Obamas stake to get socialistic NHS system in the US!

[nikkos010]

Raising minimum wage does not reduce profits for corporations or make it easier. Hell, it doesn't do much of anything because the only ones that work for minimum wage are illegals, kids, and waitresses (who earn tips) A small small portion of the employees in this country make min wage.

If that's what you want then obviously I can't make you continue to discuss anything, though if you count yourself among the "most of the global scientific community is in on a huge liberal global warming conspiracy" and "I'll just ignore the fact that most other civilized nations have voluntarily chosen to stick with government-run healthcare for decades" camp, you're pretty much certainly right when you state that nothing anyone says is likely to change your mind. The situation strikes me like the guys at the "town hall" meetings who, after the congressperson tells them flat-out that "there's no 'death panel' provision in this bill, and you won't be forced to change doctors or sign up for a government plan", immediately screams "You're lying! All you liberals are liars, all the time!" and goes right back to shouting slogans - he's not interested in discussing or learning anything, he just wants the conversation stopped dead in its tracks. I can't recall the last time I ever saw a liberal, from rinky-dink internet forums to the halls of Congress, choose the "Shut up, I'm taking my ball and going home" route, but in any case, it's your choice.

There's quite a bit in here, let's take it one issue at a time.

1. Global Warming - different discussion.

2. Death Panels - is definitely a mischaracterization of what's in the bill. However end of life counseling, initiated by the doctor, and mandatory every 5 years is in the bill. Section 1233. Please note that I have avoided this particular section because I find the demagoguery distracting from the other very serious problems I've noted in my first post.

3. I already posted the page and paragraph in which you are not able to get a new private policy after the effective date of the bill.

4. There are a number of examples of Dems taking their ball and going home. Recently, town halls have been closed, canceled, or changed into teleconferences because of Senators not wanting to face their critics.

5. As far as off-the-wall nonsense being spouted by a political party in order to derail legislation. I can only point to Social Security reform proposed by Bush a few years ago. The plan was to allow 4 cents of every dollar be set aside for those under 30, and those up to 45 who elected to do it. This would have allowed ME, to have a chance at retirement, as by the time I retire all accounts suggest social security will be insolvent. However the Democrats claimed this would destroy social security and old folks would lose their money and homes. Commercials were run that showed houses being bulldozed as old couples sadly looked on. Nevermind that this plan didn't affect anyone over the age of 45...

So many people hated Bush that they ignored everything the democrats did while he was in power. Now when Obama is leading they don't remember all the things done to get him there, and that it's hypocritical to whine about disruptive Americans when at nearly every Republican event for 8 years there was someone screaming his head off.

[antron]

@nikkos010
there is a big difference between a critic and a disrupter.

your 1st post caontains some misrepresentations, like the bank thing, and I suspect your latest ones does too. Like the mandatory life counseling every 5 years. The mainstream news is reporting that it is just for reembursment if you choose to use it. If you know otherwise please give us a quote from Section 1233, in context.

edit:

Supporters say the current House proposal just goes one step further by paying for the counseling, with the idea that doctors and patients would spend more time on it instead of just having a cursory discussion in an initial Medicare visit. The counseling is voluntary.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9A2TSNG0

He and Jon Keyserling, a vice president at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, say there is little difference between the current proposal and past legislation that Republicans have supported. The current bill specifies that the counseling would be covered only every five years to prevent people from overusing it, and describes what the consultations must include.

busted.

[Ex-Cyber]

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

Which again means that if you don't have private insurance on or before the action date of the bill, you have no choice but to take the public option. This is how the bill becomes the base for a single-payer system.

I think you're reading something into the text that's not there. It doesn't actually prohibit anything; it's part of the definition of "grandfathered coverage". Existing plans qualify for exemption from various requirements imposed by the bill if, among other things, they don't enroll any new customers in those plans after the bill takes effect. I see nothing in that section that prevents insurers from selling new plans that meet the bill's requirements. In other words, "such coverage" in the clause you quoted refers to grandfathered plans, not private insurance in general.

[szycag]

When grassroots protests can be bought, when you can pick a bum up off the street and put a sign in their hand and tell them to march around and say some rally crys that support a cause that's for the betterment of said interest, I don't know what to think anymore. Fox news was crying a lot about this with some stock footage of Acorn protesters, I watched some of it with my grandmother and she was basically eating up all the death panel talk and it made me feel kind of ill. But I know this sort of thing happens and it's not even an issue of partisanship. I'm on an e-mail newsgroup concerning net neutrality and private interests filled up the chairs in the meetings with people paid to sit in the chairs, most of them taking naps, making sure people with things to say could not have a seat in the hearing. Now this issue and knowing the potential of people to be manipulated just feels post-post-post-everything. It reminds me of the political landscape in Germany leading up to the rise of Hitler. All I can say for sure is if you think that one human being's life is worth more than another's because of nationality or level of education or the choices they've made, you're setting yourself up to be manipulated. Sentiments like that make me feel totally misanthropic, like I wish Skynet would just switch on already and the robots would take over.

[neorichieb1971]

All I can assume from the above is that there is not enough money to go around. Basically, money is the root of all evil. It seems that someone has to go without so somebody can have a lot.

[nikkos010]

@nikkos010
there is a big difference between a critic and a disrupter.

your 1st post caontains some misrepresentations, like the bank thing, and I suspect your latest ones does too. Like the mandatory life counseling every 5 years. The mainstream news is reporting that it is just for reembursment if you choose to use it. If you know otherwise please give us a quote from Section 1233, in context.

Sigh, Busted? READ THE BILL. FFS I said that the first post too didn't I? http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

Like I said, it's in the bill. It also makes provisions for more than every 5 years if the doctor initiates it due to a health change in the patient. I didn't say it was bad, I specifically said it was mischarachterized.

As for the bank thing, the only thing you could say to refute was that you already allow your bills to be paid via autopay. Again, the bill automatically allows the government to check the bank accounts folks on the government plan in order to decide how much they should pay. Currently you chose to allow a private company to have access to deduct an amount of money. They do not have access to check your balance.

You've only done mostly 1-line responses in this thread. You've latched onto arguments in which you've either accidently or deliberately misread comments. You just tried to disprove something I didn't say. You're trolling and unless you can actually bring something to this debate I'm not going to bother responding to you any further.

[nikkos010]

All I can assume from the above is that there is not enough money to go around. Basically, money is the root of all evil. It seems that someone has to go without so somebody can have a lot.

Of course, money is at the root of everything since long before the British Empire. Generalized platitudes don't offer anything to the discussion.

[Davey]

Sentiments like that make me feel totally misanthropic, like I wish Skynet would just switch on already and the robots would take over.

Indeed. I propose a mandatory lack of insurance.

[antron]

lets keep it real simple.

the counseling is voluntary;

enabled access for bank transfers does not mean mandatory access;

you can buy your insurance whenever you want.

[Ex-Cyber]

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

Especially since:

1) That section is an amendment of the Social Security Act describing goals and requirements for regulatory code, rather than legislating any specific action, and
2) Most of the other subparagraphs there actually do use the word "require"; subparagraph (C) doesn't instruct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to "require" anything.

Given these facts, I think it's a fair assumption that "enable" means "make feasible" rather than "make mandatory".

[BulletMagnet]

However end of life counseling, initiated by the doctor, and mandatory every 5 years is in the bill.

According to this article both of those characterizations of said counseling are false:

What the bill actually provides for is voluntary Medicare-funded end-of-life counseling. In other words, if seniors choose to make advance decisions about the type of care and treatments they wish to receive at the end of their lives, Medicare will pay for them to sit down with their doctor and discuss their preferences. There is no requirement to attend regular sessions...

I was unable to glimpse anything in the link you provided which suggests anything otherwise - if you have found such a statement, you'd best get down to business and quote it directly.

I already posted the page and paragraph in which you are not able to get a new private policy after the effective date of the bill.

Same article as above, once again, says otherwise:

Under the House bill, people who want to buy new individual, nongroup coverage will have to purchase it through a new health insurance exchange. They can still buy private insurance – the exchange, in fact, would offer a range of private plans, in addition to a new federal health insurance option. However, those who were already buying their own insurance before the bill went into effect – about 14 million Americans – will have their plans grandfathered in. The part of the bill IBD cites doesn't forbid insurers from issuing new plans. It says that new individual plans will not be considered grandfathered, and will have to be purchased through the exchange.

They'll have to go via a different route than they do now, but private insurers will still be able to come up with new plans, and people will still be able to buy them. Again, if you've found something in the bill that contradicts it, don't make us fish for it, quote it directly.

There are a number of examples of Dems taking their ball and going home. Recently, town halls have been closed, canceled, or changed into teleconferences because of Senators not wanting to face their critics.

As was already said, there's a difference between people of opposing viewpoints who want to make their viewpoint and supporting facts heard, versus mobs-for-hire who aren't interested in a word you're saying, and only exist to throw a monkey wrench into the gears (and in at least one case make threats against your life).

by the time I retire all accounts suggest social security will be insolvent.

This statement has been widely demonstrated to be a bogeyman - any potential shortfall in Social Security (which is, frankly, far less than the detractors claim) can be easily fixed (one such article here, there are plenty of others). The health care crisis, on the other hand, is far more serious and must be addressed far more promptly.

it's hypocritical to whine about disruptive Americans when at nearly every Republican event for 8 years there was someone screaming his head off.

I know that there were hecklers at various Republican events during the Bush years, but there's no way in hell that they compare to the brazen corporate-sponsored effort to stifle discourse going on over health care reform now...though one could argue that part of that is because Bush rarely allowed anyone but his most ardent supporters into most of his events.

[Zeether]

I have one thing to say:





















I like tacos.

[Specineff]

I don't understand why people swallowed with joy proposals that allowed the government to check everyone's underwear with no warrants, under the past administration...

Now, Obama tries to at least do something with a system that's been left to rot from the inside, and it gets angry reactions.

LOL, people.

[lawnspic]

yeah who wants NHC when i can give all my money to Empire Blue cross and watch my in patient deductible and co-pays double, and when i get hurt go on COBRA for 36 months and be really broke

Point of the comment- Dont get sick or hurt!!!


Oh, thats right NHC will cost taxpayers to much, wait! Iraq? That was a better bagain

[antron]

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.

please provide a reference for this.

I'm searching for this but I cannot find anything concerning the big healthcare bill (H.R.3200 in the house)

but the Democrat's H.R. 2457: Right to a Second Medical Opinion Act of 2009 covers this directly:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2457

[nikkos010]

I was unable to glimpse anything in the link you provided which suggests anything otherwise - if you have found such a statement, you'd best get down to business and quote it directly.

‘Advance Care Planning Consultation

11
‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to

‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--
‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order;
‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).

‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--

‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings;

‘(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--

‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;

‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;k

‘(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment;

‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.

‘(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is--
‘(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1));

‘(B) a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.

‘(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).
‘(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.

‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--
5
‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;

3
‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary);
‘(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.

‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--

‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;

‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;

‘(iii) the use of antibiotics

‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’.

(2) PAYMENT- Section 1848(j)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting ‘(2)(FF),’ after ‘(2)(EE),’.

(3) FREQUENCY LIMITATION- Section 1862(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended--

(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (N), by striking ‘and’ at the end;

(ii) in subparagraph (O) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ‘, and’; k

(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

‘(P) in the case of advance care planning consultations (as defined in section 1861(hhh)(1)), which are performed more frequently than is covered under such section;’;

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘or (K)’ and inserting ‘(K), or (P)’.

(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to consultations furnished on or after January 1, 2011.


There, produced and bolded for you. Like I said, end of life councilling is in the bill, is manditory to be at least offered every 5 years and can be initiated by the doctor.

This will be my final post on this. I'm stuck on a netbook for the weekend and having to quote because people won't read it is a huge pita.

[steveovig]

Admittedly, I haven't read this entire thread, just half, but I've gotta agree with a lot of things richie has said. As a very low income citizen of the US, I've seen the injustices that the rich don't have to deal with. People are dying in low income neighborhoods and no one gives a shit. We need to stop making fucking excuses and give everyone health care, no matter what. I don't give a shit about illegal immigration or any of its issues. I just want people in my situation and in every situation to be able to survive and not be raped by lifetime payments. The rich come up with all these excuses and I think it's all bullshit. I don't care whatever it takes, just give us all fucking health care like they have in other countries.

[antron]

@nikkos010
that just explains how the consultation must be conducted in order for the doctor to bill the government for it. The 5-year rule pertains to how often you can bill it (to control overbilling).

the consultation is voluntary.

[BulletMagnet]

Where in the bolded section does it mention anything about these sessions being mandatory? I'll break it down, someone tell me if I'm missing something -

‘(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).
‘(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.

This part, as far as I can tell, clarifies certain types of visits that won't be applicable for government reimbursement (as was said, the "5-year limitation" refers to the fact that the government will only pay for one such session every 5 years) and also mentions an exception to said rule, if a sudden and/or severe change in the patient's health occurs.

‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--
5
‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;

This part, in turn, clarifies what an "order regarding life sustaining treatment" means, and what's needed for it to be "official."

Am I missing something super-obvious here? I'm no expert on legalese, but I don't see anything remotely resembling a mention of required/forced sessions, or any indication that a doctor can instigate them - since you bolded this part I went over it particularly carefully, but on my first go-through I didn't see anything elsewhere in the section you cited either. Can someone please clue me in here, if I'm being incredibly thick-headed on this?

[antron]

BulletMagnet, you understand that the same as The National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO), the largest nonprofit membership organization representing hospice and palliative care programs and professionals in the United States.

http://www.nhpco.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=5984

I quote the NHPCO:

This consultation, like other consultations within the Medicare system, would be voluntary and would be reimbursable under Medicare when provided no more than once every five years

my favorite part:

Uninformed individuals have described this provision as a mandatory session that would dictate health care choices for older Americans. This is inaccurate and has resulted in confusion surrounding the value of advance care planning.

[nikkos010]

BulletMagnet, you understand that the same as The National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO), the largest nonprofit membership organization representing hospice and palliative care programs and professionals in the United States.

http://www.nhpco.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=5984

I quote the NHPCO:

This consultation, like other consultations within the Medicare system, would be voluntary and would be reimbursable under Medicare when provided no more than once every five years

my favorite part:

Uninformed individuals have described this provision as a mandatory session that would dictate health care choices for older Americans. This is inaccurate and has resulted in confusion surrounding the value of advance care planning.

The bolded part proves that the consultations can happen more often than that, if initiated by a doctor or nurse practitioner. The first quoted paragraph sets up the 5-year window. The rest of the quoted part describes what is considered end-of-life consultations - including phone numbers, living will, pallitive care, and others.

And I never once said that health-care is dictated. I specifically said that it was mischarachterized as a death panel. You keep ignoring that fact.

[TriggerHeartExelica]

Admittedly, I haven't read this entire thread, just half, but I've gotta agree with a lot of things richie has said. As a very low income citizen of the US, I've seen the injustices that the rich don't have to deal with. People are dying in low income neighborhoods and no one gives a shit. We need to stop making fucking excuses and give everyone health care, no matter what. I don't give a shit about illegal immigration or any of its issues. I just want people in my situation and in every situation to be able to survive and not be raped by lifetime payments. The rich come up with all these excuses and I think it's all bullshit. I don't care whatever it takes, just give us all fucking health care like they have in other countries.

Its not even the rich. Trust me, my family is no where near rich. We are working class, possibly lower middle class in a good year. I still cannot support this bill. I don't believe in using the rich as our personal piggy bank.
All I have to say is take a look at how jacked up Medicaid and other social welfare programs are and how well they are run. And just in case ya can't tell thats sarcasm.
Oh and this which aggravates the piss out of me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/po ... .html?_r=1

[antron]

Oh and this which aggravates the piss out of me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/po ... .html?_r=1

You may be right triggerheart, your employer could pass that cost on to you, if it makes it in the bill that way. But, you could make it back up when hospitals quit overcharging you to make up for losses on the uninsured. Estimated to be ~$1000 per insured family per year.

[captpain]

Pay for my healthcare. If it works like Canada's, fine with me. I don't care how it's paid, just pay it.

[ED-057]

I don't believe in using the rich as our personal piggy bank.

I wouldn't worry too much about the rich, I don't think they have any problem using YOU as THEIR piggy bank. Just look at the bailouts for bank execs.

I don't have a very high expectation of any health care plan that congress may come up with, what with the large volume of lobbiests, special interests, and media BS surrounding the issue, and congress persons' general lack of sense and lack of balls. But given the for-profit insurance system that they're up against, even the retards in the federal government have a chance to improve on it.

As for the extravagant spending (and associated taxation) to implement it, personally I feel that they've already dug a hole so deep it will take a friggin miracle for this stimulus crap to work. In the meantime, giving some people health care is a more worthy use of my tax money than buying up banks, automakers, or scrap cars.

[Ex-Cyber]

I don't believe in using the rich as our personal piggy bank.

What do you believe in, regarding the issue of health care policy?

[neorichieb1971]

Its the mindset of the people that is the problem.

Its obvious that Americans want to fight their way to the top the only way they know how. Which is treading on the heads of those below them.

American movies used to show the school canteen, where the middle/upper class used to have tables where only their own crowd were invited. If that is the mindset that is applied to healthcare, to housing and to other American cultural things then of course you hit the scenario -

Where A) everyone wants to be invited into that crowd, and B) where everyone already in that crowd is trying to keep the others out.

[TriggerHeartExelica]

I don't believe in using the rich as our personal piggy bank.

What do you believe in, regarding the issue of health care policy?

That change must come but this is not it.

[TriggerHeartExelica]

Its the mindset of the people that is the problem.

Its obvious that Americans want to fight their way to the top the only way they know how. Which is treading on the heads of those below them.

American movies used to show the school canteen, where the middle/upper class used to have tables where only their own crowd were invited. If that is the mindset that is applied to healthcare, to housing and to other American cultural things then of course you hit the scenario -

Where A) everyone wants to be invited into that crowd, and B) where everyone already in that crowd is trying to keep the others out.

Dude you don't get it obviously.
Many of us are hardworking Americans who HAVE health insurance currently and worry that the bill is changing our ability to maintain that insurance be it through regulation or taxation.
And its not about keeping others out. Many of us desire change for those who do not have insurance but we do not want our current coverage to change. Unfortunately we are thinking of our families because if we don't then who will?

[neorichieb1971]

So what part of the British, French or German healthcare program wouldn't give you the same amount of healthcare that the American one currently does?

You must realize that

A) British people can opt into Bupa (A privatized healthcare plan) if they feel they want a 55" plasma TV and water fountains in front of their hospital when they get treated.

B) Most people in Britain don't opt for such a service because its ridiculous.

C) Because the NHS exists, BUPA healthcare is at much more realistic prices. But of course in the UK you have to pay 5% of your salary even if you opt into BUPA.

So if Americans were to have a scheme where 5% of your salary were to be taken out, what % would be better off (health wise) and how many would be worse off? Of course people like Bill Gates would be worse off because his 5% would be $100,000+. But Walmart employee's would be better off paying $100 a month?

The other aspect which I didn't think of until now is the tipping system in the US. I am not sure how that would work, since they would have to declare all tips.

Maybe its the current infrastructure of the healthcare system in the US which would collapse under a new system. Since the wages for doctors are amongst some of the highest in the world there. All those shareholders in those insurance programs right now would have to move their investments elsewhere.

Maybe Americans are proud to be number 37th in the world rankings of health alongside Indonesia and below countries like Cuba. The doctors sure aren't complaining though, and neither are the shareholders. Because after all they are the ones getting FAT dividends from the current system.

If the doctors wages were more reasonable ($150,000 PA) and the hospitals were run from taxation and you had to pay for your own drugs (subsidised by taxation) then I don't see how it could be any worse than the current plan.

But I might be talking shite, since I didn't read the new bill to see if it was on somewhat the same grounds as the British system. So excuse me if I'm off a bit.