I couldn't believe it either, but read on:

America's headache
Jan 26th 2006
From The Economist print edition

How to start fixing the world's costliest health-care system

EVERYONE, it seems, has a health problem. After pouring billions into the National Health Service, Britons moan about dirty hospitals, long waits and wasted money. In Germany the new chancellor, Angela Merkel, is under fire for suggesting changing the financing of its health system. Canada's new Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, made a big fuss during the election about reducing the country's lengthy medical queues. Across the rich world, affluence, ageing and advancing technology are driving up health spending faster than income.

But nowhere has a bigger health problem than America. Soaring medical bills are squeezing wages, swelling the ranks of the uninsured and pushing huge firms and perhaps even the government towards bankruptcy. Ford's announcement this week that it would cut up to 30,000 jobs by 2012 was as much a sign of its “legacy” health-care costs as of the ills of the car industry. Pushed by polls that show health care is one of his main domestic problems and by forecasts showing that the retiring baby-boomers will crush the government's finances, George Bush is expected to unveil a reform plan in next week's state-of-the-union address.




America's health system is unlike any other. The United States spends 16% of its GDP on health, around twice the rich-country average, equivalent to $6,280 for every American each year. Yet it is the only rich country that does not guarantee universal health coverage. Thanks to an accident of history, most Americans receive health insurance through their employer, with the government picking up the bill for the poor (through Medicaid) and the elderly (Medicare).

This curious hybrid certainly has its strengths. Americans have more choice than anybody else, and their health-care system is much more innovative. Europeans' bills could be much higher if American medicine were not doing much of their R&D for them. But there are also huge weaknesses. The one most often cited—especially by foreigners—is the army of uninsured. Some 46m Americans do not have cover. In many cases that is out of choice and, if they fall seriously ill, hospitals have to treat them. But it is still deeply unequal. And there are also appalling inefficiencies: by some measures, 30% of American health spending is wasted.

Then there is the question of state support. Many Americans decry the “socialised medicine” of Canada and Europe. In fact, even if much of the administration is done privately, around 60% of America's health-care bill ends up being met by the government (thanks in part to huge tax subsidies that prop up the employer-based system). Proportionately, the American state already spends as much on health as the OECD average, and that share is set to grow as the baby-boomers run up their Medicare bills and ever more employers duck out of providing health-care coverage. America is, in effect, heading towards a version of socialised medicine by default.

Is there a better way? Even a glance around the world shows that there is no such thing as a perfect health-care system: every country treads an uneasy compromise between trying to harness market forces and using government cash to ensure some degree of equity. Health care is also the part of the public sector where market forces have had the most limited success: it is plagued by distorted incentives and information failures. To begin with, most health-care decisions are made by patients and doctors, but paid for by someone else. There is also the problem of selection: private-sector insurers may be tempted to weed out the chronically ill and the old, who account for most of the cost of health care.

In the longer term, America, like this adamantly pro-market newspaper, may have no choice other than to accept a more overtly European-style system. In such a scheme, the government would pay for a mandated insurance system, but leave the provision of care to a mix of public and private providers. Rather than copying Europe's distorting payroll taxes, the basic insurance package would be paid for directly by government, though that cash might be raised by a “hypothecated” tax which would make the cost of health care more evident. The amount of cash given to insurers would take account of individual health risks, thus reducing insurers' incentives to compete by taking only the healthiest patients.

Such a system would not be perfect but it could mitigate the worst inequities in America's health-care system, while retaining its strengths. In practice, however, it will not happen soon. American politicians are still scarred by the failure of Hillary Clinton's huge health-care plan (which tried in 1993 to force companies to insure workers). Incremental change, of the sort that Mr Bush is talking about, looks the only way forward.

In fact, there are plenty of incremental changes that could help, especially when it comes to curbing costs. America's health industry is already experimenting with new ways to improve efficiency (see article). As the biggest buyer, the federal government has plenty of power to push for “pay for performance”. And many of Mr Bush's mooted reforms make sense, such as limiting absurd medical litigation claims, deregulating the stifling state-based insurance market and making insurance policies more portable.

Plastic surgery may work for a while
But there is a flaw at the heart of his proposal. Mr Bush goes straight to one of the biggest distortions in American health care—the generous tax subsidies doled out to firms providing insurance. These help to promote a culture where costs do not matter. But his prescription is the wrong one. Rather than reducing this distortion, which would force firms and employees to be more cost-conscious and free up money to be spent on bringing more people into the system, the president wants to even things out by doling out yet more tax subsidies to others—for instance, letting individuals set more of their out-of-pocket medical expenses against taxes. Such hand-outs may have political appeal, but they will worsen the budget deficit and, most probably, drive up the pace of medical spending. America's health-care system could be improved in small steps. But those steps need to be in the right direction.

For those who live under a rock, The Economist is the most renowned and venerable standard-bearer for "get a job, you lazy quad," the-holy-market-heals-all libretarianism. But there's no escaping common sense in the long run . . . :love:

good read..thx alot..i wonder what Bush's reform plan will be...

govt size and intervention always grows over time until revolution

rsfarrell


Not surprising. We will see "generalized" medicine come under a socialized umbrella and "elective medicine" under a pay-per-service one during our generation. Up to the Victory! :thumbup:

God I hope socialized medicine doesn't happen any time soon....

Looks like I need to specialize in "elective medicine" then....oh wait, I was already thinking about doing that.... :meanie:

Looks like I need to specialize in "elective medicine" then....oh wait, I was already thinking about doing that.... :meanie:


Then you'll be "insulated" :)

I couldn't believe it either, but read on:



For those who live under a rock, The Economist is the most renowned and venerable standard-bearer for "get a job, you lazy quad," the-holy-market-heals-all libretarianism. But there's no escaping common sense in the long run . . . :love:

I always thought The Economist was left wing. The fact they are supporting socialistic healthcare seems to confirm that notion.

God I hope socialized medicine doesn't happen any time soon....

You might be pleasently surprised. Imagine the end of uncompensated care, the increased satisfaction from working with a healthier population, being able to prescribe and treat without worrying about the patient's ability to pay . . . a good universal system could improve a lot of the intangibles that make doctoring less fun than it used to be.

govt size and intervention always grows over time until revolution

The irony of this statement is that it reflects the sort of historical determinism that one associates with . . . Marxism.

I always thought The Economist was left wing. The fact they are supporting socialistic healthcare seems to confirm that notion.

Rather, it confirms the notion that even anti-government ideologues can't escape the logic of universal care.

The Economist is libertarian. That's right on money, left on sex. Pick one up, you might learn something.

The irony of this statement is that it reflects the sort of historical determinism that one associates with . . . Marxism.

Those were exactly my thoughts :confused:

Rather, it confirms the notion that even anti-government ideologues can't escape the logic of universal care.

The Economist is libertarian. That's right on money, left on sex. Pick one up, you might learn something.


They are the only liberterians / conservatives supporting socialist healthcare it would seem. I have no problem with socialists participating in universal health care themselves.....just don't force the rest of us to pay taxes for it. I think taxes are high enough already. Most people have good insurance plans through their companies, and healthcare costs are not a huge problem for them. I don't see why any healthy young person would want to pay higher taxes for a goverment-run healthcare system. I'd rather save and invest that money for when I'm older and have more healthcare bills. Socialist medicine only benefits the poor.....it hurts everybody else....a policy that hurts the majority to help the few is bad policy.

They are the only liberterians / conservatives supporting socialist healthcare it would seem.

Which is why it is interesting enough to start a thread about. Sheesh.

And for the last time libertarians are neither conservative nor liberal. They have their own thing going on.

I think taxes are high enough already. Most people have good insurance plans through their companies, and healthcare costs are not a huge problem for them.

Read this again, and then go back and actually read the article. It mentioned that over half of medical spending comes from the government, with plenty of subsidies to those "good insurance plans." And how are healthcare costs not a huge problem for them? They are cutting jobs left and right because the pensions are killing them. In reality socialized medicine would be best for free market capitalism because it would keep them from bankrupting themselves trying to compete with foreign firms with lower costs.

They are the only liberterians / conservatives supporting socialist healthcare it would seem. I have no problem with socialists participating in universal health care themselves.....just don't force the rest of us to pay taxes for it. I think taxes are high enough already. Most people have good insurance plans through their companies, and healthcare costs are not a huge problem for them.
:eek:
I'm going to give you credit for being relatively new here.
Perhaps you live in a suburban paradise where this last statement is true.
But maybe you could think about a few things:

1) Who is paying for those "good insurance plans"?
a) the taxpayers--because the "companies" can deduct their costs for premiums. (And because they STILL end up paying for the uninsured.)
b) the workers--because they are paid less wages because their total compensation includes the costs of their benefits to the company.
c) the consumers--because the costs of those policies are paid for by higher prices on the products produced.
d) all of the above.

2) How stable are those jobs with those companies? Read a newspaper lately? You can start with articles about "GM retirees", "Northwest Airlines bankruptcy", "Ford plant closings". That should get you up to speed.

3) Are all jobs created equal? Does that waitress or cashier have a "good insurance plan"? What does she have to pay for it in addition to what the employer pays? What does it actually cover if she gets sick? What if the restaurant/store/shop goes out of business? Where does her insurance go then?

I don't see why any healthy young person would want to pay higher taxes for a goverment-run healthcare system. I'd rather save and invest that money for when I'm older and have more healthcare bills. Socialist medicine only benefits the poor.....it hurts everybody else....a policy that hurts the majority to help the few is bad policy.

Which is why the system we have now IS bad policy. The many--poor and elderly and ill--are pushed into public plans to help the few--insurance executives--to make profits by covering the lucky, healthy, and wealthy.
And in the menatime, the care I give is constrained by those insurance plans. I can't just prescribe a med or recommend a group therapy program without first asking "what is your insurance?" "What meds does it cover?" "Where can you be seen?" This applies to my private sector patients just as much as my public sector patients.

The bottom line is this: healthcare costs have to be paid for by somebody. Right now the cost is spread around--insurance premiums, taxpayer subsidies, direct federal and state funding. If you don't want to be "taxed" to pay for it, you will still pay through your insurance premiums, your taxes, or increased consumer costs and decreased wages.

As a practicing physician, I would LOVE to see a single payer system, paid for transparently through taxes and governed by a peer review process, such as the NIH uses for grant approval. The "for-profit bureaucracy" we live in now is NOT WORKING.

Read this again, and then go back and actually read the article. It mentioned that over half of medical spending comes from the government, with plenty of subsidies to those "good insurance plans." And how are healthcare costs not a huge problem for them? They are cutting jobs left and right because the pensions are killing them. In reality socialized medicine would be best for free market capitalism because it would keep them from bankrupting themselves trying to compete with foreign firms with lower costs.

How did you manage to say what I meant using so many fewer words than I did???? :o :)

govt size and intervention always grows over time until revolution
Great point Shredder. Europe's entire society is pretty much destined to collapse under the weight of its mammoth government. I would say this will happen within the next 100 years or so. Either that, or Muslims will sieze leadership and institute religious affiliated government. America seems like it is headed in the same direction, unfortunately.

It's too bad people love government, but government doesn't love people....

:
healthcare costs have to be paid for by somebody. Right now the cost is spread around--insurance premiums, taxpayer subsidies, direct federal and state funding.

This is America's poison. Healthcare costs need to be ELIMINATED by DENYING CARE. Not by being paid for through some elaborate social welfare plan.

This is America's poison. Healthcare costs need to be ELIMINATED by DENYING CARE. Not by being paid for through some elaborate social welfare plan.

SHAZAM!!!! Why didn't someone else think of that first? Let's do that! And we can start with pregnant mothers first. If they don't have insurance or can't pay in cash let's make them give birth at home attended by their grandmother's. AND the father's can go in the other room and boil some water!!!

But, let's not stop there--let's deny care to all of the babies that are unisured too. No immunizations, no check-ups, nothing. Then over the next 100 years or so we can weed out all of the uninsured, or at least those that aren't well!!!

You should lobby for a new cabinet psotion---healthcare czar. Then maybe you could work on getting these great changes in place. Think of the money we would save. Of course we would still have pork-barrel subsidies for alpaca farmers in Texas because god knows we still need mohair to line the gloves of the soldiers in Korea....err, uhhh...Iraq??? Well, we can cut spending somewhere else, it could get cold in Iraq after massive global climate change due to the greenhouse gases---or something...

Which is why it is interesting enough to start a thread about. Sheesh.

And for the last time libertarians are neither conservative nor liberal. They have their own thing going on.

Liberterians claim to be for small government......so do conservatives.

rsfarrell


Not surprising. We will see "generalized" medicine come under a socialized umbrella and "elective medicine" under a pay-per-service one during our generation. Up to the Victory! :thumbup:

Not likely. I think you'll find that there are only a few truly "elective" medical fields out there. Cosmetic surgery and non-cancerous derm perhaps. All the other specialties tend to be things you cannot do without in any "generalized" system. For example, you won't be able to set up a system where the poor have to forego radiology, anesthesia, etc. You either end up with two disparate medicines (one for the rich and one for the poor), which will be politically untenable, or everyone ends up with the same crummy deal.

Read this again, and then go back and actually read the article. It mentioned that over half of medical spending comes from the government, with plenty of subsidies to those "good insurance plans." And how are healthcare costs not a huge problem for them? They are cutting jobs left and right because the pensions are killing them. In reality socialized medicine would be best for free market capitalism because it would keep them from bankrupting themselves trying to compete with foreign firms with lower costs.

I don't think most companies are paying penisons anymore. There is only one or two companies laying off people due to their pension plans that I am aware of. That's money paid to former employees long after they have left the company. Most companies have health insurance plans for cheap rates, not to mention 401K plans, and healthcare flex plans where you can set aside a certain portion of your salary pre-taxed based on your estimated healthcare costs for the year. Healthcare costs are not a huge problem for most people working fulltime on salary for a company. As I said previously, I don't want to pay higher taxes on a yearly basis for healthcare, especially when I'm young and have little healthcare costs. I rather save and invest that money for when I get older and be able to pay my bills with the help of my health insurance plan through my company. I think this would save me much more money over the long run than paying taxes my entire adult life for healthcare.

:eek:
I'm going to give you credit for being relatively new here.
Perhaps you live in a suburban paradise where this last statement is true.
But maybe you could think about a few things:

1) Who is paying for those "good insurance plans"?
a) the taxpayers--because the "companies" can deduct their costs for premiums. (And because they STILL end up paying for the uninsured.)
b) the workers--because they are paid less wages because their total compensation includes the costs of their benefits to the company.
c) the consumers--because the costs of those policies are paid for by higher prices on the products produced.
d) all of the above.

The taxpayers will pay a heck of a lot more for healthcare under a nationalized healthcare system. You can spin all you want, but that is undeniable.


:
2) How stable are those jobs with those companies? Read a newspaper lately? You can start with articles about "GM retirees", "Northwest Airlines bankruptcy", "Ford plant closings". That should get you up to speed.

I think those companies all have one thing in common....unions. Could the unions be a reason why those companies are forced to lay off people? Many of the auto companies are paying pensions that most companies do not pay now. They have 401k plans instead.


: 3) Are all jobs created equal? Does that waitress or cashier have a "good insurance plan"? What does she have to pay for it in addition to what the employer pays? What does it actually cover if she gets sick? What if the restaurant/store/shop goes out of business? Where does her insurance go then?

I am only speaking for myself, and most middle class citizens. Obviosly the poor among us would love tax funded healthcare, b/c they pay little or no taxes. Paul will always support a goverment that robs Peter to pay Paul. If a person's employer goes out of business, hopefully they would try to get another job, or even better, go to college so they can get a better job that pays better benefits. One reason insurance plans are so expensive is that state governments force insurance companies to cover a lot of frivilous things such as aromatherapy, which jacks up the premiums and makes purchasing insurance too expensive for those people who do not get healthcare benefits through their company.


Which is why the system we have now IS bad policy. The many--poor and elderly and ill--are pushed into public plans to help the few--insurance executives--to make profits by covering the lucky, healthy, and wealthy.
And in the menatime, the care I give is constrained by those insurance plans. I can't just prescribe a med or recommend a group therapy program without first asking "what is your insurance?" "What meds does it cover?" "Where can you be seen?" This applies to my private sector patients just as much as my public sector patients.

You want to propose that the middle class paying higher taxes so that the poor can afford your expensive healthcare bills. I have a better plan. I think rich physicians like you should provide free healthcare to the poor. It's just greedy for you rich physicians to make a profit off the poor who need vital healthcare. Rich physicians can afford to provide healthcare to the poor for reduced or no cost to them. :) I bet you don't like this plan too much. It's all about others making a sacrifice to help the poor.....not you.

The bottom line is this: healthcare costs have to be paid for by somebody. Right now the cost is spread around--insurance premiums, taxpayer subsidies, direct federal and state funding. If you don't want to be "taxed" to pay for it, you will still pay through your insurance premiums, your taxes, or increased consumer costs and decreased wages.

As a practicing physician, I would LOVE to see a single payer system, paid for transparently through taxes and governed by a peer review process, such as the NIH uses for grant approval. The "for-profit bureaucracy" we live in now is NOT WORKING.

So you think that if the goverment runs the health care system, there will be no bureaucracy? That doesn't sound like the government to me. The government can't even run schools or the local department of motor vehicles effectively and succesfully.....I don't want them involved in healthcare. I have no problem with liberals and liberterians participating in a government run healthcare system. I just want the choice to opt out of such a system.

I'm not sure how everything works in the USA but up here in Canada most of our health care is covered by federal and provincial health care plans. Even though the new conservative government is talking about privitising parts of the health care system, most Canadians are firmly against this. All I know is that governement health care sure saved my a$@. About 3 years ago I was diagnosed with cancer and had to undergo 6 months of intense Chemo. I was just out of school and I hadn't found a job yet (which means no health insurance). I thank god the government payed the bill for what was some very expensive treatments. Today I'm fine and have our health care system to thank for it.

Boston Bob stikes back!

SHAZAM!!!! Why didn't someone else think of that first? Let's do that! And we can start with pregnant mothers first. If they don't have insurance or can't pay in cash let's make them give birth at home attended by their grandmother's. AND the father's can go in the other room and boil some water!!!

But, let's not stop there--let's deny care to all of the babies that are unisured too. No immunizations, no check-ups, nothing. Then over the next 100 years or so we can weed out all of the uninsured, or at least those that aren't well!!!

You should lobby for a new cabinet psotion---healthcare czar. Then maybe you could work on getting these great changes in place. Think of the money we would save. Of course we would still have pork-barrel subsidies for alpaca farmers in Texas because god knows we still need mohair to line the gloves of the soldiers in Korea....err, uhhh...Iraq??? Well, we can cut spending somewhere else, it could get cold in Iraq after massive global climate change due to the greenhouse gases---or something...

Let have no healthcare cabinet. No healthcare czar. How about we just leave everyone alone and let them fend for themselves.

Small government:

You decide the best way to spend your money.

Large government:

Other people decide the best way to spend your money.

Maurizio, glad to hear things worked out for you, that definitely would have been trouble if you lived a few miles south.

As for investing to save up for future healthcare, I agree that this is a great idea provided you can afford it and have a job where the option is provided. However, just like any investment this is subject to market trends. Insurance companies were able to keep up with the exponential growth of healthcare costs in the 90s because the market was good and and they were able to make enough investing their earnings to keep up with the growing costs. After the stock market came back to earth, though, it got a lot tougher to keep up and that's when insurance premiums (most notably malpractice) started to be affected, and led us to the debate we are having now.

Let have no healthcare cabinet. No healthcare czar. How about we just leave everyone alone and let them fend for themselves.

Small government:

You decide the best way to spend your money.

Large government:

Other people decide the best way to spend your money.

Taking care of uninsured babies doesn't mean we need large government.

To be a conservative doesn't mean to push for small government across the board. Use some sense. Somehow I think you would be singing a different tune if we took away things like national defense or the interstate highway system or any of number of other things I could spout off about.

Taking care of uninsured babies doesn't mean we need large government.

To be a conservative doesn't mean to push for small government across the board. Use some sense. Somehow I think you would be singing a different tune if we took away things like national defense or the interstate highway system or any of number of other things I could spout off about.


Being a conservative does mean you oppose nationalized healthcare supported by socialists.

The taxpayers will pay a heck of a lot more for healthcare under a nationalized healthcare system. You can spin all you want, but that is undeniable..



Under a nationalized system healthcare costs would be better fixed than they are under the present system. Therefore, even though you are "insuring" more people the price of care is driven down.

I think those companies all have one thing in common....unions. Could the unions be a reason why those companies are forced to lay off people? Many of the auto companies are paying pensions that most companies do not pay now. They have 401k plans instead. .

I agree. Unions are the bane of the moderately educated middle-class. At least as far as unskilled labor unions go. This is because these unions make it possible for Joe Schmuck who has nothing but a high school education, to make more $ than many people with a 4 year degree. Something is wrong with that picture. Unions had their place at one time but they haven't changed with the times. Now all they do is drive up inflation and make the once working class NOW a middle class. But that can't last forever and has been crumbling since the mid '70's.




I am only speaking for myself, and most middle class citizens. Obviosly the poor among us would love tax funded healthcare, b/c they pay little or no taxes. Paul will always support a goverment that robs Peter to pay Paul. If a person's employer goes out of business, hopefully they would try to get another job, or even better, go to college so they can get a better job that pays better benefits. One reason insurance plans are so expensive is that state governments force insurance companies to cover a lot of frivilous things such as aromatherapy, which jacks up the premiums and makes purchasing insurance too expensive for those people who do not get healthcare benefits through their company..

Yes, but there are many Peters out there too that don't mind shelling out to help fellow Americans.



You want to propose that the middle class paying higher taxes so that the poor can afford your expensive healthcare bills. I have a better plan. I think rich physicians like you should provide free healthcare to the poor. It's just greedy for you rich physicians to make a profit off the poor who need vital healthcare. Rich physicians can afford to provide healthcare to the poor for reduced or no cost to them. :) I bet you don't like this plan too much. It's all about others making a sacrifice to help the poor.....not you. .

I agree, and they should. But the bottom line is the cost has to be spread out. There is no way the physicians alone can carry the burden. But, yes, there should be a requirement like that much like many state bar associations require an attorney to do x hours of pro bono work every year.



So you think that if the goverment runs the health care system, there will be no bureaucracy? That doesn't sound like the government to me. The government can't even run schools or the local department of motor vehicles effectively and succesfully.....I don't want them involved in healthcare. I have no problem with liberals and liberterians participating in a government run healthcare system. I just want the choice to opt out of such a system.

Would you also like the choice to opt-out of using interstate highways and national defense? Maybe that is feasible actually. Maybe we can all have ICBM silos in our backyards and use them as we see fit.

...
You want to propose that the middle class paying higher taxes so that the poor can afford your expensive healthcare bills. I have a better plan. I think rich physicians like you should provide free healthcare to the poor. It's just greedy for you rich physicians to make a profit off the poor who need vital healthcare. Rich physicians can afford to provide healthcare to the poor for reduced or no cost to them. :) I bet you don't like this plan too much. It's all about others making a sacrifice to help the poor.....not you. ...

Ahh--silly me. I mistook this thread for a serious discussion by people who actually know something about the healthcare system. Golly gee---OPD got taken in by another troll. :p

You want to propose that the middle class paying higher taxes so that the poor can afford your expensive healthcare bills. I have a better plan. I think rich physicians like you should provide free healthcare to the poor. It's just greedy for you rich physicians to make a profit off the poor who need vital healthcare. Rich physicians can afford to provide healthcare to the poor for reduced or no cost to them. :) I bet you don't like this plan too much. It's all about others making a sacrifice to help the poor.....not you.




Actually, under most public health care plans the government strictly regulates how mush a physician can charge for any procedure. That's why doctors make alot less in countries like Canada than in the USA. So under a public health care plan, although doctors won't be treating poor people for free, they charge the same no matter who you are. So in a way, doctors sacrifice more than anyone else under such a plan. They get stuck with higher taxes and lower wages. So I'm not sure you can call any doctor who supports such a plan greedy.

Let have no healthcare cabinet. No healthcare czar. How about we just leave everyone alone and let them fend for themselves.

Small government:
You decide the best way to spend your money.

Large government:
Other people decide the best way to spend your money.nice icon ha. how to account for the fact that many foolish ppl are better off having others spend their money for them? small govt has the premise that the populace must be responsible, and its not in the USA. drastic reduction in govt would result in true evolution and survival of the fittest, with ppl dying and starving and etc. so in medicine and govt overall do we just pay a premium to avoid facing laws of nature?

Under a nationalized system healthcare costs would be better fixed than they are under the present system. Therefore, even though you are "insuring" more people the price of care is driven down.



I agree. Unions are the bane of the moderately educated middle-class. At least as far as unskilled labor unions go. This is because these unions make it possible for Joe Schmuck who has nothing but a high school education, to make more $ than many people with a 4 year degree. Something is wrong with that picture. Unions had their place at one time but they haven't changed with the times. Now all they do is drive up inflation and make the once working class NOW a middle class. But that can't last forever and has been crumbling since the mid '70's.






Yes, but there are many Peters out there too that don't mind shelling out to help fellow Americans.

I don't have a problem with you and other liberals paying more in taxes if you don't mind it. I think some states have set up Tax Me More accounts for good hearted liberals to contribute more money to if they wish. I don't view the goverment as a charity. I think charity should be voluntary, not mandated by the government and seized from people. Just because you don't mind paying high taxes doesn't mean everybody does, or shoudd have to.



I agree, and they should. But the bottom line is the cost has to be spread out. There is no way the physicians alone can carry the burden. But, yes, there should be a requirement like that much like many state bar associations require an attorney to do x hours of pro bono work every year.

I didn't have health insurance last year, and I had arthroscopic surgery for my knee. The physician gave me a 3000 dollar discount because I didn't have health insurance. I have received other discounts on medical bills when I told them that I didn't have insurance. Based on my own personal experience, I do not believe the poor without health insurance are paying full cost for their healthcare expenses.



Would you also like the choice to opt-out of using interstate highways and national defense? Maybe that is feasible actually. Maybe we can all have ICBM silos in our backyards and use them as we see fit.

I use the interstate highways, and national defense is the main purpose of the federal government as stated in the Constitutiion. I don't see anything in the Constitition about nationalized healthcare, and I think the higher taxes that would be required to fund it would violate my private property rights. Taxes are too high as it is, and most of that is not going to just interstates and the military....taxes are high due to wasteful spending on programs that most liberals support. I think a man is entitled to keep the majority of the money that he earns....socialists struggle with this notion. Your solution to every social problem is government based and raising taxes....this restricts your ability to think outside of the box and consider some free market approaches.

Taking care of uninsured babies doesn't mean we need large government.

To be a conservative doesn't mean to push for small government across the board. Use some sense. Somehow I think you would be singing a different tune if we took away things like national defense or the interstate highway system or any of number of other things I could spout off about.
If you look at my previous posts, I have never advocated anarchy. I said small government. Of course government is necessary for certain functions. But it is the necessity that it is separated from certain functions. I.e. religion.

Unfortunately, the founders failed to foresee separation of government from other areas such as public schools (government should provide education vouchers and no more)... and now... healthcare.

Yes, but there are many Peters out there too that don't mind shelling out to help fellow Americans.



You seem to be missing the fact that regardless of the government policy, your phantom "Peters" can still shell out to help people. In an ideal society, Peter isn't coerced into helping people, but he can do so as he sees fit.

Actually, under most public health care plans the government strictly regulates how mush a physician can charge for any procedure. That's why doctors make alot less in countries like Canada than in the USA. So under a public health care plan, although doctors won't be treating poor people for free, they charge the same no matter who you are. So in a way, doctors sacrifice more than anyone else under such a plan. They get stuck with higher taxes and lower wages. So I'm not sure you can call any doctor who supports such a plan greedy.

I can call a doctor greedy who is accusing other people of being greedy, as this guy was. I was just using his class warfare rhetoric against him as a parody. I have a problem with rich doctors suggesting the middle class pay more in taxes to pay for healthcare expenses of the poor. Maybe the goverment should put price caps on what physicians can charge for services....I think Hlllary Clinton's healthcare plan proposed doing that. Maybe physicians are price gouging their patients.

drastic reduction in govt would result in true evolution and survival of the fittest, with ppl dying and starving and etc. so in medicine and govt overall do we just pay a premium to avoid facing laws of nature?

This is exactly my point. You either become responsible for yourself or you are up **** creek. If some people want to help the dumbasses, then they can. It's just that government can't force people to do it.

Whatever happened to consent of the governed??? :(

Ahh--silly me. I mistook this thread for a serious discussion by people who actually know something about the healthcare system. Golly gee---OPD got taken in by another troll. :p

I guess a troll is a conservative who opposes nationalized healthcare, by your definition. Why do you talk about yourself in the third person? You remind me of the guy who does that in an episode of Seinfield....Jimmy likes playing basketball.

This is exactly my point. You either become responsible for yourself or you are up **** creek. If some people want to help the dumbasses, then they can. It's just that government can't force people to do it.

Whatever happened to consent of the governed??? :(


So you are implying that the government is making the decisions and the populous has nothing to do with it? :laugh:

So you are implying that the government is making the decisions and the populous has nothing to do with it? :laugh:
Almost. I'm saying that government rarely represents the true interests of the country as a whole, and always fails to provide services that are higher quality and more cost-effective than the private sector.

Here's a nice example:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_1_06_JS.html

Maybe the goverment should put price caps on what physicians can charge for services....I think Hlllary Clinton's healthcare plan proposed doing that. Maybe physicians are price gouging their patients.


Wrong. Doctors incomes make up 20% of all healthcare dollars, and make up ZERO percent of the increase in health care costs from 1960 to 2000.

Doctors make good money, but their income is NOT the reason why healthcare costs have skyrocketed the last 20 years

I don't have a problem with you and other liberals paying more in taxes if you don't mind it. I think some states have set up Tax Me More accounts for good hearted liberals to contribute more money to if they wish. I don't view the goverment as a charity. I think charity should be voluntary, not mandated by the government and seized from people. Just because you don't mind paying high taxes doesn't mean everybody does, or shoudd have to..

You have a very convenient memory and/or philosophy. Remember Reagan and his "star wars" program? I he had his way we would have mortgaged our great-great-grandchildren's future in the name of fighting off an enemy that didn't exist. Oh wait, maybe he was going to fund all of that out of his own pocket or maybe he had private "good hearted conservatives" lined up to foot the bill. :laugh:





I didn't have health insurance last year, and I had arthroscopic surgery for my knee. The physician gave me a 3000 dollar discount because I didn't have health insurance. I have received other discounts on medical bills when I told them that I didn't have insurance. Based on my own personal experience, I do not believe the poor without health insurance are paying full cost for their healthcare expenses. .

And your own personal experience is such a representative sample too. :laugh:

And I bet if GM would discount those damn Escalades by $3000 then the poor would be lining up to buy THEM too!!!

Maybe you don't know a lot about insurance. Doctors give insurance companies a break too!!! Does that make healthcare affordable? Well, as much as that $3000 discount on the Escalade makes big SUV's affordable....





I use the interstate highways, and national defense is the main purpose of the federal government as stated in the Constitutiion. I don't see anything in the Constitition about nationalized healthcare, and I think the higher taxes that would be required to fund it would violate my private property rights. Taxes are too high as it is, and most of that is not going to just interstates and the military....taxes are high due to wasteful spending on programs that most liberals support. I think a man is entitled to keep the majority of the money that he earns....socialists struggle with this notion. Your solution to every social problem is government based and raising taxes....this restricts your ability to think outside of the box and consider some free market approaches.
When is the last time you actually sat down and READ the constitution? TAXES are a HUGE part of it. The const. gives congress the authority to tax for basically anything they want. Got news for you buddy, that const. that you are relying on to try and bolster your opinion, it's exactly what ALLOWS congress to tax you. Your private property rights mean nothing. Read the text before you go off expounding. I find it very interesting how you try to use the const. as both a shield AND a sword. Basically you cite it when you think it helps you and disregard it when it doesn't. So in other words there is no point in you even arguing. :laugh:

Almost. I'm saying that government rarely represents the true interests of the country as a whole, and always fails to provide services that are higher quality and more cost-effective than the private sector.



In a capitalist society competition is what is supposed to foster higher quality services right? Bottom line is, in this democratic society, certain things the government does people don't care about or at least don't care enough to do something about them Eg: The alpaca farming subsidy I spoke of in an earlier post (or any other pork tacked onto any bill). If people care enough to eliminate pork then they would speak out and NOT send someone to washington that allows pork. Hence, if there is a problem with government run healthcare such as quality then the people either care enough to fix it or they don't. Just like capitalism....

So why do you assume that capitalism can fix problems that the democratic process doesn't when it comes to healthcare? They're based on the same principles.

At any rate I have no problem with a mixed fix. If we were to nationalize healthcare it would behoove us to treat it like any other gov. contract. Have many different private providers who must compete for contracts. Give the states an allocation of the money and have them award contracts. Simple. And the care remains private but it is paid for by sam.

Wrong. Doctors incomes make up 20% of all healthcare dollars, and make up ZERO percent of the increase in health care costs from 1960 to 2000.

Doctors make good money, but their income is NOT the reason why healthcare costs have skyrocketed the last 20 years


If doctors are going to support raising taxes on the middle class to pay the poor's medical expenses, I am going to propose that doctors be forced to provide healthcare to free for the poor. These socialistic doctors care so much about the poor that they propose that others make the sacrifice to help them. It's easy to be generous with other people's money.

You have a very convenient memory and/or philosophy. Remember Reagan and his "star wars" program? I he had his way we would have mortgaged our great-great-grandchildren's future in the name of fighting off an enemy that didn't exist. Oh wait, maybe he was going to fund all of that out of his own pocket or maybe he had private "good hearted conservatives" lined up to foot the bill. :laugh:


I still can't believe liberals claim that the USSR was not a threat to America. Talk about having your head in the sand. I guess when you are a communist, you don't see Communist police states like the USSR as a threat. Why are you opposed to a missile defense system for america? I have no problem with funding the military and national defense programs as that is the main role of the federal government, as stated in the Constitition.

And your own personal experience is such a representative sample too. :laugh:

And I bet if GM would discount those damn Escalades by $3000 then the poor would be lining up to buy THEM too!!!

Maybe you don't know a lot about insurance. Doctors give insurance companies a break too!!! Does that make healthcare affordable? Well, as much as that $3000 discount on the Escalade makes big SUV's affordable....

A 3000 dollar discount on my knee surgery bill did make it more affordable, as I paid 3000 dollars less than I would have. Your SUV analogy doesn't make any sense.


When is the last time you actually sat down and READ the constitution? TAXES are a HUGE part of it. The const. gives congress the authority to tax for basically anything they want. Got news for you buddy, that const. that you are relying on to try and bolster your opinion, it's exactly what ALLOWS congress to tax you. Your private property rights mean nothing. Read the text before you go off expounding. I find it very interesting how you try to use the const. as both a shield AND a sword. Basically you cite it when you think it helps you and disregard it when it doesn't. So in other words there is no point in you even arguing. :laugh:

I never argued that the Congress could not levy taxes. That is in the Constitition. However, the Constitition does not give the Congress the right to overtax people. One of the main reasons Reagan and Bush won their elections was their promise to cut taxes. You seem to be quite joyous in your proclaimation that "your private property rights mean nothing". It's people like you the American people need to make sure don't get elected....you think the goverment has the right to take as much money as it wants from citizens. I don't think the founding fathers were socialists, and there was no income tax in America until the Civil War. Our founding fathers went to war with England over their high taxes on tea and other goods, so I don't think a tax nazi socialist like you can hide behind the constitition in regards to heavy taxation.

Imagine the end of making a good living as a physician. That's what I see coming if socialized medicine becomes a reality.

You either end up with two disparate medicines (one for the rich and one for the poor)

I don't have that much of a problem with that.

Why not simply outlaw all insurance plans, HMOs, government health programs, everything, literally the whole show and let health care prices really fluctuate on the market and on the MDs actual reputation??

Frankly Im sick of supposed poor people who have written my business letters saying they cant pay for a 60 dollar pap smear read yet I saw one of these little turds slurping down flippin Mimosas at brunch on Sunday!! Insane, do these people go into Starbucks or the Nike outlet and claim the "poo' person discount"?! Hell no.

This is completely insane, no business in the free world puts up with what health care professionals have to. I say we all strike, let a few thousand AARP members croak and Im sure things will change.

I like the way you think LADoc. :thumbup:

The taxpayers will pay a heck of a lot more for healthcare under a nationalized healthcare system. You can spin all you want, but that is undeniable.

You've rattled off about a dozen posts, Boston, but you've yet to read and understand the article at the head of the thread:

Then there is the question of state support. Many Americans decry the “socialised medicine” of Canada and Europe. In fact, even if much of the administration is done privately, around 60% of America's health-care bill ends up being met by the government (thanks in part to huge tax subsidies that prop up the employer-based system). Proportionately, the American state already spends as much on health as the OECD average.

Meaning that our state spends as much as a dozen other states spend to cover their entire populations. So it is quite possible to cover everyone and pay less, or the same, in taxes.

You have the same problem when it comes to libertarianism:

Liberterians claim to be for small government......so do conservatives.

First you thought it was left wing, now you think it's right wing, but in either case you're too bust trying to win your point to take a minute to educate yourself.

Why not simply outlaw all insurance plans, HMOs, government health programs, everything, literally the whole show and let health care prices really fluctuate on the market and on the MDs actual reputation??

Frankly Im sick of supposed poor people who have written my business letters saying they cant pay for a 60 dollar pap smear read yet I saw one of these little turds slurping down flippin Mimosas at brunch on Sunday!! Insane, do these people go into Starbucks or the Nike outlet and claim the "poo' person discount"?! Hell no.

This is completely insane, no business in the free world puts up with what health care professionals have to. I say we all strike, let a few thousand AARP members croak and Im sure things will change.best sdn poster.

strike, strike, strike! docs have enough money for a strike to last. the scabs who "dont care about money" will be the least competent ones. such is the power of altruism to lure talent

chefnu pork barrel legislation adds up since the govt who robs peter to pay paul can always count on the vote of paul. also bipartisanship doesnt help. the shortcomings of democracy? its when the majority realizes they can legislate away all of the wealth and rights of the minority (often the wealthy) that democracy reaches its tipping point. good education article, shows how much private sector blows away public. mandatory public schooling should only be for the lowest segments of society so that they dont grow up to be cavemen. everyone else should go private. maybe same setup for healthcare? or we could leave the lowest segments high and dry, but they would riot, or eventually starve or kill each other but we would still have to sequester them or bury them. no matter what there would be public costs

I still can't believe liberals claim that the USSR was not a threat to America. Talk about having your head in the sand. I guess when you are a communist, you don't see Communist police states like the USSR as a threat. Why are you opposed to a missile defense system for america? I have no problem with funding the military and national defense programs as that is the main role of the federal government, as stated in the Constitition..




And WHOSE consitution are you reading? Have you EVER actually READ the consitution OR the federalist papers? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Repeating something your high school civics teach told you doesn't cut it anymore. You really SHOULD learn to think for yourself.


Your SUV analogy doesn't make any sense...


It wouldn't, TO YOU. :laugh:




I never argued that the Congress could not levy taxes. That is in the Constitition. However, the Constitition does not give the Congress the right to overtax people. One of the main reasons Reagan and Bush won their elections was their promise to cut taxes. You seem to be quite joyous in your proclaimation that "your private property rights mean nothing". It's people like you the American people need to make sure don't get elected....you think the goverment has the right to take as much money as it wants from citizens. I don't think the founding fathers were socialists, and there was no income tax in America until the Civil War. Our founding fathers went to war with England over their high taxes on tea and other goods, so I don't think a tax nazi socialist like you can hide behind the constitition in regards to heavy taxation.

The const. gives congress the right to tax. There are no algorithms within the const. by which to measure HOW MUCH congress can tax. Simply pointing out that the const. doesn't "give" the right to "overtax" is a useless statement and it contributes nothing to your argument because neither does the const. TAKE AWAY the right to "overtax."

We went to war with England based on taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. NOT "high" taxes. Dude, seriously, didn't you at least catch schoolhouse rock when you were a kid? You know, "I'm just a bill up on Capitol Hill....?" :laugh:

It's bible thumping religious conservative zealots and Ruby Ridge freaks that have got America swirling 'round the toilet drain.

Go aywhere in the world where there are intelligent, well-read, well-off people, and ask "What is the best-known and best-respected periodical advocating a strictly pro-market, anti-government stance?" And you will get a universally agreed-upon name: The Economist. These people were small government and free trade when small government meant no standing army and free trade was carried out by sailing ships.

I once considered buying some advertising space in the Economist. They sent me their subscriber profile. In the mid-90s, they had 800,000 subscribers with an average net worth of $1.4 million. 23% had a doctorate.

I started this thread because I thought it was interesting that this bastion of anti-government idealougy had reluctantly concluded that "socialized medicine" was needed in America. It's unfortunate that that quickly got pushed aside in favor of the familiar arguments for or against universal care. It's clear to me in reading the post that the screw-the-poor people on SDN are not interested in the facts, even when they're being explained by people with irreproachable small-government-is-beautiful credentials. The orange diper babies of SDN are fully committed to "truthiness" above all.

Go aywhere in the world where there are intelligent, well-read, well-off people, and ask "What is the best-known and best-respected periodical advocating a strictly pro-market, anti-government stance?" And you will get a universally agreed-upon name: The Economist. These people were small government and free trade when small government meant no standing army and free trade was carried out by sailing ships.

I once considered buying some advertising space in the Economist. They sent me their subscriber profile. In the mid-90s, they had 800,000 subscribers with an average net worth of $1.4 million. 23% had a doctorate.

I started this thread because I thought it was interesting that this bastion of anti-government idealougy had reluctantly concluded that "socialized medicine" was needed in America. It's unfortunate that that quickly got pushed aside in favor of the familiar arguments for or against universal care. It's clear to me in reading the post that the screw-the-poor people on SDN are not interested in the facts, even when they're being explained by people with irreproachable small-government-is-beautiful credentials. The orange diper babies of SDN are fully committed to "truthiness" above all.

:thumbup:
well said

You've rattled off about a dozen posts, Boston, but you've yet to read and understand the article at the head of the thread:



Meaning that our state spends as much as a dozen other states spend to cover their entire populations. So it is quite possible to cover everyone and pay less, or the same, in taxes.

So you believe that if nationalized healthcare is implemented in America, that taxes would probably about the same or even be less? I must be in the twilight zone. YOu aren't going to be able to persuade anybody of that.




You have the same problem when it comes to libertarianism:



First you thought it was left wing, now you think it's right wing, but in either case you're too bust trying to win your point to take a minute to educate yourself.

Conservatives and liberterians typically are both for smaller government on economic issues. I dont' know of any true conservatives or liberterians that are for nationalized healthcare. I don't think The Economist is as liberterian as you want us to think it is if The Economist is advocating nationalized healthcare. The Economist is not the source authority on economic matters and on the feasiblity of a nationalized healthcare plan. I don't think Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, or Walter Willliams are for nationalized healthcare, and they are all respected economists.

And WHOSE consitution are you reading? Have you EVER actually READ the consitution OR the federalist papers? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Repeating something your high school civics teach told you doesn't cut it anymore. You really SHOULD learn to think for yourself.





It wouldn't, TO YOU. :laugh:






The const. gives congress the right to tax. There are no algorithms within the const. by which to measure HOW MUCH congress can tax. Simply pointing out that the const. doesn't "give" the right to "overtax" is a useless statement and it contributes nothing to your argument because neither does the const. TAKE AWAY the right to "overtax."

We went to war with England based on taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. NOT "high" taxes. Dude, seriously, didn't you at least catch schoolhouse rock when you were a kid? You know, "I'm just a bill up on Capitol Hill....?" :laugh:

It's bible thumping religious conservative zealots and Ruby Ridge freaks that have got America swirling 'round the toilet drain.

I feel like I'm talking to Bill or Ted in the movie Bill and TEd's Excellent Adventure. Know what I mean, dude? Seriously, dude. I don't think America would have gone to war with England if the taxes were fair, dude. Most people don't want to go to war, dude...they might die, dude, seriously. We can't even get liberals to support the removal of Saddam Hussein and they don't even have to fight in the war, dude.
I would say it's tax nazi socialists like yourself that want America to follow the welfare state model of Germany where they have over 10% unemployment on a consistent basis. This will lead America into the toilet that you think it now is in.
I'm not sure why you are bashing Christians in this discussion about healthcare, but I'm not surpised that you are an anti-Christian bigot. That seems to be a growing trend among leftwingers.

Go aywhere in the world where there are intelligent, well-read, well-off people, and ask "What is the best-known and best-respected periodical advocating a strictly pro-market, anti-government stance?" And you will get a universally agreed-upon name: The Economist. These people were small government and free trade when small government meant no standing army and free trade was carried out by sailing ships.

I once considered buying some advertising space in the Economist. They sent me their subscriber profile. In the mid-90s, they had 800,000 subscribers with an average net worth of $1.4 million. 23% had a doctorate.

I started this thread because I thought it was interesting that this bastion of anti-government idealougy had reluctantly concluded that "socialized medicine" was needed in America. It's unfortunate that that quickly got pushed aside in favor of the familiar arguments for or against universal care. It's clear to me in reading the post that the screw-the-poor people on SDN are not interested in the facts, even when they're being explained by people with irreproachable small-government-is-beautiful credentials. The orange diper babies of SDN are fully committed to "truthiness" above all.

You found one publication that you consider anti-government, and it has one article supporting nationalized healthcare. One "liberterian" publication concludes that socialized medicine is needed in AMerica, and you contend that when The Economist confesses this "truth", the debate is over on the issue. The problem you have is you are a socialist trying to tell conservatives and liberterians what they should believe based on one article you cherrypicked out of a publication you usually disagree with. It's amusing when big government socialists attempt to demonize people who support smaller government and more freedom. In your world view, control freaks like yourself are the good, and the people who oppose the control freaks are the bad.

The best part about this thread is that I think no one actually read the article :rolleyes:

I'm going to bed, keep it coming so I have something to read at work tomorrow!

best sdn poster.

strike, strike, strike! docs have enough money for a strike to last. the scabs who "dont care about money" will be the least competent ones. such is the power of altruism to lure talent



This will never happen, at least not soon. Physicians are not willing to give up the respect and regard of the populace. It's the only gambling chip that the government has against physicians, but it is sure worth a lot. It's the fact that American doctors are so proud of their nobility in our society that prevents them from seeking economic justice.

In a capitalist society competition is what is supposed to foster higher quality services right? Bottom line is, in this democratic society, certain things the government does people don't care about or at least don't care enough to do something about them Eg: The alpaca farming subsidy I spoke of in an earlier post (or any other pork tacked onto any bill). If people care enough to eliminate pork then they would speak out and NOT send someone to washington that allows pork. Hence, if there is a problem with government run healthcare such as quality then the people either care enough to fix it or they don't. Just like capitalism....

So why do you assume that capitalism can fix problems that the democratic process doesn't when it comes to healthcare? They're based on the same principles.
You really do think that government reflects the interests of America, don't you?

Silly me.

The truth is that the American government is heavily entrenched, static, and unresponsive to public opinion. But the worst part of it is that the most important thing for any Congressman to do during his term is to get reelected. It is not for him to improve the country. I repeat, it is NOT for him to improve the country. It's not that there aren't hordes of people who want to remove the agricultural subsidies in our budget; there are. It's that the reason we even have such stupid additions to our budget is that the only reason congressman set out to do is to please the people with the most influence in their constituency (in order to get reelected, of course). Of course, beginning a huge national healthcare plan will put even more power into the hands of our legislators. Power that won't be used for the benefit of American citizens, but for personal gain and the satisfaction of PACs and lobbying groups in Washington. Sure, we can try to legislate rules and regulations. We can complain about the "lost morality" of people, as if they ever had it. We can add to the snowball of federal power and intrusion on an otherwise free country.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, and there are a few ways we can hope to address this problem. They all involve changing the Constitution (i.e. we need the rule of Law, not the rule of People).

--Limit Congressman to 2 year-terms. Once your 2 years are up, good-bye. No reelections. No "buying" of long term congressional power.

--Balanced Budget amendment. Now when we spend trillions of dollars we don't have on entitlement programs like the Medicare drug benefit, constituents will also see trillions more in new taxes. I'd love to see Congressman slip that one by their voters.

--Cap total government expenditures as a percentage of GDP. (maybe 5%, 10%?) This includes the federal payroll. Perhaps you leave the defense budget exempt from this for wartime emergencies.

Don't mistake that article in the economist for true economic insight. That is an editorial piece.
There is not much I agree with in that article.

It's clear to me in reading the post that the screw-the-poor people on SDN are not interested in the facts

It's not that we're uninterested in the facts. It's that you have never set out a reason to justify the corruption and general malaise that is the price we pay for the forced administration of equality. I've set out my arguments in previous posts why morality has no place in government. I'd be happy to listen to you refute my logic.

To me, you are not interested in the facts because you assume that a progressive agenda is inherently acceptable. My contention is that it's not.

One point of the article is this: America's supposed free-market health care system, spends double what other Western countries spend on health care, with no guarantees on care, and definitelely not double the standard of care/treatment.

Another point was: The US governments spend about as much as other countries do on health care, without actually providing all of the services that other nations do for "free".

As a result of points like these, the Economist stated, based on facts and obervable evidence, _not_ ideology, that the US may be better suited by a more "overtly" public health care system.

The United States spends 16% of its GDP on health, around twice the rich-country average

This is especially surprising given just how productive US residents are on a GDP per capita basis.

And guess what happens when the government is the same as the payor? Magically, almost overnight, you'd get liability-limit laws, decent public health programs, increased exercise in schools, safety laws, etc. Insurance companies don't really have much of an incentive to start public health programs, for they would benefit all insurance companies, not just their own.

Another good topic regarding the differences between private and public insurance is the Canadian insurance market. And I don't mean that the insurance is provided for free, you still pay a premium. Some provinces just have a deregulated open market for insurance, others have a single government insurer. Who wants to take a guess as to which provinces provide (far) better rates?

Here's a gem from Manitoba, where auto insurance is provided by the government:
Under the Manitoba Public Insurance Act, when a person uses their car for something illegal, like fleeing the police or drag racing, they're in breach of their insurance. That means if they cause an accident, MPI can take them to court, and force them to pay for any damage they cause to property

Wowie, accountability for one's actions too!

That seems to be a growing trend among leftwingers.

Yay! He's back! The bobbarker28/conservative28/Bob_Barker27 complex has returned!

Two quick points:

First, it cracks me up that people think things won't get done without the help of government. I've never known of any situation where government administration made things easier, more efficient, or cheaper. If someone knows of such an instance, then please alert me.

Second,
One point of the article is this: America's supposed free-market health care system, spends double what other Western countries spend on health care, with no guarantees on care, and definitelely not double the standard of care/treatment.
This is flat out wrong. Everyone who can get to a phone in the US had guaranteed healthcare regardless of ability to pay. Its called 911 and the ER.


Carry on.

Here's a gem from Manitoba, where auto insurance is provided by the government:


Whoa I need to move there. Not only is there a right to medical care. Now I can have the government-given right to drive an automobile.

Where can I sign up for the right to work 35 hour weeks? Oh wait, I could move to France.

How about the right to 15 weeks of paid vacation at my current salary? Still have to wait 5 years for the world governments to get their acts together? Dammit!!! :laugh:

This will never happen, at least not soon. Physicians are not willing to give up the respect and regard of the populace. It's the only gambling chip that the government has against physicians, but it is sure worth a lot. It's the fact that American doctors are so proud of their nobility in our society that prevents them from seeking economic justice.
I'm not. I'd rather be looked upon as a member of just another profession, than I would suffer economically.

[QUOTE=chef_NU]It's not that we're uninterested in the facts. It's that you have never set out a reason to justify the corruption and general malaise that is the price we pay for the forced administration of equality. QUOTE]

Would you be willing to drive your car on a nationwide network of dirt roads? Would you be willing to pay tolls to every community that financed their part of whatever was paved? Would you be willing to live in a community that required you to pay for the wiring and the poles to get telephone service? Plumbing (assuming its not septic)? Water (assuming not everyone can dig for it)? Would you be willing to live in a country that left the millions of the "greatest generation" uneducated and jobless in 1946 after putting their lives on the line for 4 years to 'defend democracy'? Would you be proud of a country that refused to pay a little for the Marshall Plan, in order to create the half-billion European consumers that gave that generation the jobs that created the multi-trillion dollar economy we have today, and prevented Communist doctrine from achieving worldwide legitimacy among the post-war, starving masses? Does "survival of the fittest" include sacrificing a society's future for the benefit of today's ideological purity? Leaving aside our ideologies, the material world we were born into and inhabit today, that includes the internet, transportation infrastructure, education (warts and all), national defense, federal mortgages and home loans - all of it - did not pop up from nowhere, they came about because our parents, and our parents parents, decided they could a get a lot, for their future, for their kids, for their community, by giving a little. If you want to call it "charity" and mean it as an epithet, that's your business. But don't begrudge the idea that a community, by achieving consensus and pooling resources, can do things that benefit individuals that individuals could never do for themselves.

People being people, the administration of government is never going to be perfect or easy. Nobody wants to "justify" corruption and general malaise, any more than we can deny that they exist. But to call a community of consensus (whether or not you personally agree with it) for funding democratically-arrived at community priorities a "forced administration of equality", betrays not only the quality of your sense of community, but also your understanding of its purpose. The idea of taxes levied by a community (be it Duchess county, or the federal government) is not to "take from the rich, to give to the poor", it is to provide continued opportunity for the future by giving back a small piece of today's reward.

That may mean providing a means of healthcare access to the poorest, or a minimum to all (with an option to upgrade, of course), not just because somebody might call it a "right", but because our survivability is at stake when we risk unnecessary diseases within an uninsured population that can become epidemic killers (last I checked, bugs were not reading stock portfolios or party affiliation). Not to mention the side benefit of comprehensive epidemiological data-collection that can be used by private healthcare providers, drug manufacturers, biotech, as well as first-responders in our next national security breach. All of this is harder than it should be today simply because of decades of ideological intransigence around the slogan of "socialized medicine".

It may mean providing low-cost loans to build homes, not because those who can't afford it "deserve" it, but because you can't expect a stable society to exist when significant numbers of people have no housing. And if all they do is rent, they create no equity. With no equity, there is no capital liquidity or tax-base, with no tax-base, there is no community able to represent and support the next generation - except at the hands of the landlord, which might as well be called a return to the system of feudalism that took Europe 400 years to shake off. That was a "survival of the fittest" society. If you didn't work, you starved to death. And if you did work, the landlord could come by and take what he needed, when he needed it - no discussion, no debate. And if you and your neighbors decided to defend yourselves, the landlord could always come up with a bigger army with bigger weapons.

It *pays* for us to give a little, because when you get right down to it - even with all the BS from both sides in government today, the waste, the fraud - we get a lot in return. An entire civilization has been created based on the idea of sharing the burden and cost of maintaining the community interest. An interest in having our children survive birth, an interest in living longer, an interest providing the next generation similar opportunities for living a decent life. We haven't become the super-power that we are, simply as a lucky side effect of misguided "liberal" policies over the last 70 years, any more than "conservative" policies can claim to address all of our current frustrations with government. There are reasons why past generations chose to do and build the things we see around us today. And it behooves us to remember that they did many of these things by debate and consent with the information available to them, not because some unaccountable government suddenly decided to "force" them to. Some of those priorities may have outlived their purpose, just as some of our representatives may no longer be representing the public interest. But that doesn't mean that yesterday didn't happen, or that it isn't worth finding a way to ensure that the priorities we can agree on are being properly addressed today. It just means that we have to decide whether we WANT and expect that accountability, and if so, whether we're willing to make the effort to fight for it.

PS: Ramblin_Med: if you think 911 and the ER is "guaranteed" healthcare - at a reasonable price - then you either don't pay for your premiums, you don't mind other people telling you how your next raise will get spent (to maintain the benefits you have), or you don't mind paying more taxes than you should to keep hospitals from stacking up the corpses of the uninsured like cordwood on the streets.

BTW, great avatar chef!

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/guevar.htm


...
He wrote in a letter to home: "Along the way, I had the opportunity to pass through the dominions of the United Fruit, convincing me once again of just how terrible these capitalist octopuses are. I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won’t rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated."

...
In a discussion on September 14, 1961 Guevara opposed the right of dissidents to make their views known even within the Communist Party itself.
And that was from a somewhat friendly source.

PS: Ramblin_Med: if you think 911 and the ER is "guaranteed" healthcare - at a reasonable price - then you either don't pay for your premiums, you don't mind other people telling you how your next raise will get spent (to maintain the benefits you have), or you don't mind paying more taxes than you should to keep hospitals from stacking up the corpses of the uninsured like cordwood on the streets.

Hold on there a minute! I never said anything about a reasonable price! I said anyone could get healthcare in the US regardless of ability to pay, and they can. Don't make my argument into a straw man just so you can tear it down.

Two quick points:

First, it cracks me up that people think things won't get done without the help of government. I've never known of any situation where government administration made things easier, more efficient, or cheaper. If someone knows of such an instance, then please alert me.

Second,
One point of the article is this: America's supposed free-market health care system, spends double what other Western countries spend on health care, with no guarantees on care, and definitelely not double the standard of care/treatment.
This is flat out wrong. Everyone who can get to a phone in the US had guaranteed healthcare regardless of ability to pay. Its called 911 and the ER.

Carry on.

Flat out wrong? Is all medical care provided by 911 and the ER?

And while you're giving so much credit to 911, I think its guaranteed because its paid for by government funds (at least it is here). Well, I guess its important to make a distinction between 911 and ambulances/EMS, I'm sure for either of us, 911 is covered by the government, not sure about ambulances/EMS for you.

And I believe just about all telephone, road, water and electrical infrastructure was built somehow with government involvement. Nations that depended on private companies to finance & build such infrastructure without any government involvement haven't turned out so well.

Now I can have the government-given right to drive an automobile.
I'm confused, what do you mean? What's wrong with a government having conditions on who can use a public roadway?

For all the hippocratic hypocrites---the next time you want to complain about the the government spending $ on healthcare and the next time you want to 6itch about "large" government, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and put YOURSELF through med school without the help of GOVERNMENT backed student loans.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

whats preventing the private sector from stepping in and providing loans to students who show promise of repaying

hmm all of this has to do with externalities

For all the hippocratic hypocrites---the next time you want to complain about the the government spending $ on healthcare and the next time you want to 6itch about "large" government, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and put YOURSELF through med school without the help of GOVERNMENT backed student loans.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

We are forced to pay taxes that are used to provide those loans. As a result, it's not hypocritical for us to use loans.

I have noticed that a lot of college students are left wingers and support nationalized healthcare and higher taxes. I also have observed that most college students are not working a full time job and paying their fair share of income tax. I am curious, have you ever worked a full time job and paid your fair share of income tax? If not, it makes sense that you have no problem with high taxes. When daddy is paying your bills, it's easy to be a socialist. :)

Yay! He's back! The bobbarker28/conservative28/Bob_Barker27 complex has returned!

Bob Barker? The Price is RIght guy? Is that guy still alive? I don't know what you mean by this.

Does it upset you that I accurately observe that many leftwingers seem to have an anti-christianity bigotry. When some guy goes off on Christians in the middle of a debate about healthcare, one would have to assume he has some Christian-phobia. Nobody in here was quoting scripture or trying to convert anybody to Christianity. He just wanted to smear conservatives as religious zealots because a conservative (me) was defeating him with logic on the issue of nationalized healthcare, not to gloat ;)

We are forced to pay taxes that are used to provide those loans. As a result, it's not hypocritical for us to use loans.

I have noticed that a lot of college students are left wingers and support nationalized healthcare and higher taxes. I also have observed that most college students are not working a full time job and paying their fair share of income tax. I am curious, have you ever worked a full time job and paid your fair share of income tax? If not, it makes sense that you have no problem with high taxes. When daddy is paying your bills, it's easy to be a socialist. :)

I'm 35 years old and a corporate attorney. I'd bet dollars to donuts that I've paid more in income taxes than you have made in your entire lifetime. When I did my undergrad I worked FULL time making less than $6/hr, sometimes 48hrs/week to pay for college. Neither of my parents paid for my college or anything else since I was 18. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

And, yes, I AM a pre-med and will likely pay for med school out-of-pocket. :laugh: :laugh:

It's not hypocritical to use loans? What planet are you from? I don't care if you DO pay taxes. Have you paid enough in taxes to pay what your loans are sucking from MY system? What happens if you die tomorrow because you get thumped too hard in the head with a bible or something? Who pays OFF your loans then? I DO! Who continues to fund your education while you are in school? I DO. What happens when Bush signs the new tax-cut package that was just passed AND includes reductions in student loan funding? And don't say, "I'll be practicing medicine in a few years and will pay into the system so some other poor schlub like me can get educated." Because it doesn't work that way for TWO reasons: 1. If Bush reduces loan funding to start in 2 or 4 years then you AREN'T paying back the benefit you got. 2. If you die I'm stuck paying your loans. So YES it IS hypocritical. So STOP taking MY money for YOUR loans. :laugh: :laugh:

Bob Barker? The Price is RIght guy? Is that guy still alive? I don't know what you mean by this.

Does it upset you that I accurately observe that many leftwingers seem to have an anti-christianity bigotry. When some guy goes off on Christians in the middle of a debate about healthcare, one would have to assume he has some Christian-phobia. Nobody in here was quoting scripture or trying to convert anybody to Christianity. He just wanted to smear conservatives as religious zealots because a conservative (me) was defeating him with logic on the issue of nationalized healthcare, not to gloat ;)

I suggest you re-read the thread and see who went off on whom first. You, like any green, drunk-every-weekend college student called ME liberal because of my view on this topic. Are you a one-issue voter? Must be if you are labelling people based on their view on ONE issue. If you are going to label me liberal (which I am not and I think liberals and conservatives alike are a bunch of "can't think for themselves" people) because of my view on one topic then I'm going to label you a bible-thumper. It's simple. Furthermore, because I don't believe in christian fundamentalism by no means makes me a "religious bigot." If it did then EVERY other religion that is contra-opposed to christianity must be a bunch of "religious bigots." I think you need to take a long look inside yourself and take a deep breath of fresh air before you post. Maybe then you will realize that you are EXACTLY like the people yo are opposing.

And stop using MY tax dollars to fund your education damn it!!!

I'm 35 years old and a corporate attorney. I'd bet dollars to donuts that I've paid more in income taxes than you have made in your entire lifetime. When I did my undergrad I worked FULL time making less than $6/hr, sometimes 48hrs/week to pay for college. Neither of my parents paid for my college or anything else since I was 18. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

And, yes, I AM a pre-med and will likely pay for med school out-of-pocket. :laugh: :laugh:

It's not hypocritical to use loans? What planet are you from? I don't care if you DO pay taxes. Have you paid enough in taxes to pay what your loans are sucking from MY system? What happens if you die tomorrow because you get thumped too hard in the head with a bible or something? Who pays OFF your loans then? I DO! Who continues to fund your education while you are in school? I DO. What happens when Bush signs the new tax-cut package that was just passed AND includes reductions in student loan funding? And don't say, "I'll be practicing medicine in a few years and will pay into the system so some other poor schlub like me can get educated." Because it doesn't work that way for TWO reasons: 1. If Bush reduces loan funding to start in 2 or 4 years then you AREN'T paying back the benefit you got. 2. If you die I'm stuck paying your loans. So YES it IS hypocritical. So STOP taking MY money for YOUR loans. :laugh: :laugh:

You have a law degree? You articulate like a 19 year old pothead. Again, the bible thumping comment in the middle of a debate about healthcare and taxes is very odd. It is interesting that moderaters have no problem with the anti-Christian rhetoric that leftists like you express in here. You really hate "dem der Christians. Dem der Christians is out to get you with der biblebooks".

I think you are lying about having a law degree....you of all people would not be a corporate lawyer.....you hate corporations. Liberal college students always get upset when I point out they dont pay taxes themselves while they support higher taxes on people that do. :)

whats preventing the private sector from stepping in and providing loans to students who show promise of repaying

hmm all of this has to do with externalities

Nothing, and in fact the private sector DOES loan money for professional level education.

But OBVIOUSLY students prefer that healthy "no interest" incentive to borrow from the federal government/me.

Furthermore, private loans are protected by the government just as federal loans are, in that a student cannot discharge the debt in bankruptcy except for very unusual reasons.

I suggest you re-read the thread and see who went off on whom first. You, like any green, drunk-every-weekend college student called ME liberal because of my view on this topic. Are you a one-issue voter? Must be if you are labelling people based on their view on ONE issue. If you are going to label me liberal (which I am not and I think liberals and conservatives alike are a bunch of "can't think for themselves" people) because of my view on one topic then I'm going to label you a bible-thumper. It's simple. Furthermore, because I don't believe in christian fundamentalism by no means makes me a "religious bigot." If it did then EVERY other religion that is contra-opposed to christianity must be a bunch of "religious bigots." I think you need to take a long look inside yourself and take a deep breath of fresh air before you post. Maybe then you will realize that you are EXACTLY like the people yo are opposing.

And stop using MY tax dollars to fund your education damn it!!!

I think it's hilarious how liberals always get upset when you accurately identify them as liberals. Where is the courage of your convictions? Why are you ashamed of being a liberal if liberal ideals are right in your view? I don't see how you can label me a "bible thumper" if I am not quoting scripture or trying to convert you to Christianity. You don't know if I am a Christian or not. You have consistently expressed liberal views, and it's fair to assume you are a liberal. You are a bigot if in the middle of a debate about healthcare you irrationally attack Christians. I am fine with you not believing in Christianity, but your Christian-phobia is obvious to any objective person.

You have a law degree? You articulate like a 19 year old pothead. Again, the bible thumping comment in the middle of a debate about healthcare and taxes is very odd. It is interesting that moderaters have no problem with the anti-Christian rhetoric that leftists like you express in here. You really hate "dem der Christians. Dem der Christians is out to get you with der biblebooks".

I think you are lying about having a law degree....you of all people would not be a corporate lawyer.....you hate corporations. Liberal college students always get upset when I point out they dont pay taxes themselves while they support higher taxes on people that do. :)

Like I said, my comment came out only after YOU decided you would label ME because of my view on this issue. And as for you NOT believeing me. More power to you, I'm not here to prove myself to you. And I don't believe you are a conservative, I think you are just some internet troll boo-hooing about life because, as you put it, "daddy" didn't pay for your college. :laugh: :laugh:

As for your "southern" dialect you are using (or whatever it is) you better watch out. You are speaking in the dialect of religious fundamentalists of the south.

I think it's hilarious how liberals always get upset when you accurately identify them as liberals. Where is the courage of your convictions? Why are you ashamed of being a liberal if liberal ideals are right in your view? I don't see how you can label me a "bible thumper" if I am not quoting scripture or trying to convert you to Christianity. You don't know if I am a Christian or not. You have consistently expressed liberal views, and it's fair to assume you are a liberal. You are a bigot if in the middle of a debate about healthcare you irrationally attack Christians. I am fine with you not believing in Christianity, but your Christian-phobia is obvious to any objective person.

Okay boss, listen up. Obviously you are losing control. This issue, nationalized healthcare, is as much a debate on empathy for children without health coverage as it is about political ideology. If you are fine seeing babies go without proper care or pregnant mothers giving birth on the living room floor instead of in a hospital then that is your decision in life and I KNOW I cannot change your mind. You want to call me a liberal because I espouse what you CONSIDER a liberal viewpoint on THIS ISSUE. Go back up and read the one-issue-voter analogy again because maybe you didn't catch that. If you have learned ANYTHING in your education then you KNOW that my postings are NOT a representative sampling by which to draw a conclusion on my political propensities. But then again maybe you DIDN'T learn anything in your education.

Better yet, read my posting history throughout this forum rather than just this thread and you would get an even BETTER sampling. If you call my "political" views LIBERAL and CONSISTENT based on this one thread then you obviously missed the boat in a few classes. If you read my post history you will see that you CANNOT pigeon-hole me ideologically. So that "oh it's all a bunch of liberals" argument doesn't work for you.

Get a grip chief. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Like I said, my comment came out only after YOU decided you would label ME because of my view on this issue. And as for you NOT believeing me. More power to you, I'm not here to prove myself to you. And I don't believe you are a conservative, I think you are just some internet troll boo-hooing about life because, as you put it, "daddy" didn't pay for your college. :laugh: :laugh:

As for your "southern" dialect you are using (or whatever it is) you better watch out. You are speaking in the dialect of religious fundamentalists of the south.

Anybody who supports nationalized healthcare and higher taxes is a liberal. I don't understand why you are offended by me recognizing that you are leftwinger. I don't get upset when people realize that I am a right winger. If you were a lawyer, it would seem you wouldn't use incomplete sentences like "And as for you NOT believing me." You also say "dude" a lot, which doesn't really sound like something a 35 year old professional lawyer would say. I'm not sure how you determine if I have a southern accent from my typing in here. I haven't said ya'll or "i'm fixing to...." which many southerners use. I am from Boston has my screenname suggests. And there you go again attacking Christians. And you slammed southerners this time too. Liberals are suppose to be for tolerance, but you seem to have little for Christians or southerners. I love those double standards.

Furthermore, your assumption in life than one CANNOT be a corporate lawyer AND have my viewpoint goes to show one or more of the following:

1. You don't have 2 brain cells to rub together.

2. You are so entrenched in the idea of diametrically opposed politics that your brain cell won't let you understand that some people can, well, BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT and it doesn't HAVE to fit some preconceived mold you have floating around in your head!

3. You can't see that this is NOT just a political issue but an issue of humanity as well.



And by the way, I'm still waiting for MY money back that you are using to fund your education. I'll take cashier's check, money order, British Sovereigns, or greenbacks. And hurry up before you die and are relieved of your obligation.

I love those double standards.

That's pretty clear, now where's my money.

I'm not sure how you determine if I have a southern accent from my typing in here. I haven't said ya'll or "i'm fixing to...." which many southerners use. .

No but you've used

"dem der Christians. Dem der Christians is out to get you with der biblebooks". .

No but you've used

There was a reason that statement was in quotes. You are a bigot, and that's how bigots talk. You think dem der christians is out to get you. :)

I don't understand why you are offended by me recognizing that you are leftwinger. I don't get upset when people realize that I am a right winger.

I don't understand why you are so offended that I'm pointing out that you are a hypocrite. A lot of people are hypocrites right? Many parents tell their kids, "don't drink in excess," or "don't do drugs" when, in fact, they themselves used drugs and drank.

It's okay to be a hypocrite. Just own up buddy. It will be a huge weight off your shoulders.

Come on now, own it.... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Furthermore, your assumption in life than one CANNOT be a corporate lawyer AND have my viewpoint goes to show one or more of the following:

1. You don't have 2 brain cells to rub together.

2. You are so entrenched in the idea of diametrically opposed politics that your brain cell won't let you understand that some people can, well, BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT and it doesn't HAVE to fit some preconceived mold you have floating around in your head!

3. You can't see that this is NOT just a political issue but an issue of humanity as well.

And by the way, I'm still waiting for MY money back that you are using to fund your education. I'll take cashier's check, money order, British Sovereigns, or greenbacks. And hurry up before you die and are relieved of your obligation.

I have a degree in mechanical engineering, which would seem to indicate that I have some brain power. You are a liberal, you are just too insecure to admit it, even in a forum where nobody knows your real identity. YOu haven't paid any income taxes, b/c you aren't a lawyer. You are a little kid in college who doesn't pay a dime in taxes but supports higher taxes on those that do. Now go ahead and bash Christians and southerners again to display your low emotional IQ. and hickish bigotry.

So basically you don't care if a baby is born breach in the middle of the living room floor because the mother doesn't have/can't afford insurance right?


That's the bottom line. So bottom line it for me. Praetorian at least has the balls to bottom line things. So let's hear it. Tell us how you have no compassion for living humans and how money is more important to you than making sure babies don't die.

If that's how you feel then say it and move on. End of discussion.

display your low emotional IQ.


Now that has got to be the best thing I have ever heard. And your emotional IQ is WHERE at this point? Hypocrisy is ALIVE AND WELL FOLKS!

I will sleep well tonight. Probably laugh myself to sleep actually.

So basically you don't care if a baby is born breach in the middle of the living room floor because the mother doesn't have/can't afford insurance right?


That's the bottom line. So bottom line it for me. Praetorian at least has the balls to bottom line things. So let's hear it. Tell us how you have no compassion for living humans and how money is more important to you than making sure babies don't die.

If that's how you feel then say it and move on. End of discussion.

Now I want babies to die because I support lower taxes? I am greedy because I think a man deserves to keep most of the money that he earns, and the government isn't entitled to large amounts of man's money? You just make one baseless attack after another. I can't believe you claim to be a corporate lawyer based on your posts in here....you aren't articulate and you don't make logical inferences or assumptions. Your view is that a person who supports tax cuts is the devil.....that's just insane. Now go ahead and make another bizarre attack on Christians in the middle of a debate on healthcare, you left wing hick.

Once again blathering on the eve before exams...

This article (IMO) is a spin of a fortune magazine editorial

Basically, get government out of healthcare delivery and exclusively into healthcare payment. Right now via Medicaid dollars many county (government run) hospitals sit under-funded. The level of care provided may not be on par with other private organizations. It is well demonstrated that government delivered healthcare is not as efficient as private organizations. Cost overruns in government are just extracted from the taxpayer.

Medicare bleeds red because politician's agendas do not include making a profit just spending our dollars.

A risk adjusted payment to the insurance company of your choice paid for by a mix of combining Medicare, Medicaid and employer (read new tax) contributions would fund such system. The cost savings alone from single payer source, electronic medical records, and uninsured healthcare becoming paid services (for doctors & hospitals) would more than pay for the overall cost. The big winner would be business and individuals. An individual would not have to worry about periods of unemployment and no health insurance. Business would no longer have to fun current and retiree health insurance cutting a HUGE cost from the bottom line. Henceforth, win - win...

The key is to prevent the government from becoming the sole provider. As a physician you would not be able to choose how you did business with since there would be only one provider. You would no longer have to average your per patient revenue to include insured and uninsured write off...

Be clear, our elected "officials" would never develop such a system because to many special interest groups have money and us citizens have no voice.

Molecular medicine Monday - I am in such denial. Back to studying

I want to share with you a very deep concern I have about Boston Native.

If you disagree with my claim that Boston Native is essentially describing a situation that does not exist, then read no further. I think that he will truly offer hatred with a pseudo-intellectual gloss in a lustrum or two. I base this confident prediction on, among other things, the fact that he does, occasionally, make a valid point.

But when he says that his revenge fantasies won't be used for political retribution, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. In order to understand the motivation behind his solutions, it is important first to derail his sanctimonious little schemes. We cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past.

Instead, we must find the common ground that enables others to stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that I've never bothered Boston Native.

Yet Boston Native wants to scupper my initiative to provide you with a holistic and thematic history of his effete slogans. Whatever happened to "live and let live"? There is a vast empirical literature on this subject. Never forget that and never let Boston Native turn a deaf ear to need and suffering.

I want to share with you a very deep concern I have about Boston Native.

If you disagree with my claim that Boston Native is essentially describing a situation that does not exist, then read no further. I think that he will truly offer hatred with a pseudo-intellectual gloss in a lustrum or two. I base this confident prediction on, among other things, the fact that he does, occasionally, make a valid point.

But when he says that his revenge fantasies won't be used for political retribution, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. In order to understand the motivation behind his solutions, it is important first to derail his sanctimonious little schemes. We cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past.

Instead, we must find the common ground that enables others to stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that I've never bothered Boston Native.

Yet Boston Native wants to scupper my initiative to provide you with a holistic and thematic history of his effete slogans. Whatever happened to "live and let live"? There is a vast empirical literature on this subject. Never forget that and never let Boston Native turn a deaf ear to need and
suffering.

Wow you are pretty convincing for just some guy. SHAME on your Boston Native. Why do you bother him? SHAME ON YOU! Why do you hate humanity?

I want to share with you a very deep concern I have about Boston Native.

If you disagree with my claim that Boston Native is essentially describing a situation that does not exist, then read no further. I think that he will truly offer hatred with a pseudo-intellectual gloss in a lustrum or two. I base this confident prediction on, among other things, the fact that he does, occasionally, make a valid point.

But when he says that his revenge fantasies won't be used for political retribution, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. In order to understand the motivation behind his solutions, it is important first to derail his sanctimonious little schemes. We cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past.

Instead, we must find the common ground that enables others to stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that I've never bothered Boston Native.

Yet Boston Native wants to scupper my initiative to provide you with a holistic and thematic history of his effete slogans. Whatever happened to "live and let live"? There is a vast empirical literat