Obamas stake to get socialistic NHS system in the US!

[neorichieb1971]

Lolz.. made me laugh that did.

[undamned]

Insurance shouldn't cover everything, it should only be for accidents and catastrophic health problems. Going to a doctor should not cost $130. MRI's should not cost $3,000. Creating a publicy funded insurance option doesn't address those core costs. All that does is suck government further into the black hole of rising costs. The goal should be to bring costs down to the point where someone who doesn't have insurance can afford to pay a doctor out of pocket for a consultation when they get sick and potentially buy cheap, higher deductible insurance for when something goes horribly wrong. Without doing that, all that's going to happen is costs shifting from one entity to the other and the cost continues to climb.

Wow, nicely done, AK. Unfortunately much of the inflated cost of medical practice is based upon the ridiculous amount of malpractice lawsuits (not that there aren't any legitimate claims). My wife is in medicine and has to pay malpractice insurance to cover her butt even though she works at a small clinic (who, as an FNP, by federal law, cannot charge as much as an MD for consultation).

Will the government put a cap on malpractice suits in this proposed system? Who knows. They have no problem throwing money at everything else, it wouldn't surprise me if they just raise our taxes even more to fund frivolous suits for the free medical services people will be receiving.
-ud

[nikkos010]

Well, it seems one of the biggest issues is illegal immigrants. This is Americas own catch 22 problem, since they use the cheap labor it delivers. Knowing full well what your paying these people doesn't get them health cover in the first place.

Absolutely it's a problem. Prices are artificially depressed for some things because of illegal labor. Illegal labor also takes away jobs from legal US citizens. Illegal crime is a problem, illegal welfare fraud, etc. The only way to solve it is to finish that damn fence and actually deport them. It'll hurt the economy initially, but the rebound will be stronger.

I don't know exactly if anyone on here is a hypocrit by actually using such services, but even if your not and you still have the mindset of it being a consideration, your still a hypocrit. What we have here is a maze of political rights and wrongs. Your society should not tollerate exploitism as much as it does. Its a self fueled problem.

If you're referring to me in a car accident, ok. If you're referring to illegal immigration, I agree. However England doesn't have such a spotless record.

For the life of me, I can't fathom why your political system is so complicated? Lets say for arguments sake a swine flu outbreak happened in NYC and the only reason it happened is because immunisations were not made because it was deemed "Too expensive". Its a self fueled problem. The guys in the street paying a hefty insurance premium are just as likely to get hit with it. Basically, your system is dividing the line between those who beat the system to stay alive, and those that fell beneath graduation level and can wither and suffer, if not die.

I understand that equality isn't measured for everything. But the right to live out of harms way is mindset people should have even if they don't agree with the methods that could make it work.

Personally I think England's political system is much more absurd, however I do like the question and answer sessions with the PM. Regardless, your example is factually incorrect. Our taxes go towards national emergency preparedness. If an outbreak of Swine Flu (A vastly overblown disease) occurred, the government has already stockpiled vaccines to give to the people. Every year flu vaccines are available to all - $5 gets you a jab and a smile - no insurance necessary.

[szycag]

You should edit the first post with a poll asking how many pages it will take for this thread to get locked

[nikkos010]

Not sure where you're going with the police and fire engine argument. We don't have a draft (though the Dems keep suggesting we reinstate it) and I don't think building highways are sign of socialism. You trolling?

Because government runs those programs (and how well they run it is a different story).

In other news the Post Office should had deliver me those PCBs from Japan today, now I have to wait another day.

I can agree with this, and use it as a perfect example of why we shouldn't let the government take charge of anything else.

The post office was the only federal organization to ever be self-sufficient and even profitable. Until e-mail that is. Should have used FedEx!

[Domino]

The post office was the only federal organization to ever be self-sufficient and even profitable. Until e-mail that is. Should have used FedEx!

TOPS don't offer FedEx, EMS or DHL economic mail. The choice was obvious.

[antron]

Insurance shouldn't cover everything, it should only be for accidents and catastrophic health problems. Going to a doctor should not cost $130. MRI's should not cost $3,000. Creating a publicy funded insurance option doesn't address those core costs. All that does is suck government further into the black hole of rising costs. The goal should be to bring costs down to the point where someone who doesn't have insurance can afford to pay a doctor out of pocket for a consultation when they get sick and potentially buy cheap, higher deductible insurance for when something goes horribly wrong. Without doing that, all that's going to happen is costs shifting from one entity to the other and the cost continues to climb.

Wow, nicely done, AK. Unfortunately much of the inflated cost of medical practice is based upon the ridiculous amount of malpractice lawsuits (not that there aren't any legitimate claims). My wife is in medicine and has to pay malpractice insurance to cover her butt even though she works at a small clinic (who, as an FNP, by federal law, cannot charge as much as an MD for consultation).

Will the government put a cap on malpractice suits in this proposed system? Who knows. They have no problem throwing money at everything else, it wouldn't surprise me if they just raise our taxes even more to fund frivolous suits for the free medical services people will be receiving.
-ud

they already said they will raise your taxes, if you make over 350k like T.H.E. here.
what's free? the new law makes freeloaders like acid king pay up front, because we know they will beg for care if they really need it.

[antron]

The post office was the only federal organization to ever be self-sufficient and even profitable.

and the police and fire depart should be profitable?

[neorichieb1971]

You should edit the first post with a poll asking how many pages it will take for this thread to get locked

This is a debate thats allowing someone in Britain to understand the shift in philosphy in the USA that is currently happening/or trying to happen. It will only be locked if someone decides to train wreck the thread with BS.


Anyway, back on topic.

The UK way of governing recognises when changes need to be made. We don't have a constitution because by making a rulebook you are essentially blocking so many ways of progress. Our immigrant problem is due to being part of Europe, we took the good it offered, now we have to suffer the bad as well. Even though the man on the street is complaining about it, the actual laws are in place. In the UK there are very few illegal working immigrants. Mostly they come here legally and become part of the system.

In the USA, the law says Mexicans can't come in. But they have left so many holes in the wall they are effectively inviting them in. That doesn't happen in the UK. Although I would agree its easier to stop immigrants coming in to the UK because its an island. Once a Polish, Romanian or Georgian comes to the UK to work, they are priveleged to be covered under the NHS. Their 5% of their wage guarantee's them cover. Hell, we even house them if they have nowhere to live.

America is governing some aspects of its agenda better than others. Immigration is way way down the list of priorities. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if its a joke by now. For the record, I used Mexican gardners in Indiana. Done a great job too.

[antron]

@nikkos
are you saying the bill forces everyone to give the government access there bank accounts? if so do you have have a reference?

also, you have claimed that you are the #2 reason for high costs.

SEC. 163. under administrative simplification.

this?
(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice.

guess what, my insurance company already enabled this. so did everyone else that I owe money to. it cuts down costs when I choose to use it.

[Domino]

they already said they will raise your taxes, if you make over 350k like T.H.E. here.
what's free? the new law makes freeloaders like acid king pay up front, because we know they will beg for care if they really need it.

Rich people only cover like what, 1% of the population?

That won't be enough to cover everything. So that leaves..........

[nikkos010]

This is a debate thats allowing someone in Britain to understand the shift in philosphy in the USA that is currently happening/or trying to happen. It will only be locked if someone decides to train wreck the thread with BS.


Anyway, back on topic.

The UK way of governing recognises when changes need to be made. We don't have a constitution because by making a rulebook you are essentially blocking so many ways of progress. Our immigrant problem is due to being part of Europe, we took the good it offered, now we have to suffer the bad as well. Even though the man on the street is complaining about it, the actual laws are in place. In the UK there are very few illegal working immigrants. Mostly they come here legally and become part of the system.

In the USA, the law says Mexicans can't come in. But they have left so many holes in the wall they are effectively inviting them in. That doesn't happen in the UK. Although I would agree its easier to stop immigrants coming in to the UK because its an island. Once a Polish, Romanian or Georgian comes to the UK to work, they are priveleged to be covered under the NHS. Their 5% of their wage guarantee's them cover. Hell, we even house them if they have nowhere to live.

America is governing some aspects of its agenda better than others. Immigration is way way down the list of priorities. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if its a joke by now. For the record, I used Mexican gardners in Indiana. Done a great job too.

The law doesn't specify Hispanics. But yes, there is constant refusal by the Government to do much about it. The Republicans don't want it because of business interests, the Dems don't want it because of business interests and fear of losing political power in California. The People do want want the holes closed. This will likely be a very big issue in the next year or two.

According to the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4637273.stm illegals are indeed there, and there seems to be more than just the "man on the street" complaining.

Also, while England does not have a specific document called the constitution. Many of your scholars refer to the 1688 Compromise as a constitution in spirit. You are also bound by countless European treaties. Personally I'd rather have a specific document spelling out the rules than allowing the Government to make them up as they go along.

this?
(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice.

guess what, my insurance company already enabled this. so did everyone else that I owe money to. it cuts down costs when I choose to use it.

No, YOU enabled it. It was your choice to give them access to your accounts.

[antron]

they already said they will raise your taxes, if you make over 350k like T.H.E. here.
what's free? the new law makes freeloaders like acid king pay up front, because we know they will beg for care if they really need it.

Rich people only cover like what, 1% of the population?

That won't be enough to cover everything. So that leaves..........

all the people who keep pretending that they don't need to have, and therefore pay for insurance, of course

[antron]

[quote="anton]

this?
(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice.

guess what, my insurance company already enabled this. so did everyone else that I owe money to. it cuts down costs when I choose to use it.

No, YOU enabled it. It was your choice to give them access to your accounts.[/quote][/quote]

find some language in the bill that implies forced access or consider this debunked. enable doesn't cut it.

[Ed Oscuro]

Interestingly, recently there was something in the news about how people in the US were living longer than Brits (also why are the Scots getting so damn huge), but I would think that's the result of many years of fortunate prosperity and almost in spite of our not having universal insurance.

Unfortunately, a significant angle to attack cost inflation, end of life care (where I've heard 25% of Medicaid expenditures go), is suddenly taboo because of fucknuts (like some editorialist at the New York Post, apparently) yelling on about "DEATH PANELS!11" when they are apparently just fine with the insurance industry's own death panels.

Thankfully, people can take some initiative and write up a living will to prevent care being wasted on keeping them miserable / comatose; hopefully many people will hear about this coverage and take responsibility when it's clear that this subject can't even be broached publicly right now. All that was being asked for was some education effort to get doctors to discuss these issues with their patients, for goodness sake.

Another issue needing dealing with is race-based treatment preferences (lol black = poor = amputation instead of antibiotic regimen like white folk).

On the topic of illegal immigrants being covered, lol, many of them contribute more taxes than do legal citizens (because they are scared to file taxes)

[GaijinPunch]

libraries. fire, police departments. social security. military drafts. highways. etc...

...and the most renonwned state university system on the planet.

[neorichieb1971]

If you are born into a country that already has a rulebook, and you don't like the rules, what are the options?

Do you like flexibility, or no flexibility at all?

Its anti capitalist to save the US car industry isn't it? Since they failed to make a competitive product at a decent price. Under your own rules the companies should have filed bankruptcy. As that scenario played out, the rulebook was bent and warped and burnt. It was almost like the car industry was blackmailing the President, or trying to. If it were only one company, the US would have said screw it and let the wolves have them. The amount of billions of $$$ spent trying to save an industry to make a product that nobody wants to buy is just uncanny!!

So on a relative scale, you have the poor victim (for whatever reason) that doesn't have health care insurance. Because he is only 1 man (or woman) and because each case is separate, the bullying system always wins. But what would happen if 500,000 ill/handcapped/medicine derived people marched down to the White house. Would they listen then? Would those billions being wasted on a car industry be better served somewhere else?

I've always said it and I will say it again. America will do whats in its best interests, wether its right or wrong.

I understand why things are done in your country. Change in your country is based on personal gains for individuals and never in the interests of the whole nation. If something were to make the WHOLE nation happy, it would be considered unnacceptable. It seems in America not everyone can be winners. There has to be losers somewhere.

[nikkos010]

Another issue needing dealing with is race-based treatment preferences (lol black = poor = amputation instead of antibiotic regimen like white folk).

On the topic of illegal immigrants being covered, lol, many of them contribute more taxes than do legal citizens (because they are scared to file taxes)

Of the 186,239 patients presenting with critical limb ischemia, 68.2% were white, 19.5% black, 9% Hispanic and 1.24% Asian. Of the 63,639 patients who underwent open revascularization for critical limb ischemia, 73.7% were white, 15.9% black, 7.4% Hispanic and 1.1% Asian. Of the 84,498 patients who underwent a major amputation of a lower extremity, 61% were white, 25.4% were black, 10.1% Hispanic and 1.1% Asian.

There's the study. It has nothing to do with antibiotics, it's in regards to diabetic care.

I also have to correct the tax fallacy. When you fill out your W-4 you claim dependants, which reduces your tax taken out. If you claim too many, you have more to pay in at tax time, but of course, if you don't file taxes...

[Domino]

Its anti capitalist to save the US car industry isn't it? Since they failed to make a competitive product at a decent price. Under your own rules the companies should have filed bankruptcy. As that scenario played out, the rulebook was bent and warped and burnt. It was almost like the car industry was blackmailing the President, or trying to. If it were only one company, the US would have said screw it and let the wolves have them. The amount of billions of $$$ spent trying to save an industry to make a product that nobody wants to buy is just uncanny!!

Of course its Anti-capitalist, that's why I didn't vote for Obama and his quote for "Change" in the White House because of stupid BS like this. They should left the company filed for bankruptcy because they fucked up and we the taxpayers shouldn't pay for their mistakes.

But you know the sad thing is: If McCain was elected he would do the same BS as Obama, count on it. Shit I should had voted for Bob Barr.

[BulletMagnet]

Its anti capitalist to save the US car industry isn't it? Since they failed to make a competitive product at a decent price. Under your own rules the companies should have filed bankruptcy. As that scenario played out, the rulebook was bent and warped and burnt. It was almost like the car industry was blackmailing the President, or trying to.

The stunt the carmakers pulled is NOTHING compared to the highway robbery that the financial industry has wrought on taxpayers in similar fashion - moreover, they have the gall to keep awarding outlandish bonuses for poor performance and insist that killing any and all regulation will work out just hunky-dory for everyone, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Those guys shouldn't just be out of a job, they should be rotting in prison...unfortunately, despite how much of an improvement the Obama administration is over its predecessor in many areas, there are still far too many people in it who benefited enormously from the Bush-era orgy, and don't want to stop the gravy train no matter how much more havoc it may wreak.

On topic, there's no way I'm making a lengthy post on the issue this late at night, but in a nutshell what I think needs to be taken out of the equation here is the for-profit structure: in many industries the motivation to increase profits works well to improve the products and services offered, but not when it comes to the health of the populace at large. As it stands, it's more profitable for insurance companies to deny you care after taking your money than to give you what you paid for - as long as this perverse incentive is allowed to stand, nothing will change for the better for anyone except the corporations, and the USA will continue to pay twice as much per person for health care that's no better than that offered in any other "advanced" country.

[neorichieb1971]

Its anti capitalist to save the US car industry isn't it? Since they failed to make a competitive product at a decent price. Under your own rules the companies should have filed bankruptcy. As that scenario played out, the rulebook was bent and warped and burnt. It was almost like the car industry was blackmailing the President, or trying to. If it were only one company, the US would have said screw it and let the wolves have them. The amount of billions of $$$ spent trying to save an industry to make a product that nobody wants to buy is just uncanny!!

Of course its Anti-capitalist, that's why I didn't vote for Obama and his quote for "Change" in the White House because of stupid BS like this. They should left the company filed for bankruptcy because they fucked up and we the taxpayers shouldn't pay for their mistakes.

But you know the sad thing is: If McCain was elected he would do the same BS as Obama, count on it. Shit I should had voted for Bob Barr.

Under the skin, the dems are a mirrored republican. No matter which way you vote your getting the same thing. Most of the issues they want to tackle on the agenda have permanent road blocks on them. Only a politican with super powers can unlock the happy ending.

[Domino]

unfortunately, despite how much of an improvement the Obama administration is over its predecessor in many areas, there are still far too many people in it who benefited enormously from the Bush-era orgy, and don't want to stop the gravy train no matter how much more havoc it may wreak.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Ok I'll stop. IMO Obama is the Democrat George Bush, doesn't know what the hell he's talking about most of the time. After all he needs to bring his teleprompter wherever he goes.

Under the skin, the dems are a mirrored republican. No matter which way you vote your getting the same thing. Most of the issues they want to tackle on the agenda have permanent road blocks on them. Only a politican with super powers can unlock the happy ending.

Yep, both parties would love to do one thing together: Taking away people's rights.

And thus I became a Libertarian. Had enough with the BS, then again the BS will always be looking at me when reading the Drudge Report.

[nikkos010]

If you are born into a country that already has a rulebook, and you don't like the rules, what are the options?

Do you like flexibility, or no flexibility at all?

Its anti capitalist to save the US car industry isn't it? Since they failed to make a competitive product at a decent price. Under your own rules the companies should have filed bankruptcy. As that scenario played out, the rulebook was bent and warped and burnt. It was almost like the car industry was blackmailing the President, or trying to. If it were only one company, the US would have said screw it and let the wolves have them. The amount of billions of $$$ spent trying to save an industry to make a product that nobody wants to buy is just uncanny!!

So on a relative scale, you have the poor victim (for whatever reason) that doesn't have health care insurance. Because he is only 1 man (or woman) and because each case is separate, the bullying system always wins. But what would happen if 500,000 ill/handcapped/medicine derived people marched down to the White house. Would they listen then? Would those billions being wasted on a car industry be better served somewhere else?

I've always said it and I will say it again. America will do whats in its best interests, wether its right or wrong.

I understand why things are done in your country. Change in your country is based on personal gains for individuals and never in the interests of the whole nation. If something were to make the WHOLE nation happy, it would be considered unnacceptable. It seems in America not everyone can be winners. There has to be losers somewhere.

Nationalistic pride is not bad. But I'm afraid you're making amazingly bad assumptions based on an amazingly bad understanding of American politics. I really suggest following American politics more often than only when there's a national uproar over someone's comment about the NHS.

Your comments have become ridiculous generalizations that show absolutely no understanding of the US Constitution and how it works. They also suggest that England is some perfect place where everyone gets along and agrees with your political leaders. The BBC, and the loyal opposition seem to disprove your statements.

Most Americans were very content to let GM die. However Obama is beholden to the Unions, and rammed the bailout through anyway. And yes the money would be better served, by either paying down the tremendous debt we've gotten into by spending more and more on social programs and pork-barrel projects, or by giving it back to the people!

Anyway. I fully expect you to go out onto the street and find the first homeless person you can (unless you're to tell me there are no homeless in England). I expect you to feed and cloth him, and pay him half your money. But since your taxes are on average 20% higher than ours (love that free healthcare!) maybe you don't have any more?

Also RE: Removing profit from insurance companies. I think that's a terrible answer, as then the companies would just close shop. I do agree with limiting the reasons they deny coverage, and I think pre-existing conditions should be covered (within reason, buying health insurance once you have cancer is like buying life insurance after you die)

[neorichieb1971]

Ok, calm down matey. If I seem like i'm putting down the USA then you could be correct, however please don't assume that I find England any better in many areas.

Homeless people in the UK are voluntarily homeless. Women just have to get pregnant and tell the government they have nowhere to live and they have a house within 36 hours. If they can't pay the bills then thats taken care of as well. Even if you've only been in the UK for 20 minutes you get the same priorities. Men are slightly less fortunate, but they can wriggle their way into some home that the lady friend has got for free. Yes, UK taxes are much higher than the USA, but it doesn't affect us as much as house prices, fuel prices or much else.

UK people don't moan about taxes believe it or not. Ask anyone in this forum from the UK if taxes are a burden. You just get used to it. If taxes were as low as 10%, most people would squander it on drugs or booze anyway.

Your right, I don't know much about American politics. I just see things in very plain and simple ways. For me there is better and worse. I choose what is logically the best all round option, irregardless of money or however much it costs.

In 10 years time the health of the planet might be questionable. What price would you put on that and when is it constitionally correct to do something about it? The world is waiting for America to do things, to lead with all their power.. But looking from the outside in, all we see is two sides of people within the US that just want to moan at each other.

[nikkos010]

Another quick note about the financial industry. George Bush Didn't Do It.

The financial industry collapsed primarily due to the mortgage crisis. That crisis was facilitated by Charles Shumer and Barney Frank, whom forced a relaxation of lending rules so that those with weaker histories could get loans. (This started in the 70's with the Carter administration)

About 6 years ago Bush wanted to tighten the rules because of GAO warnings that Fannie and Freddie Mac were over-extended. Barney Frank resisted, saying that there was no financial crisis with Fannie and Freddie, and he then forced relaxation of the lending rules again. Of course, as these rules are the standard by which all other mortgage institutions follow, the result was tons of underqualified folks buying overpriced housing (Of course there's going to be a housing bubble when everyone can qualify)

While I detest many of the things Bush did, we do need to make sure the blame goes where it belongs.

But I do agree with the stupidity of these bonuses, how do you get extra money when the company you run nearly collapsed? Of course, I feel that our Senators and Representatives shouldn't be able to vote their own raises either...

[nikkos010]

Ok, calm down matey. If I seem like i'm putting down the USA then you could be correct, however please don't assume that I find England any better in many areas.

Homeless people in the UK are voluntarily homeless. Women just have to get pregnant and tell the government they have nowhere to live and they have a house within 36 hours. If they can't pay the bills then thats taken care of as well. Even if you've only been in the UK for 20 minutes you get the same priorities. Men are slightly less fortunate, but they can wriggle their way into some home that the lady friend has got for free. Yes, UK taxes are much higher than the USA, but it doesn't affect us as much as house prices, fuel prices or much else.

UK people don't moan about taxes believe it or not. Ask anyone in this forum from the UK if taxes are a burden. You just get used to it. If taxes were as low as 10%, most people would squander it on drugs or booze anyway.

Your right, I don't know much about American politics. I just see things in very plain and simple ways. For me there is better and worse. I choose what is logically the best all round option, irregardless of money or however much it costs.

In 10 years time the health of the planet might be questionable. What price would you put on that and when is it constitionally correct to do something about it? The world is waiting for America to do things, to lead with all their power.. But looking from the outside in, all we see is two sides of people within the US that just want to moan at each other.

I have friends in England, both real and imaginary (MMO) and most of them do complain about the taxes. They also complain about the cameras and immigrants, a few complain about gun-control, and they all complain about the government.

Money has to be a concern though. The US is in so much debt it's likely to collapse the dollar and lead into a depression that will make this current crisis look like speedbump.

Constitutionally it's correct when a majority wishes to do something about it. Climate change is a different subject for a different time. Primarily cause I'm going to bed.

As for the last part, I would hope the world stops looking to us. We've spent the last century helping you guys. Now help us and help yourselves, fix your copyright laws and patent laws so the US is forced to change the stupidity of 150-year protectionism. How 'bout you guys get China and India to stop polluting? How about taking a stand against hunger and disease in Africa, drugs in South America, nuclear proliferation across Asia and the Middle East? How 'bout supporting Georgia against Russia? How 'bout fixing sex slavery in the Balkans? How 'bout fixing some of the world's problems yourselves and not depending on us to do it.

Seriously, we dump money into all of the above and lead the world in medical research, space travel, and a host of other things. But you bitch at us for not having health-care for 10% of our population. We can't afford to do everything.

[Ed Oscuro]

Another issue needing dealing with is race-based treatment preferences (lol black = poor = amputation instead of antibiotic regimen like white folk).

On the topic of illegal immigrants being covered, lol, many of them contribute more taxes than do legal citizens (because they are scared to file taxes)

Of the 186,239 patients presenting with critical limb ischemia, 68.2% were white, 19.5% black, 9% Hispanic and 1.24% Asian. Of the 63,639 patients who underwent open revascularization for critical limb ischemia, 73.7% were white, 15.9% black, 7.4% Hispanic and 1.1% Asian. Of the 84,498 patients who underwent a major amputation of a lower extremity, 61% were white, 25.4% were black, 10.1% Hispanic and 1.1% Asian.

There's the study. It has nothing to do with antibiotics, it's in regards to diabetic care.

That doesn't explain away this. Complain about the lack of links to studies; regardless, it's a problem.

I also have to correct the tax fallacy. When you fill out your W-4 you claim dependants, which reduces your tax taken out. If you claim too many, you have more to pay in at tax time, but of course, if you don't file taxes...

This is assuming illegal aliens know how to game the system, which most of them won't. Or, for that matter, that they get paid a fair wage.

[neorichieb1971]

Well when you wake up from sleep I want to let you know I respect that last answer you gave.

But even if the UK and 5 other European countries helped to alleviate the burdens of the world, I would hope that the money saved in the US would go towards those 10% (ie 30 million people) who don't have healthcare. When I were living in the USA, I saw middle class people sipping out of their wine glasses in the middle class housing estates with swimming pools, just ignoring the fact that 10 miles down the road someone was struggling to replace shattered windows. You can't hide from the truth, but you can pretend its not there.

Humanity needs to find a way in life that doesn't revolve around "im better than you" or "why is he better than me?". We just need to realize that certain minimum standards are expected from everyone. I evaluate a country by how rich its poor are, not how rich its rich are. The foundations are what makes a great country. If your sick are healthier, if your industries are governed without greedy opportunists and you look after your planet. Politics take care of themselves.

As for the part about other countries taking the burden.. Most of them countries don't have the clout. It ends up being more politics and more countries should take care of their own business in a more modern, fitting way.

And welcome to the forum nikko

[Jockel]

Oh so you guys are ok with crappy coverage for all?
Do you even begin to fathom how extremely hard it would be to implement this? Sure every other developed nation has this but their populations pales in comparison to the US of A.
I cannot get on board with a plan that allows medical care funded by my taxes for people who are illegally here. I cannot get on board with a plan that will say grandma's going to bite it because some bureaucrat decides shes too old (google jane sturm). I cannot get on board with a plan that while providing coverage for all, provides less then adequate at best coverage. Its put the doctor's in charge of your medical needs. I for one like the fact that if I do not agree with my primary doctor's course of treatment I am able to seek a second opinion. Within this plan there is no allowance for that.

You know what? I live in Germany, and we have one of the best health care systems in the world.
Nobody gets crappy coverage here, all get an equally good treatment. (and if that's not enough for you, you can get a private insurance for more benefits, but it's costly)
What a stupid idea to say that the government will let old people die because they don't want to pay it...
that's just right-wing propaganda. My grandfather (should be in his late 70s by now) recently got leukemia and of course he got his treatment for free. Now he's cured.
How can you possibly complain about "less than average at best" coverage, when you never have experienced it?
What's your problem with people who are illegaly in your country? Are their lifes worth less than yours?
Everybody can get healthcare but not them?
If you're gonna start having a social healthcare system, it's for EVERYBODY. That's the point to it, you know?
What if your old grandma gets cancer, like my grandfather did? Can you afford medical treatment and chemo or radiation therapies?
I don't think so.
So there wouldn't even be a chance for the government to "pull the plug" (which wouldn't happen).
You see were i'm getting at? Even IF (and i can't stress enough that it WILL NOT happen) the gov would let some people die, the survival rate would STILL be so much higher than now.
The US healthcare system is fucking terrible right now - finally somebody's here to change it for the better and people still complain.
This is insanity.

[Stormwatch]

Imagine Obama goes up on stage and has this woman with him that needs $180,000 worth of treatment. Without it she would die in 60 days. She can't afford it. Obama explains that with the new social system she will be saved. He then asks those who do not want a socialistic system to raise their hands if they want her to die! Would you raise your hand? Would you raise your hand if it was your sister? Or your mother?

Imagine that 180 people need medicines that will cost $1000... you get my drift.

But that's still missing the core problem: the fact that health care is simply NOT supposed to be among the government's duties. Ideally, the government must provide police, military forces, a legal system -- and anything else must be run privately.