He got hit by a car. Consequently he's been in hospital for several months with reconstructive surgery on his leg. He now owes (over and above the insurance provided cost of tratment) $35000. The insurance has just refused to pay for his drugs because it's been three months and that's their cutoff. And the insurance is now saying he requires additional payments to reinsure. So he can afford either his drugs or his insurance, but not both. That's the system you actually have, not some theoretical bogeyman scenario.You can criticise the European healthcare model for a lot of things, but I'd prefer it over that kind of scenario.
|
|
I am just going to add my two cents worth on the health care scenerio.
Australia may not be a superpower, but we manage to have a significant budget surplus (you may notice a minus next to our percentages) and a national health care scheme.
I still have private health insurance, which means I can go to a private hospital if I wish, and my elective surgery list isn't as long, but for people without access to funds, like the elderly on a pension, the unemployed and those with significant health issues, healthcare exists.
Partick,
And let me paint a scenario that happened to a friend of mine who does have insurance. He got hit by a car. Consequently he's been in hospital for several months with reconstructive surgery on his leg. He now owes (over and above the insurance provided cost of tratment) $35000. The insurance has just refused to pay for his drugs because it's been three months and that's their cutoff. And the insurance is now saying he requires additional payments to reinsure. So he can afford either his drugs or his insurance, but not both. That's the system you actually have, not some theoretical bogeyman scenario.You can criticise the European healthcare model for a lot of things, but I'd prefer it over that kind of scenario.
I never claimed that the insurance model is perfect. I just don't put my faith in the Amercan government to do any better. In fact I fully expect them to do worse. I don't know the particulars of your friend's case, but if he was hit by a car, what is the responsibility of the driver? Does he have insurance? Who is your friend's insurance provider? There are plenty of crappy insurance companies, that's why you have to make sure the one you get covers the correct things for your life.
I may be fiscally conservative, but I am not even classed as 'middle class' if you take my salary into consideration. (I am if you treat me and my wife as one entity, but that's a whole 'other issue). The Democrat win is going to be very beneficial to me personally, hands down. If we do go universal as in the above scenario my $170/week payment might well disappear and I'll get free healthcare. I just am not convinced it is the proper thing to do in a historical perspective. Can we underwrite everyone's healthcare for any length of time? I have my doubts. Can government run anything better than the free market? What experience I have had dealing with government (and I was a federal employee at one point) I would say no.
Leaving healthcare aside for a moment, since that is an 'emotional' issue, and we aren't going to convince each other. How do you feel about the massive 'corporate' welfare that Congress (both Republican and Democrat) are considering for the auto industry? Neither side wants to be the one who is seen to push it through, but both sides want it desperately. Why? The Republicans are protecting their big money contributors at the upper management side. The Democrats are protecting the unions and their contracts, which is where their contributions come from. Should we prop up a business that is unprofitable? Will any money we give them actually help, or does it just push the fail date out a little further and then they go belly up anyway, taking whatever money we give down the toilet with them?
|
|
That's also an emotional subject, for entirely different reasons and in an entirely different direction. ;-)
Personally, I think they should be allowed to fail. But I'm not an economist and can see that in the current financial climate, the knock-ons would be colossal. That said, I agree with you that it's about protecting supporters rather than sound economics.
You can criticise the European healthcare model for a lot of things, but I'd prefer it over that kind of scenario.
My own Dad had a horribly close call at the start of the year- a nasty combination of Pleurisy and Pneumonia that meant he was in hospital for three months in the ICU. Ireland has a private/public healthcare setup that meant that his final bill was 800 Euro, all covered by his Voluntary Health Insurance. I'm not saying government systems are perfect, we have horrible problems, but it's very existence is a comfort to many groups, particularly the disadvantaged and elderly.
Bottom, line, private Insurance's first loyalty isn't to you, the insuree, it's to their stockholders, and the more they say NO, the more money they make.
You can criticise the European healthcare model for a lot of things, but I'd prefer it over that kind of scenario.My own Dad had a horribly close call at the start of the year- a nasty combination of Pleurisy and Pneumonia that meant he was in hospital for three months in the ICU. Ireland has a private/public healthcare setup that meant that his final bill was 800 Euro, all covered by his Voluntary Health Insurance. I'm not saying government systems are perfect, we have horrible problems, but it's very existence is a comfort to many groups, particularly the disadvantaged and elderly.
Bottom, line, private Insurance's first loyalty isn't to you, the insuree, it's to their stockholders, and the more they say NO, the more money they make.
I could make a case that the government's loyalty isn't to you, it's to its bureaucrats and its leaders' power, but that's neither here nor there.
I personally am an advocate for smaller government. That puts me at odds with both major parties, as they both want bigger government, even if the Republicans still pay faint lip service to the idea of fiscal responsibility. I think healthcare costs could plunge if some of the FDA regulations were deregulated. Make it cheaper to roll out new drugs and we all benefit. Rework some of the malpractice laws so the doctor's insurance rates aren't so draconian (and no I am not advocating doing away with tort law, just having some perspective in it).
Limit our Armed Services to a strictly defensive posture. Stop trying to 'nation build' and conduct 'humanitarian interventions'. Considering we can nuke anyone into a slagheap who attacks us, I don't think we need to invest too much in a standing army. It's a post WW II construct anyway, and the Cold War is over. Decrease the military's size and concentrate on swift, high tech options. (and I am former Army so I know firsthand the blatant waste that goes on in the military)
Use a little sense in government. Why is it that federal bureaus that don't spend their budget by the end of fiscal year get penalized by a cut in budget the next? They should get a freakin' medal. Anyone who has seen the flurry of superfluous purchases a federal bureau does during September when they have a budget surplus to empty the coffers will know what I mean.
Have more governmental oversight on the bureaucracy. Monitor the true 'power players'. Why is Obama appointing so many Clinton retreads to his cabinet? Because they are the real movers and shakers in Washington, and they never leave, even if they are not in an electable office. Look at the employment history of both Bush and Obama's closest advisers and you will see that most of them have spent their entire adult life working as Washington/federal-level bureaucrats in one capacity or another, gaining power and connections as they go. These are the 'power behind the throne' and they rarely have any accountablility.
Restructure the DEA. We are spending $40 billion a year on the war on drugs, and doing a quite crappy job of it. Legalize the soft drugs and use the tax revenue to fund the war on cocaine and heroin. Abolish manditory sentencing for drug offenders. All it does is clog the prisons and blackball someone for a foolish descision, making it more than likely the only opportunities open after their incarceration is more crime.
Restructure the BATF. Personally I think gun safety and use should be taught in school, but I know that will never gain traction. We need to rethink our policies in this area though, we keep getting into Waco/Ruby Ridge situations.
More oversight on 'pork barrel' projects. We need an ombundsman to go over the budgets and trim all the ridiculous spending that every congressperson lards them with each year.
Use the government for what it should be doing: Protecting the country from invasion, investing in large long-term projects like space exploration and alternate energy. Making sure our infrastructure is maintained.
Anyway my 2 cp.
Mmm...i notice us brits are above you...What with out Vat and our national health service and our welfare system....Mmmmm...
Mmm..and denmark with its very low national debt of 26.10%. Its massive welfare state, world top ranking income equality and being the happiest country on earth by some measures(this despite being far enough north that SAD is a major problem in the country)
Your over simplifying your arguement and picking and choosing examples.
You could add the UK, France, Germany, and Japan debt to US costs. After all, the USA helped rebuild all of those countries after WW2, especially Japan's infrastructure and economy.
The US (or any other country for that matter) could reduce it many ways, but in doing those methods could make a country lose face. Example, dont send supplies to countries ravaged by a natural disaster. I know that seems prudish, but isnt there organizations outside the government that deal with things of that nature?
The point is, sometimes the goverment, needs to quit doubling up on things where they are already being taken care of, that is just one of many many situations....
They are not enough. Also, it is in the interest of a country to offer aid after a disaster. It helps to bring stablity. Instanblity breeds war, famine and terrorism, it damages trade and is all round bad for every one.
Why would he still have private insurance? The point of a nationalized health care system is that 'medical insurance' is taken from general taxation, rather than being a direct policy paid for by the individual, meaning that the very rich pay more than they would have previously, taken from taxation, and the very poor pay very little, but all have access to treatment as needed.
I wouldn't have private insurance anymore, you are right. I would have the health of my family depending on the whim of governmental bureaucrats. That's my problem with the issue. As I mentioned upthread universal healthcare would most likely financially benefit me personally, but I feel that if you take a long-term look at the complications such a govermental program will bring, that it is detrimental to the functional solvency of the government as a whole.
Some have noted other countries as models. I would contend that is an apples to oranges comparison. Many countries have a culture of personal responsibility where they hold out in asking for governmental aid (I have heard the Scandinavian cultures mentioned in this regard). America doesn't play like that, at least not the current culture. Nowadays we turn to big momma Washington whenever anything goes awry and demand 'SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!'.
Complete social welfare, much like communism, sounds real good on paper, but it is often more diffcult to make work in the messy sphere of reality. If everyone would give 'according to their ability' and only take 'according to their needs.' things would be much easier. But everyone has to be a pig at the trough, trying to game the system for as much personal benefit with the least amount of personal investment as possible. That's where the system breaks down, lack of personal responsibility.
Clinton left a surplus from the national budget he didn't pay off the national debt. Under Clinton our national debt was around 3 trillion but thanks to the neo-cons it ballooned up to 11 trillion.The neocons have a lot to answer for. Abandoning fiscally responsible governmental spending has delivered us into the mess we are in now. Add in the mortgage deregulation debacle and the shameful fearmongering during the election that has scared consumers so bad that they refuse to spend a penny because Armageddon is coming and you have a receipe for a very interesting 2009 (and I mean that in the Chinese curse way).
so you'd rather have large sections of the population dying painfully of treatable diseases, because the economy will not pay them a living wage?
If the government doesn't help it's citizens then that government is a tyrant and should be cast down,
No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that everyone DOES have access to healthcare, it's called insurance. Even if you don't HAVE insurance you can still get help. Getting the government involved WONT make healthcare better, it will only jam the system up.
I speak as a person VERY familiar with health insurance, with a very medically fragile daughter. Let me spin a scenario out for you:
[Scene: Universal Healthcare has passed.]
HR at Curtin's work: Since there is now government healthcare, we will no longer be sponsoring your health insurance Patrick. We just can't afford it with all the extra health taxes.
Curtin: But I have had a very good experience with Blue Cross Blue Sheild!
HR: Well they are still an option for you, you'd just have to pay for the entire policy.
Curtin: I already pay $170 a week for the sponsored policy, I don't think my paycheck could handle $340. After all the other taxes that would leave me about $100.
HR: Sorry. But you have US Health now!
Curtin: Great
[i]Flash to later. Curtin needs to switch over daughter's...
The english experience.
Doctor: Your daught need these drugs.*scribles out perscription*
Curtin: Thank you doctor. *gets up and leaves going to a pharmacy, hands over perscription and is given his daughters drugs. Being a child her perscription is entirely free*
*Random woman developes cancer and is taken to hospital. She is treated for the full term of her illness, with effective drugs and surgery, eventually leaving being given the all clear. She walks away and no administrator hands her a bill before she leave.*
We have problems with the NHS, but Free healthcare at the point of use is one of the most important institutions we have.
|
|
Getting the government involved with healthcare means that everyone gets access to healthcare for free at the point of use. This is of massive benefit to the nation, as people no longer lose their houses from illnesses etc. Its also one of the most important institutions we Brits have.
There are also plenty of public healthcare models that work with private insurance. I see no reason why America couldn't move to that system, similar to the German one.
|
|
The problem is that The United States has a much larger population than Britan or most other countries. Many things, like direct democracy, work on a small scale but do not scale up well. Considering Great Britan's higher taxes and current 21.2% unemployment rate, is that really the direction the United States wants to go?
I've heard the word "free" healthcare on several occasions in this thread. There's nothing "free" about it. The money comes from somewhere, usually in the form of higher taxes.
|
|
I've heard the word "free" healthcare on several occasions in this thread. There's nothing "free" about it. The money comes from somewhere, usually in the form of higher taxes.
Yes. And it's cheaper per capita than the US' current system and covers more people. So you'd actually pay LESS on average. And, if the evidence from other countries is correct, you'd live longer and be healthier. So why do you think it's a bad idea?
I've heard the word "free" healthcare on several occasions in this thread. There's nothing "free" about it. The money comes from somewhere, usually in the form of higher taxes.Yes. And it's cheaper per capita than the US' current system and covers more people. So you'd actually pay LESS on average. And, if the evidence from other countries is correct, you'd live longer and be healthier. So why do you think it's a bad idea?
British teeth. Nuff said.
I've heard the word "free" healthcare on several occasions in this thread. There's nothing "free" about it. The money comes from somewhere, usually in the form of higher taxes.Yes. And it's cheaper per capita than the US' current system and covers more people. So you'd actually pay LESS on average. And, if the evidence from other countries is correct, you'd live longer and be healthier. So why do you think it's a bad idea?
If national healthcare is so great, why do the wealthier Europeans come to America for treatment? Our costs our higher because we are not rationing healthcare to people. People who think that a government rationed system can outperform the free enterprise system are only fooling themselves. As far as our lifespans are concerned, it doesn't have a thing to do with medical care, it's American culture. Violence in the inner cities and the fact that we Americans are too overweight have more to do with it.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
One thing I find interesting in the arguments against government insurance, is the complete disregard for just how horrible the US private insurnace system is. While I don't have a lot of faith in large government programs, I have even less in the existing big insurance companies.
Just in my personal experience, it took 9 months for my insurance company to set up an automatic rollover to my flexible spending account for me, despite the fact that they manage both systems, and this was a system that they strongly promoted over a debt card version.
I also know that many insurance companies routinely throw out claims, in the hopes that a small percent of them won't be re-submitted and therefore the insurnace company won't have to pay them. This might not be "company policy" but I know several people who worked for insurance companies who told stories about how whenever they had too much of a backlog, they would do this, at their supervisor's insistance.
Then there's the regular aruguement I have with my insurance any time I have a hospital procedure, inpatient or out, over the fact that the anastetheologist is in network or not, despite the fact that the procedure is at an in-network hospital.
I'm not saying the a government run program would be any better, but at the very least, the government program wouldn't have profit as their primary motivation, at the expense of the insured, the way that private insurance does.
|
|
If national healthcare is so great, why do the wealthier Europeans come to America for treatment? Our costs our higher because we are not rationing healthcare to people. People who think that a government rationed system can outperform the free enterprise system are only fooling themselves. As far as our lifespans are concerned, it doesn't have a thing to do with medical care, it's American culture. Violence in the inner cities and the fact that we Americans are too overweight have more to do with it.I've heard the word "free" healthcare on several occasions in this thread. There's nothing "free" about it. The money comes from somewhere, usually in the form of higher taxes.Yes. And it's cheaper per capita than the US' current system and covers more people. So you'd actually pay LESS on average. And, if the evidence from other countries is correct, you'd live longer and be healthier. So why do you think it's a bad idea?
I refer you to the earlier comment about what happens under your system, Garydee. I'd hardly call having to pay $35000 out of pocket and then having to choose between renewing your insurance or keeping your supply of medication the signs of a good system.
Rich Europeans come to America because, if you can afford it, the care is great in America. If you can't, well, that's your problem, right? The American system works best if you're rich, European system works best if you're not. As most people aren't rich, the European system works best for more people. Sorry, forgot providing for the general welfare is socialism and therefor evil.
Americans without healthcare are non-citizens, and non-people, or may as well be. No one gives a rat’s hind end about you in the US if you are sick and don’t have health insurance. I was lucky enough to land an actual company position when they diagnosed me with cancer. If it had come while I was contracting, I’d be far too dead to type this right now, because no one would care. That, is exactly why we need even basic healthcare across the board for all Americans. Either you have health insurance, or you’re a corpse that hasn’t figured it out yet, and if you are lucky enough, maybe someone will care enough to bury you, because the state sure isn't paying to dispose of you, either.
If national healthcare is so great, why do the wealthier Europeans come to America for treatment? Our costs our higher because we are not rationing healthcare to people. People who think that a government rationed system can outperform the free enterprise system are only fooling themselves. As far as our lifespans are concerned, it doesn't have a thing to do with medical care, it's American culture. Violence in the inner cities and the fact that we Americans are too overweight have more to do with it.I've heard the word "free" healthcare on several occasions in this thread. There's nothing "free" about it. The money comes from somewhere, usually in the form of higher taxes.Yes. And it's cheaper per capita than the US' current system and covers more people. So you'd actually pay LESS on average. And, if the evidence from other countries is correct, you'd live longer and be healthier. So why do you think it's a bad idea?I refer you to the earlier comment about what happens under your system, Garydee. I'd hardly call having to pay $35000 out of pocket and then having to choose between renewing your insurance or keeping your supply of medication the signs of a good system.
Rich Europeans come to America because, if you can afford it, the care is great in America. If you can't, well, that's your problem, right? The American system works best if you're rich, European system works best if you're not. As most people aren't rich, the European system works best for more people. Sorry, forgot providing for the general welfare is socialism and therefor evil.
No, there are plenty of ways to get free medical care in America without insurance. The notion that you have to have health insurance or you're going to die on the streets is false.
No, there are plenty of ways to get free medical care in America without insurance. The notion that you have to have health insurance or you're going to die on the streets is false.
A band-aid and a boot in the arse does not qualify as "care," and I'm saying this as an EMT.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
No, there are plenty of ways to get free medical care in America without insurance. The notion that you have to have health insurance or you're going to die on the streets is false.If national healthcare is so great, why do the wealthier Europeans come to America for treatment? Our costs our higher because we are not rationing healthcare to people. People who think that a government rationed system can outperform the free enterprise system are only fooling themselves. As far as our lifespans are concerned, it doesn't have a thing to do with medical care, it's American culture. Violence in the inner cities and the fact that we Americans are too overweight have more to do with it.I've heard the word "free" healthcare on several occasions in this thread. There's nothing "free" about it. The money comes from somewhere, usually in the form of higher taxes.Yes. And it's cheaper per capita than the US' current system and covers more people. So you'd actually pay LESS on average. And, if the evidence from other countries is correct, you'd live longer and be healthier. So why do you think it's a bad idea?I refer you to the earlier comment about what happens under your system, Garydee. I'd hardly call having to pay $35000 out of pocket and then having to choose between renewing your insurance or keeping your supply of medication the signs of a good system.
Rich Europeans come to America because, if you can afford it, the care is great in America. If you can't, well, that's your problem, right? The American system works best if you're rich, European system works best if you're not. As most people aren't rich, the European system works best for more people. Sorry, forgot providing for the general welfare is socialism and therefor evil.
But it is true that if you aren't poor, you better have health insurance, or you're screwed. I have a pre-existing condition, which I require daily medication for. If I wanted to take a year off work (whether to travel or to take care of a sick relative), I better plan to pay through the nose for insurance. If I wanted to become an independant contractor or full time author (hey, I can dream, right?), my insuruance costs go through the roof once I don't have a full time employer.
No, there are plenty of ways to get free medical care in America without insurance. The notion that you have to have health insurance or you're going to die on the streets is false.A band-aid and a boot in the arse does not qualify as "care," and I'm saying this as an EMT.
I have serious health problems and I have no insurance. I'm being well taken care of. I didn't get the boot and the bandaid.
That’s cool, but I think it makes you the exception rather than the rule.
|
|
I have serious health problems and I have no insurance. I'm being well taken care of. I didn't get the boot and the bandaid.No, there are plenty of ways to get free medical care in America without insurance. The notion that you have to have health insurance or you're going to die on the streets is false.A band-aid and a boot in the arse does not qualify as "care," and I'm saying this as an EMT.
So, who's paying for your healhtcare? I thought free healthcare was a myth.
So, who's paying for your healhtcare? I thought free healthcare was a myth.I have serious health problems and I have no insurance. I'm being well taken care of. I didn't get the boot and the bandaid.No, there are plenty of ways to get free medical care in America without insurance. The notion that you have to have health insurance or you're going to die on the streets is false.A band-aid and a boot in the arse does not qualify as "care," and I'm saying this as an EMT.
The company that makes the drugs that I need gives me a great discount on the medicines that I need. On top of that I'm being used as a case study. I didn't say that I was getting something for nothing.
If national healthcare is so great, why do the wealthier Europeans come to America for treatment? Our costs our higher because we are not rationing healthcare to people. People who think that a government rationed system can outperform the free enterprise system are only fooling themselves. As far as our lifespans are concerned, it doesn't have a thing to do with medical care, it's American culture. Violence in the inner cities and the fact that we Americans are too overweight have more to do with it.I've heard the word "free" healthcare on several occasions in this thread. There's nothing "free" about it. The money comes from somewhere, usually in the form of higher taxes.Yes. And it's cheaper per capita than the US' current system and covers more people. So you'd actually pay LESS on average. And, if the evidence from other countries is correct, you'd live longer and be healthier. So why do you think it's a bad idea?
Two reasons. You have a lot of good research hospitials Desperate people will try anything to get better and N.I.C.E. doesn't licence all new drugs, due to efficacy testing. New drugs often offer a limited benifit in only a limited number of cases. If a drug is not cost effective, it is not licence for us by the NHS.
Now its true, under the NHS every person doesn't get the treatment that a million air in america might get. It's a true shame. But people can perchase private healthcare ontop if they want. Again not every one can afford it. If it was easy to solve, there would be total equality.
But, despite these problems, every single person in this country can expect decent primary healthcare, easily as good as most middleclass people with health ensurance get in the states.
The percentage of my wages that has gone to health care, is considerable smaller than what i would pay for health insurance.
It isn't about out performance, though i beleive that there is evidence that we get better value for money. It is about Fairness. It is our responciblity to provide for our own health and our neighbours. And theres to look after ours as well as theres.