I will leave you to your illusions and lies while I continue to live a
longer and healthier life without fear of not being able to afford
health care, and while my compatriots get jobs that move out from the
States because employers also can't afford health care.
: Excellent retort. In sum, we spend more per capita than other countries
: BECAUSE WE CAN. Other countries spend less than we for a lot of reasons,
: chief among them is they don't have the wealth to do so.
But the problem is, that extra spending on health care does not make us
live longer or better lives. Here' a very good video presentation of some
of the facts of the matter, comparing US and foreign expenditures to
e.g., survival rates for various things:
Well worth watching. It discusses, among many other things, the fact that
a lot of the cutting-edge expensive tests equipment is owened by the
doctors, who need to recoup their investment asap.
-- Andy Barss
Your points are well taken but they do not negate the choices. Spending more
for a Cadillac won't get you to your destination any faster or any safer.
It's the consumer's choice. Whether the test equipment is owned by your
local doctor or the Chinese is irrelevant as to whether you consent to its
The bottom line is that the patient chooses to spend more because he has the
funds available - either out of his own pocket or through insurance.
If a patient is told an expensive test is available, but, given the
circumstances, the test will only detect a problem in 1% of the time is a
choice for the patient. Telling the patient that the test is unavailable or
that its use is below the 10% threshold is another matter entirely.
More than half of personal bankruptcies in America result from medical
expenses. Companies move overseas in part because they don't have to pay
for employee health coverage, e.g. it costs GM $1,200 less per vehicle to
build cars in Canada than in the U.S.--Toyota took note of that when they
decided to build a new plant in Canada instead of the U.S. Health insurance
companies absorb several times what such administration costs in other
industrialized nations--and so on. The notion that America can afford to
waste more of its health care budget than other nations would be funny if it
weren't so sickening.
I'm not American so the discussion doesn't really impact me. However, I
was under the impression that the proposed legislation allowed for a
public insurance option in addition to all the private ones.
Around here (Saskatchewan, Canada) basic insurance is provided by the
government along with the license plates (at competitive rates relative
to the other provinces, and without any subsidization) but you can go to
any insurance company you want for additional coverage.
I didn't think that this was actually in the proposed bill.
It isn't, but those people who have been gnashing their teeth and tearing
their hair ever since last fall's Presidential election like to pretend it
is. Death Panelists would be a good name for the members of this particular
cult, sufferers of Obama Derangement Syndrome (among other things).
It is always amusing to see someone advise people to look elsewhere if they
don't like the way things are now. Where, pray tell, does one find a health
insurance company that doesn't care about pre-existing conditions? Where
does one find an insurance company that hasn't raised its rates far above
inflation in the past 15 years? Where does one go to find an insurance
company that doesn't have 20% administrative overhead?
Here we go again, Joe and Mary Mainstreet are supposed to sue some giant
corporation with bottomless pockets. Yeah, good luck with that. Hey,
here's a radical idea, how about making it illegal for the insurance
companies to do slimy things like use flimsy excuses to drop customers when
they need treatment? Or does that sound too much like raging communism to
Please quote those portions of the current health care reform proposals that
would result in "the government runs health care."
And if you don't like the way the DMV works, why not sue the govt.--"
nothing stops you from fighting via the legal system."
Since nobody appears to be proposing such a system your continued reference
to it is baffling.
How about for the one-in-six Americans who lack health insurance, what's
their survival rate? The bright point in American health care is
catastrophic medicine like complicated surgery or drug treatment for
diseases like cancer. Unfortunately the other side of that coin is many
millions of Americans can't afford such treatment. Of course if you take
the view that's just their tough luck it makes that grim reality acceptable
(unless you're smart enough to realize that a tenth of *your* health
insurance premiums are used to cover the cost of treating the uninsured).
Oh, really--so places like Canada and Britain and France and so on have
homogeneous populations? It's hilarious to see various right-wing groups
currently making the claim that life expectancy and infant mortality are
unreliable indicators of how good a nation's health care is. The NCPPR
pushes that line--they're the guys who take contributions from Exxon-Mobil
and then miraculously decide that man-made climate change is a myth. Not to
mention their money-laundering for Jack Abramoff. Yeah, real persuasive
VA health care has cleaned up its act in recent years, they're doing a hell
of a lot better job than they did back in the 70s and 80s. They even
negotiated lower prices with the drug companies, something the last
Republican-controlled Congress prohibited Medicare from doing. Besides, you
continue to refer to a total takeover of health care by the govt. when
nothing in the proposed legislation mandates that; how about keeping the
discussion on this planet rather than inventing creeping-socialism horror
But apparently you do need insurance companies that can drop your coverage
when you get sick on whatever flimsy excuse they can cook up. It is nothing
short of astonishing that so many people don't want govt. bureaucrats in
charge of their health care but are blissfully happy to have corporate
bureaucrats in charge of their health care despite the steadily rising costs
and lower standards of care those corporations have managed to create in
their pursuit of profit to the exclusion of all else including the health of
I think you know, Lew, that there are some Democrats who are a lot
farther to the right than some Republicans.
But, I don't understand why so many American towns and cities have fire
departments supported by local taxes, whether they have volunteer or
professional firemen. And yet, basic health insurance cannot be paid for
by some kind of involuntary contributions? I really don't make much
difference between the need for me and my family to have fire insurance
and health insurance. But then, I used to be even further left than I am
now. Now, I think that left is fine, but needs to be financially
responsible. Like getting some real oversight over those bankers. After
all, I did buy 100 shares Lehman when they were ~$17 and watched that go
up in smoke ...
I don't believe congress is talking about forcing you or me to buy
fire insurance on pain of confiscatory fines. (local fire departments
don't equate to fire insurance, by the way)
More IBS (Intellectual Bull Shit).
1) What is being proposed is that everyone must purchase health
2) If you can not afford to buy health insurance, tax rebates,
incentives, etc will be provided to help offset the cost of health
Yeah, somebody making minimum wage is going to be paying enough taxes that
tax rebates will offset the cost of insurance. Right. Sure they will.
Obama's plan is basically saying "it's more important to have medical
insurance than to have food on the table and a roof over your head and be
warm in the winter". Just one more way to guarantee that the poor stay
poor. People who have never been poor don't quite grasp the concept.
bullshit. Or do you assert that the bullshit is in the statement about
fire departments not being the same as fire insurance. I'd have though
that was self evident. Or is the bullshit in taking my comments out of
their context. Ah, yes, maybe that's it.
Because they can't even get all their own members of Congress to go along.
A bunch of them (especially from the south) are worried about losing their
seats to Republicans so they'll resist voting for what many of their
constituents have been convinced is rampaging socialism.
Ah so you do subscribe to the Chicago style of politics.
As long as there is a (D) after the office holder of course. If it were
an (R) trying to force that kind of thing through, you'd be screaming
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.