Some changes for america's health care, my opinion

[MiamiHeat]

1. Health care and profits are conflicts of interest.

So....Federally mandated cap on profit margins for all health care fields and insurance companies. Anything related to the health care industry will operate within these profit margins, hopefully only 10-15% over cost of staying in operation. Others, such as hospital care - employees, doctors, building maintenance, medical equipment, etc.. will operate at cost of operations only. Non-profit. This will drastically reduce price of care.

2A. A significant portion of the 10-15% profits will go to research and grants.

No longer rely on donations and other unreliable sources to pay for researching the cure for diseases and medical advancements. Scientists and doctors who wish to go into research will have a secure, non-biased, source of income to begin their work.

2B. Build a large, multi-million dollar research facility.

Funded by what I said up there in 2A. This facility will again, be non-profit, only spending cost of operation. It will be a State of the Art world center for human innovation in medicine. State of the art laboratories, equipment, research stations.

Only the best of the best in the country or the world, can come here to work. It will be a position of prestige. You will be surrounded by like-minded passionate scientists and doctors, all of them in a ZERO OUTSIDE-INFLUENCE environment. The best of the best, willing to go, would dedicate their lives to the advancement of medicine, with no corporate politics, etc.

3. Create significant tax incentives and other financial incentives to all manufacturers and hospitals related to the health care industry.

Reduce their cost of operations as low as possible, further reducing prices for the average american.


more later

[DMX7]

Here's an easier way to lower the cost of health care: Public Option.

[Darrin]

Here's an easier way to lower the cost of health care: Public Option.

I agree. A single-payer public option. We already have seen it work with regards to Medicare and Medicaid.

[coyotes_geek]

I agree. A single-payer public option. We already have seen it work with regards to Medicare and Medicaid.

You're kidding right? You do realize that medicare is looking at about $50 trillion dollars worth of unfunded liabilities don't you? The absolute last thing in the world we need is a public option that works like medicare.

[boutons_deux]

Here's exactly why health care reform is such a dog's lunch


Lobbying run amok: Eight health care lobbyists for every member of Congress

By Raw Story
Wednesday, February 24th, 2010 -- 10:18 pm
submit to reddit Stumble This!
50Share

President Obama will meet with 22 high-ranking lawmakers Thursday to discuss health care reform and how to accomplish it.

But if newly released information about lobbying in 2009 is any indication, the private sector and its interests may already be secured.

For every member of Congress, there were eight lobbyists working to influence health care reform last year, according to research by The Center for Public Integrity.

That's about 4,525 total lobbyists from 1,750 companies that include 207 hospitals, 105 insurance companies and 85 manufacturing companies.

The biggest group by far were the trade and advocacy organizations, which accounted for a whopping 745 companies lobbying for their own vision of health care in the US.

One of the most powerful political groups in the capital, the AARP deployed no less than 58 lobbyists to fight for their cause.

The Center has also created a database that allows users to search by company and lobbyist and includes the amount each organization spent, the lobbying firms they hired, and the names of individual lobbyists who took the message to Congress.

One of the Center's interactive databases is available below.

After losing its super-majority in the Senate with the election of Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts, Congressional Democrats have little hope they can deliver on health care reform in coming weeks.

Republican opposition remains strong and Thursday's summit seems to offer little chance of real compromise.

From the amount of money and lobbyists that have been working against them, Democrats' hopes for health care reform may have been doomed at the outset.

========

Precisely, the corps and capitalists are sucking the wealth out of Americans, and have $Bs to pay just $Ks to bribe Congress and the WH into not touching the suck down of Americans' wealth.

aka, there will be no "bending the (costs = profits) curve down"

[101A]

1. Health care and profits are conflicts of interest.

So....Federally mandated cap on profit margins for all health care fields and insurance companies. Anything related to the health care industry will operate within these profit margins, hopefully only 10-15% over cost of staying in operation. Others, such as hospital care - employees, doctors, building maintenance, medical equipment, etc.. will operate at cost of operations only. Non-profit. This will drastically reduce price of care.

2A. A significant portion of the 10-15% profits will go to research and grants.

No longer rely on donations and other unreliable sources to pay for researching the cure for diseases and medical advancements. Scientists and doctors who wish to go into research will have a secure, non-biased, source of income to begin their work.

2B. Build a large, multi-million dollar research facility.

Funded by what I said up there in 2A. This facility will again, be non-profit, only spending cost of operation. It will be a State of the Art world center for human innovation in medicine. State of the art laboratories, equipment, research stations.

Only the best of the best in the country or the world, can come here to work. It will be a position of prestige. You will be surrounded by like-minded passionate scientists and doctors, all of them in a ZERO OUTSIDE-INFLUENCE environment. The best of the best, willing to go, would dedicate their lives to the advancement of medicine, with no corporate politics, etc.

3. Create significant tax incentives and other financial incentives to all manufacturers and hospitals related to the health care industry.

Reduce their cost of operations as low as possible, further reducing prices for the average american.


more later

What is the "cost of operations" for a Doctor?

[spursncowboys]

Here's an easier way to lower the cost of health care: Public Option.

Lower the cost we as individuals pay. It wouldn't lower the actual cost of it.

[EmptyMan]

All I know is, if I or my family have to wait for important medical procedures even though we can pay for them (like in the past)...I will turn green.

[SouthernFried]

1. Health care and profits are conflicts of interest.

Dumbest statement of the week.

Like saying Food and profits are conflicts of interest. People gotta eat, right? They would die without eating.

So, how dare anyone make a profit off food?

"well...they shouldn't!!!!"

...and so it goes

[George Gervin's Afro]

All I know is, if I or my family have to wait for important medical procedures even though we can pay for them (like in the past)...I will turn green.

My guess is that if you have the money you will be able to see anyone you want.

[Wild Cobra]

I agree. A single-payer public option. We already have seen it work with regards to Medicare and Medicaid.
No, it will make things more expensive due to elimination of competition. We have costs associated with health care that other nations don't. Trial lawyers, and an over abundance of regulations.

Government is the problem. Not the solution.

[coyotes_geek]

1. Health care and profits are conflicts of interest.

Really? No company or individual ever used profit as a motive to develop a new product or provide a service that improved someone's health?


2A. A significant portion of the 10-15% profits will go to research and grants.

1. This already happens.
2. This statement is in direct conflict with your first point where you said that health care and profits are conflicts of interest.


2B. Build a large, multi-million dollar research facility.

Already happening. Pfizer alone is spending over $7 billion a year on research & development.


3. Create significant tax incentives and other financial incentives to all manufacturers and hospitals related to the health care industry.

So you want to cap profits, and then give away financial incentives. Seems pretty contradictory to me.

[MiamiHeat]

Dumbest statement of the week.

Like saying Food and profits are conflicts of interest. People gotta eat, right? They would die without eating.

So, how dare anyone make a profit off food?

"well...they shouldn't!!!!"

...and so it goes

are you trolling?

That is such a ridiculous counter-argument, I won't even respond for suspicion of trolling.

[MiamiHeat]

Really? No company or individual ever used profit as a motive to develop a new product or provide a service that improved someone's health?

Your logic is flawed, completely flawed in my eyes.

I will give you an analogy that represents what you just said

Bob : The German Third Reich was a terrible time in human history.

Jane : Really? No progress was made in the fields of medicine, aviation, engineering, physics, nuclear fission, television, rocketry, telecommunications and others during the Third Reich?





1. This already happens.
2. This statement is in direct conflict with your first point where you said that health care and profits are conflicts of interest.

It is not a conflict of interest. The "profits" are being returned to the health industry, instead of to the pockets of investors and corporations.




Already happening. Pfizer alone is spending over $7 billion a year on research & development.

Corporate politics.

They don't want to discover cures. They want to discover new patents. A new patent drug = $$$$.

They don't make money by curing you. They make money by selling you pills. Private corporations, whose sole interest is business as a publicly traded company, can never be trusted to serve the people and use their resources correctly.




So you want to cap profits, and then give away financial incentives. Seems pretty contradictory to me.

Lowering costs.

Lower taxes and incentives = lower cost of operation = lower cost of equipment and care = consumer pays less.

[SnakeBoy]

They don't make money by curing you. They make money by selling you pills. Private corporations, whose sole interest is business as a publicly traded company, can never be trusted to serve the people and use their resources correctly.

Thank goodness the government can though.:rolleyes

[coyotes_geek]

Your logic is flawed, completely flawed in my eyes.

I will give you an analogy that represents what you just said

Bob : The German Third Reich was a terrible time in human history.

Jane : Really? No progress was made in the fields of medicine, aviation, engineering, physics, nuclear fission, television, rocketry, telecommunications and others during the Third Reich?

Huh?


It is not a conflict of interest. The "profits" are being returned to the health industry, instead of to the pockets of investors and corporations.

You said it was a conflict of interest.


1. Health care and profits are conflicts of interest.


Corporate politics.

They don't want to discover cures. They want to discover new patents. A new patent drug = $$$$.

They don't make money by curing you. They make money by selling you pills. Private corporations, whose sole interest is business as a publicly traded company, can never be trusted to serve the people and use their resources correctly.

And your plan changes this how?


Lowering costs.

Lower taxes and incentives = lower cost of operation = lower cost of equipment and care = consumer pays less.

So where does the money to fund those incentives or replace lost tax revenue come from? The consumers/taxpayers?

[boutons_deux]

"What is the "cost of operations" for a Doctor"

I read a report in the past year on a study that found on avg independent general practice doctors had an overhead of $250K, which goes to staff, esp staff to process insurance paperwork, billing clients, paying bills to test labs, and generally fighting with insurance companies. That overhead forces many independent docs into groups and clinics where the overhead is shared.

Now, combine that $250K overhead with the crisis in the availability of general practice docs in many rural areas, and you see why it's a hard to get docs to work in rural areas.

So a public option/universal Medicare would remove 20%+ of the overheads for-profit private insurers have to cover (vs about 5% overhead for Medicare), which should result in lower premiums.

Couple the above with an insured pool of 100M+ clients (110M said in 2008 they would buy public option, don't know much detail there).

Also, Medicare patients poll more satisfied with their care than do for-profit-insurance patients.

If you're healthy and not a "paitent", then saying you're happy with your private insurer (and therefore, Medicare sucks) is irrelevant, but that's the kind of stupidity that right-wingers think is relevant, but ... they're right wingers.

There's a annual cost of treating uninsured:

"A 2003 study in Health Affairs estimated that uninsured people in the U.S. received approximately $35 billion in uncompensated care in 2001"

... about 10 years ago, figure that's at least double now (cost inflation, more uninsured as people have los insurance/cancelled, and sicker (fatter) population).

Universal coverage/access would allow uninsured people to get care, get it sooner, so reduce the numbers who wait too long until their disease is more advanced, and much more expensive, and perhaps incurably late. Whether they would get care is a problem of their education rather than their cost.

[MiamiHeat]

Huh?



You said it was a conflict of interest.





And your plan changes this how?



So where does the money to fund those incentives or replace lost tax revenue come from? The consumers/taxpayers?

You haven't placed enough thought into this discussion before hitting the "Submit Reply" button

[coyotes_geek]

You haven't placed enough thought into this discussion before hitting the "Submit Reply" button

Questions are too hard for you huh?

[DMX7]

Lower the cost we as individuals pay.

Individual plans are the worst ones. See Anthem Blue Cross in California.

[DarrinS]

1. Health care and profits are conflicts of interest.



I think most people stopped reading after this statement.

[DarrinS]

Alternate title to this thread.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

[DMX7]

1. Health care and profits are conflicts of interest.

Federally mandated cap on profit margins for all health care fields and insurance companies.

These are conflicting statements. If health care and profits are a conflict of interest there should be NO profits in the health insurance industry, not caps on profits.

I believe the private sector should be able to charge whatever it wants ONLY if there is real competition from a Public Option. It's like public and private schools. Private schools, especially for-profit ones like Phoenix, can chage whatever they want to the suckers who will buy it as long as there is an afordable option like U of Texas or Texas A&M system for people to choose from.

[MiamiHeat]

Well, if there are no profits whatsoever, then there is no money for new buildings, new expensive equipments, etc.

The "profits" would basically be funneled right back into health care, so nobody is making money off of it.

The difference between private corporate profits and a profit used specifically to help and fuel the health industry is vast. That is why.

The way most businesses work nowadays, is to raise the prices as high as you can get away with. If the consumer is willing to pay 200 dollars for a seat to watch a basketball game, why would I charge 100 dollars? That is the thinking that is sucking the nation dry in the health care industry.

If it costs 35 cents to make a syringe, by the time it's used on you, the cost of that syringe is now 95 cents or 1 dollar. The company that sells the materials to make syringes raises the price to make a profit. They don't just sell it at cost. The company that actually makes the syringe raises the price enough to make a profit. The company that ships the syringes across the country, again, does not charge you only the cost of staying in business, they charge you enough to make a profit. And on this goes down the line.
Each one of these companies practicing in normal, capitalist business practices.

The problem is, health care is not like selling you a car, a TV, a hamburger, or cable TV. This is your life, and you can't choose to LIVE WITHOUT. If you live without health care when you need it, you die.


Again, privately owned business, publicly traded companies, are concerned with turning PROFITS. NOT with saving your life.

It is a conflict of interest. Period. One side wants to make money and get away with providing you with as little coverage as possible, and the other side is concerned with staying alive and needs to spend money on their health care.


This is not debatable.

Privately owned companies making profits in the health care industry is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Period.

[MiamiHeat]

Health care is a special field that cannot be lumped in with the rest of capitalist business practices. Period.

Think of all the money in the health care industry that is going to investors, private pockets, corporate profits

This is a lot of money that SHOULD NOT be going into their pockets. It should stay in the pockets of americans, by lowering care costs.

[Nbadan]

Does this plan sound like Medicade/Medicare and the CDC to anyone else?

[MiamiHeat]

I haven't said anything about a medicare type plan, Nbadan, did you post in the wrong topic lol


What I said up there was only about changing the health care industry into a special field that cannot be vultured for corporate greed and profits.

It should be a holy industry, dedicated only to the well-being of patients and almost non-profit (almost, but not quite), and streamlined to fund itself with LOW COST of care.

When someone charges you money for a procedure, you know for a fact you are only paying what it costs the hospital to run on you.

Completely devoid of any corporate politics.

[ElNono]

I think you can make room for both, like a lot of countries do... and you do that by having the profit-neutral government option handle most of basic care...
Things like a fracture, a cold, annual checkup, general vaccination, etc. which are incredibly common but very expensive right now, even though they're super low tech.

You still leave open the option of a private insurance for those that want to pay for better/different service and rare/specialty treatments.

What it's been always very difficult with mixed schemes like this is to know where you draw the line on what's offered on the public option. It needs to be a dynamic thing that gets updated periodically based on both advances in the field and any contemporary situations (ie: swine flu, avian flu, etc)...

[Wild Cobra]

Individual plans are the worst ones. See Anthem Blue Cross in California.
They are owned by Wellpoint Inc. For 2009, Wellpoint had $61,235.8 million in revenue and paid out $46,571.1 million in coverage, or 76.05%. After expenses, they had $7,403 million taxable, paid 35.9% in taxes, or $2,657.1 million in taxes, which left $4,745.9 million net income for the stock holders, or $6.09 per share.

I cannot speak as to their service quality, but I see nothing unreasonable about their profits. If the service is bad, maybe it's because they are having a difficult time making a profit. To get their share holders that $6.09 per share profit, they sold $3,792.3 million in assets.

Maybe if the government wants to reduce the price of health care, they should stop taxing it. The stock holders could have made the same earnings per share if Wellpoint didn't pay taxes, and reduced their premiums by 4.34%.

[DMX7]

Maybe if the government wants to reduce the price of health care, they should stop taxing it.

Have you ever owned a business? The goal is to make as much profit as possible and expand the business. If my business is successful, like Wellpoint which IS successful, then lower or no taxes isn't going to make me lower the prices on anything, it's just going to give me more profit from where I would have had to pay taxes.

Introduce meaningful competition, like a public option, and now you have to lower the prices because you lose customers if you don't. That reduces profits and reduces the size of the business if it refuses to compete.

[boutons_deux]

"they should stop taxing it"

HFS, you're nuts. What are the taxes on health care, that drive up health care costs?

All the big profiteering health insurance companies get most of the revenues from employer group plans, which are paid from from the employee's gross before tax. Employee health insurance is govt subsidized, not govt taxed.

One way to get costs down is run a hard-core public option, Medicare-for-all, including employees who would be able to opt out of their employer plan for the public option. One item in the health reform bill was that insured employees would be forbidden from getting their insurance from exchanges.

Then, have employees pay for all of their (optional)(group) employer's insurance with after-tax salary.

Then there should should be serious discounts on the public option price for clients who meet, every year, measurable health criteria.

The govt should annul the Repug gift to BigPharma that forbid govt from negotiating drug prices. Then the govt as "single buyer" could really drive down drug prices and speed up generics, as is done in intelligent countries that BigPharma sells drugs to a lot cheaper than the suckered USA (the USA drug users subsidize cheap drug sales to other countries).

Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs should be made illegal. BigPharma spends $30B on research vs $60B on marketing, per year.

[ElNono]

Maybe if the government wants to reduce the price of health care, they should stop taxing it. The stock holders could have made the same earnings per share if Wellpoint didn't pay taxes, and reduced their premiums by 4.34%.

Wellpoint is in the business of returning the best value possible to their shareholders, not reducing the price of premiums. IOW, those 4.34% would go as extra profits, period.

[MiamiHeat]

This is why USA should declare the Health Industry as a special, holy industry that is not a place to make profits, to practice otherwise 'normal' business methods.

You can live without a shiny new TV and buy a shitty TV, you can buy cheap 15$ shoes and avoid new shoes, but we can't play with american LIVES that way. Capitalism has ZERO place in the business of people's health and lives.

It's not debatable, profits and health care are at odds with each other. It should be abolished.

This will drive down cost of care dramatically.

Companies who want to complain and bitch about it? Go out of business then.

Someone else, some new american enterpreneur will GLADLY open his own company and take your business. I for one, would love to see american business in the health industry run near-non profit businesses. They would be seen as true, ethical human beings with a clear goal - to help save lives, to improve the well-being of american patients.

It is a CONSTANT tug of war between doctors and insurance companies, doctors who swore the hippocratic oath and the insurance companies telling the doctors to FUCK OFF and they will not pay for the patient's MRI test because it's too expensive, and spending money on patients = too expensive, which means less profits for them and their shareholders.

[Wild Cobra]

Have you ever owned a business? The goal is to make as much profit as possible and expand the business. If my business is successful, like Wellpoint which IS successful, then lower or no taxes isn't going to make me lower the prices on anything, it's just going to give me more profit from where I would have had to pay taxes.

Introduce meaningful competition, like a public option, and now you have to lower the prices because you lose customers if you don't. That reduces profits and reduces the size of the business if it refuses to compete.
You forget competition.

If these industries stopped having to pay taxes, they would start lowering as they can to increase market share. Those not lowering their prices would lose market share to those who do.

The private system works. Government just needs to stop fucking with it.

Tell me. Do you think that $6.09 profit per share is too much for a stock trading around $62 is too much profit?

[Wild Cobra]

Wellpoint is in the business of returning the best value possible to their shareholders, not reducing the price of premiums. IOW, those 4.34% would go as extra profits, period.
Bullshit.

You have no business sense.

If you did, you would acknowledge that some, at a minimum, would become costs saving to the costumers. But to ignore the competitive forces...

You are either intentionally misleading people, or ignorant to how business operates.

[ElNono]

Bullshit.

You have no business sense.

If you did, you would acknowledge that some, at a minimum, would become costs saving to the costumers. But to ignore the competitive forces...

You are either intentionally misleading people, or ignorant to how business operates.

All of a sudden only you know how a capitalist business operates?

Corporations have a fiduciary duty with their shareholders. Anything they do, including reducing prices to competitive levels if they're too high, is tied to the duty they have to increase profits to satisfy their shareholders.

The only exception are profit-neutral endeavors, but that's not what we're talking about here. These are all for-profit corporations.

[Duff McCartney]

Here's a telling sign..

Percent of GDP spent on health care..

Japan 8%
UK 8.3%
Germany 10.7%
Switzerland 11.6%
U.S. 15.3%

Life Expectancy

Japan 82 YO
UK 79 YO
Germany 79 YO
Switzerland 81 YO
U.S. 77 YO

Infant Mortality per 1000

Japan 2.8
UK 5.1
Germany 3.9
Switzerland 4.2
U.S. 6.8

All these countries have universal health coverage. I think the two things we need to have is preventative care, and the government sets the price on basic care and prescription drugs.

[Blake]

Questions are too hard for you huh?

He went Godwin's Law on the 1st page of a health care thread.....

and based on his past posting history, I'm going to go with yes.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's a telling sign..

Percent of GDP spent on health care..

Japan 8%
UK 8.3%
Germany 10.7%
Switzerland 11.6%
U.S. 15.3%

Life Expectancy

Japan 82 YO
UK 79 YO
Germany 79 YO
Switzerland 81 YO
U.S. 77 YO

Infant Mortality per 1000

Japan 2.8
UK 5.1
Germany 3.9
Switzerland 4.2
U.S. 6.8

All these countries have universal health coverage. I think the two things we need to have is preventative care, and the government sets the price on basic care and prescription drugs.
What do those figures look like when you take out the cost of litigation, and protection from litigation for each country? Without seeing these costs per country, your numbers are meaningless.

As for mortality rates, that has more to do with the diets and personal exercise habits of the people. Drug users too. How many of these births in the US are from crank-head or meth-head mothers vs. other nations? Don't forget, we have the highest automobile death rates which are also most likely factored into the numbers. Then GDP is also not a proper way to look at it either. It should be equivalent dollars per capita.

[Wild Cobra]

Anything they do, including reducing prices to competitive levels if they're too high, is tied to the duty they have to increase profits to satisfy their shareholders.

OK, I'm wrong. You do understand. That was my point. Competition.

Now tell me. Do you think that they won't reduce prices to compete with their competition?

[MiamiHeat]

What do those figures look like when you take out the cost of litigation, and protection from litigation for each country? Without seeing these costs per country, your numbers are meaningless.

As for mortality rates, that has more to do with the diets and personal exercise habits of the people. Drug users too. How many of these births in the US are from crank-head or meth-head mothers vs. other nations? Don't forget, we have the highest automobile death rates which are also most likely factored into the numbers. Then GDP is also not a proper way to look at it either. It should be equivalent dollars per capita.

Litigation costs and 'defensive medicine' only costs less than 5 billion in the US. That's less than half of one percent of the industry costs, which is in the trillions.

Stop using republican talking points. Litigation is not as important as you make it out to be

[MiamiHeat]

OK, I'm wrong. You do understand. That was my point. Competition.

Now tell me. Do you think that they won't reduce prices to compete with their competition?

WHAT competition?

This is NOT the same as a fast food business, making leather jackets, selling wal-mart some blue jeans.

To start a legitimate health insurance company, you are mandated to have a huge company treasury, in the hundreds of millions.

It is too big an endeavor to expect competition because only select few exist

[ElNono]

OK, I'm wrong. You do understand. That was my point. Competition.

Now tell me. Do you think that they won't reduce prices to compete with their competition?

Sure they will. But the competition has the exact same for-profit overhead and fiduciary duty to their shareholders. All competing companies have to show year after year that their profits incease and that they give better returns to their shareholders. That's what Wall Street analysts push for. If they're keeping competitive prices, the cuts have to come somewhere else, like poor service, claim denial, etc.

[MiamiHeat]

Sure they will. But the competition has the exact same for-profit overhead and fiduciary duty to their shareholders. All competing companies have to show year after year that their profits incease and that they give better returns to their shareholders. That's what Wall Street analysts push for. If they're keeping competitive prices, the cuts have to come somewhere else, like poor service, claim denial, etc.

:toast

exactly. it's a huge conflict of interest to have private, for profit corporations running the country's health care system.

[spursncowboys]

Here's a telling sign..

Percent of GDP spent on health care..

Japan 8%
UK 8.3%
Germany 10.7%
Switzerland 11.6%
U.S. 15.3%

Life Expectancy

Japan 82 YO
UK 79 YO
Germany 79 YO
Switzerland 81 YO
U.S. 77 YO

Infant Mortality per 1000

Japan 2.8
UK 5.1
Germany 3.9
Switzerland 4.2
U.S. 6.8

All these countries have universal health coverage. I think the two things we need to have is preventative care, and the government sets the price on basic care and prescription drugs.
1. None of these countries have 350 mil + with porious borders.

2. These countries benefit from all the innovative medicine and medical equipment that are usually funded, and designed in America or by American firms.

3. The best hospitals and doctors are in America.

4. UK's healthcare system is a nightmare.

[MiamiHeat]

3. The best hospitals and doctors are in America.



For those who can afford it.

[Duff McCartney]

1. None of these countries have 350 mil + with porious borders.

2. These countries benefit from all the innovative medicine and medical equipment that are usually funded, and designed in America or by American firms.

3. The best hospitals and doctors are in America.

4. UK's healthcare system is a nightmare.

Many drug companies are based in Europe. The U.S. 350 mil means absolutely nothing..and the countries in Europe do have porous borders. The EU has ensured that any European citizen can easily travel within countries in Europe.

The best hospitals and doctors are in America? What are you basing that off of? Pulling it out of your ass? If they did have the best doctors and hospitals, we wouldn't be ranked 37th in the WHO rankings behind Costa Rica and ahead of Slovenia.

UK healthcare system a nightmare? Yeah right...and ours isn't? Again what are you basing it off of? When Blair was in office he introduced a few privatization mechanisms to the NHS and people protested against it. They don't want a health care like the United states..nobody does. Not even the United States.

[Duff McCartney]

Then GDP is also not a proper way to look at it either. It should be equivalent dollars per capita.

Again...the U.S. ranks first in per capita spending for healthcare. And again it doesn't have universal coverage.


The Commonwealth Fund, in its annual survey, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall", compares the performance of the health care systems in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the U.S. Its 2007 study found that, although the U.S. system is the most expensive, it consistently underperforms compared to the other countries. A major difference between the U.S. and the other countries in the study is that the U.S. is the only country without universal health care.

[MiamiHeat]

It's a fucking disgrace that the USA is being used to suck americans dry.

All across the board, in every fucking field, americans are taking it up the ass.

Financial areas, banking, credit = americans take it up the ass, used to reap $$$

Health care = americans take it up the ass, used to reap $$$

Job benefits, frozen wages since 1963, higher cost of living = take it up the ass, reap $$

national debt, taxes = american taxpayer takes it up the ass

CEO's receiving bonuses and salaries in the hundreds of millions while workers get laid off and make pennies by comparison = take it up the ass, you are used to make $$$$


it's fucking sad how this country has been bought and sold.


I just want to see Obama declare a huge, radical shift in business practices in america when it concerns the health care industry.

[Duff McCartney]

It's a fucking disgrace that the USA is being used to suck americans dry.

All across the board, in every fucking field, americans are taking it up the ass.

Financial areas, banking, credit = americans take it up the ass, used to reap $$$

Health care = americans take it up the ass, used to reap $$$

Job benefits, frozen wages since 1963, higher cost of living = take it up the ass, reap $$

national debt, taxes = american taxpayer takes it up the ass

CEO's receiving bonuses and salaries in the hundreds of millions while workers get laid off and make pennies by comparison = take it up the ass, you are used to make $$$$


it's fucking sad how this country has been bought and sold.


I just want to see Obama declare a huge, radical shift in business practices in america when it concerns the health care industry.

That's been happening forever. Like they say in Platoon, "Everybody know the poor always being fucked over by the rich. Always have, always will."

[SouthernFried]

Unfuckingbelievable.

Too many idiots don't understand how free markets work, and despise them all in the same breath.

This is what Free Markets do...

In England and France...where there is socialized "universal" care, the average wait time for a Knee replacement is 2-3 YEARS.

In the US, with a more free market...the average wait time for a Knee replacement is 2-3 WEEKS.

This is what Free Markets do. It makes things BETTER.

And yes...even for the poor.

Everyone is treated like the poor in England and France...lol

[ElNono]

Unfuckingbelievable.

Too many idiots don't understand how free markets work, and despise them all in the same breath.

This is what Free Markets do...

In England and France...where there is socialized "universal" care, the average wait time for a Knee replacement is 2-3 YEARS.

In the US, with a more free market...the average wait time for a Knee replacement is 2-3 WEEKS.

This is what Free Markets do. It makes things BETTER.

And yes...even for the poor.

Everyone is treated like the poor in England and France...lol

What you forgot to mention is that if you can afford it, you can always buy private insurance (at least in France, where private insurance is alive and well) and shortcut those times.

I know. My father is 80 years old, and has titanium replacement on both knees. He pays U$S 30/month for a family plan, provided by the British Hospital (http://www.hospitalbritanico.org.ar/web/en/about-us/mision-and-vision/english-speaking-community/patronage-of-h-r-h-elizabeth-ii). His wait time? 4 weeks. He did have to pay U$S 1000 for each prosthesis. But the surgery and post-op where all covered.

And he isn't in England or France... he's in a third world country.

So, anecdotes are all fine and dandy. But they're just that. The reality is that for people that CANNOT afford it, over there they eventually can have a solution without going bankrupt. Over here? If you can't afford it, then forget about walking... or save enough money to go do it over there...

[boutons_deux]

SF: "Free Markets"

:lol

Markets concentrated into 3 or fewer suppliers per area(state) are not free. They are non-competitive cartels, and the vast majority of their revenues are from employer group plans where the customer doesn't choose his plan, his employer chooses. And if the employer offers any choice of group plans, the choice is only those insurance companies in the employer's state.

The solution to patients covering the 20% excessive overheads (beyond the 5% overhead of medicare) is offer Medicare as a public insurance option.

This will allow all people to have cheaper insurance and access to care, saving 10s of 1000s of lives (8000 babies/year?), and $Bs in care-too-late to currently uninsured patients.

For profit-insurance companies will be forced to shrink to "top up" insurance for people who have the public option but can afford to pay insurance for non-Medicare-covered expenses (similar to HSA and FSA).

The Repug lie of allowing insurance companies to cross state lines as a means to reduce costs will cause the companies to choose the states where the terms are WORST for the patients, just like credit card companies locate in states with the WORST/usurious interest/penalty rates. As always, Repugs are business-friendly and consumer/citizen-unfriendly, behind smokescreens of "free market", "freedom", etc, etc.

Selling health insurance across state lines also undercuts/neuters state insurance regulators, another Repug goal (no govt regulation = promote the corps = fuck the citizen), where business-friendly Repug policies screw over the customer by removing regulatory protection of the customer in his adversarial battle with insurance companies.

[SouthernFried]

What you forgot to mention is that if you can afford it, you can always buy private insurance (at least in France, where private insurance is alive and well) and shortcut those times.

I know. My father is 80 years old, and has titanium replacement on both knees. He pays U$S 30/month for a family plan, provided by the British Hospital (http://www.hospitalbritanico.org.ar/web/en/about-us/mision-and-vision/english-speaking-community/patronage-of-h-r-h-elizabeth-ii). His wait time? 4 weeks. He did have to pay U$S 1000 for each prosthesis. But the surgery and post-op where all covered.

And he isn't in England or France... he's in a third world country.

So, anecdotes are all fine and dandy. But they're just that. The reality is that for people that CANNOT afford it, over there they eventually can have a solution without going bankrupt. Over here? If you can't afford it, then forget about walking... or save enough money to go do it over there...

Since you gave an anecdote...then demeaned anecdotes...I'll give you one. Then I'll demean them after.

I was born and Raised in England. My family lives there. My grandmother died of skin cancer that is treated like an outpatient service in the US. Skin cancer is one of the most cureable cancers in the US. Because she was over 75...they didn't even try to cure it. They gave her morphine derivitives to deal with the pain.

I have an uncle who needed knee replacement surgery (which is why I used that example above)...he was on a waiting list of 26 months.

We brought him to the US and he got his knee replaced in 2 weeks, then went through 2 months of PT here.

I have uncles, cousins, freinds of the family, etc...all have horror stories of long waits and terrible service. I could go on all day here. Needless to say...every one of them warns all of us "across the pond"...DO NOT GO THERE! Stay away from socialized medicine.

They do say they love the fact that the department will send nurses over daily to see how your doing...lol

nice touch.

And you can keep it.

Of course...this is all anectdotal...means nothing. I'm sure govt run healthcare is just great.

...and it's free, right?

SIG

[ElNono]

Since you gave an anecdote...then demeaned anecdotes...I'll give you one. Then I'll demean them after.

I was born and Raised in England. My family lives there. My grandmother died of skin cancer that is treated like an outpatient service in the US. Skin cancer is one of the most cureable cancers in the US. Because she was over 75...they didn't even try to cure it. They gave her morphine derivitives to deal with the pain.

I have an uncle who needed knee replacement surgery (which is why I used that example above)...he was on a waiting list of 26 months.

We brought him to the US and he got his knee replaced in 2 weeks, then went through 2 months of PT here.

I have uncles, cousins, freinds of the family, etc...all have horror stories of long waits and terrible service. I could go on all day here. Needless to say...every one of them warns all of us "across the pond"...DO NOT GO THERE! Stay away from socialized medicine.

They do say they love the fact that the department will send nurses over daily to see how your doing...lol

nice touch.

And you can keep it.

Of course...this is all anectdotal...means nothing. I'm sure govt run healthcare is just great.

...and it's free, right?

SIG

I'm glad you could afford taking care of your uncle. I'm sure it wasn't cheap, but that's exactly what the business of healthcare is, isn't it?. Praying on the desperate.
Ultimately, that's exactly what's this about. If you have the means, then there's nothing stopping you for seeking the best possible treatment. And that's what I mean by anecdotal.
There's a lot less fortunate people that would be pretty excited to be on a waiting list for knee replacement, because right now they simply cannot afford it, and there's no list they can be in.
I personally went through the experience of not being able to afford certain treatment. Insurance simply used a loophole to deny coverage. It would have been awesome to know that, even if I waited, I would have received the treatment. I was fortunate enough to have family in another country where they researched for me, gave me and my wife a place to stay, and received the exact same treatment at a fraction of the cost, even though I paid out of pocket and including plane tickets.
I really don't wish anybody to feel the way we did back then. And I know there's a lot of people that are not as fortunate as we are to have an affordable alternative somewhere else.

I'm not a proponent of public option only. I want a mixed system. If you want and can afford better treatment, then by all means I think you should.
But there's no safety net for those that can't right now. And I personally think that's very wrong.

[SouthernFried]

I'm glad you could afford taking care of your uncle. I'm sure it wasn't cheap, but that's exactly what the business of healthcare is, isn't it?. Praying on the desperate.
Ultimately, that's exactly what's this about. If you have the means, then there's nothing stopping you for seeking the best possible treatment. And that's what I mean by anecdotal.
There's a lot less fortunate people that would be pretty excited to be on a waiting list for knee replacement, because right now they simply cannot afford it, and there's no list they can be in.
I personally went through the experience of not being able to afford certain treatment. Insurance simply used a loophole to deny coverage. It would have been awesome to know that, even if I waited, I would have received the treatment. I was fortunate enough to have family in another country where they researched for me, gave me and my wife a place to stay, and received the exact same treatment at a fraction of the cost, even though I paid out of pocket and including plane tickets.
I really don't wish anybody to feel the way we did back then. And I know there's a lot of people that are not as fortunate as we are to have an affordable alternative somewhere else.

I'm not a proponent of public option only. I want a mixed system. If you want and can afford better treatment, then by all means I think you should.
But there's no safety net for those that can't right now. And I personally think that's very wrong.

You keep giving anecdotal stuff...lol.

Ok, then.

What does it matter what it costs...if you can't get it? You can offer free healthcare all you want, but will you get the treatment?

I'll give you another anecdote, just to keep up.

My mother was diagnosed with Shingles while she was in England taking care of her mother. It aggravated her Emphysema. They sent a nurse around every day to give her oxygen. Very nice of them. She saw a doctor once, and he recommended the nurse come around with Oxygen once a day. They don't offer the wide array of drugs to increase lung functions we have in the US. She liked having the nurse there every day tho. She passed away not long after her mother did.

Did you know that you have to be Licensed by the Department of Health and Safety to be a Pall bearer in England?

I didn't know that.

There isn't one person I know of, in all of my extended family, who thinks Englands health care is better than the US's. Not one.

They love England, they love the Queen. They absolutely hate what England has become. Basically a third world country, who's biggest source of income...is tourism. People coming by to see what England used to be.

This is what socialism does. It destroys. It saps productivity, industry...and it's biggest attribute is not sharing the wealth, but sharing the misery.

Anyone who thinks govt should run healthcare, or provide a "public" option...is out of their fucking minds. You may think your getting something for free, but what really is happening is your destroying whatever chance for a better life for children.

If you don't have children, and really don't care about a future, and want something right now for yourself, then you support this abomination.

If you have children, look to England and France. Look fucking closely, it's not a pretty sight...and that is what your trying to give them.

America was created to be something better.

[Oh, Gee!!]

miamiheat is a mouse alter-ego, so take his political advice with a grain of salt

[MiamiHeat]

miamiheat is a mouse alter-ego, so take his political advice with a grain of salt

no, I am a legitimate poster on this forum. I don't live anywhere near mouse

I am getting tired of people accusing me of being someone else.

I have been posting here for 2 years now, get with the program.

and lastly

it doesn't matter if MC Hammer himself comes out of retirement and gives political advice.

If the advice is good, it's good, no matter who says it

[ElNono]

You keep giving anecdotal stuff...lol.

Ok, then.

What does it matter what it costs...if you can't get it? You can offer free healthcare all you want, but will you get the treatment?

I'll give you another anecdote, just to keep up.

My mother was diagnosed with Shingles while she was in England taking care of her mother. It aggravated her Emphysema. They sent a nurse around every day to give her oxygen. Very nice of them. She saw a doctor once, and he recommended the nurse come around with Oxygen once a day. They don't offer the wide array of drugs to increase lung functions we have in the US. She liked having the nurse there every day tho. She passed away not long after her mother did.

Did you know that you have to be Licensed by the Department of Health and Safety to be a Pall bearer in England?

I didn't know that.

There isn't one person I know of, in all of my extended family, who thinks Englands health care is better than the US's. Not one.

They love England, they love the Queen. They absolutely hate what England has become. Basically a third world country, who's biggest source of income...is tourism. People coming by to see what England used to be.

This is what socialism does. It destroys. It saps productivity, industry...and it's biggest attribute is not sharing the wealth, but sharing the misery.

Anyone who thinks govt should run healthcare, or provide a "public" option...is out of their fucking minds. You may think your getting something for free, but what really is happening is your destroying whatever chance for a better life for children.

If you don't have children, and really don't care about a future, and want something right now for yourself, then you support this abomination.

If you have children, look to England and France. Look fucking closely, it's not a pretty sight...and that is what your trying to give them.

America was created to be something better.

For every anecdote you give me, I can give you one back. That's why it's fairly irrelevant. There's also the fact that the US doesn't have to adopt the UK system. They can just as easily adopt a mixed system like Japan, France or Italy.

You don't have to tell me what third world country healthcare looks like. I was born and lived in a third world country half of my life. When your options are third world healthcare or no healthcare at all, then third world healthcare looks incredibly good, even with all of it's shortcomings.

You also fail to say what is that 'something better' that America is supposed to be. What is it? One of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world? Top notch medicine for the wealthy?

[boutons_deux]

"govt should run healthcare"

You Lie. But that's the primary tactic You People use.

England (like Italy and other Mediterranean countries) is very, very bad in systemic thinking and execution.

Saying England's govt-run health care (hospitals, nurses, doctors are govt employees in a huge bureaucracy with England's bloody-minded approach to unions (ie, class warfare)) is what will happen to USA if the US govt offers (ONLY!) a government/public insurance option (all hospitals, nurses, doctors remain private employees, UNCHANGED) is an OUTRIGHT LIE, PURE DISINFORMATION.

You Lie. But that's the primary tactic You People use.

btw, self-inflicted disease (and medical costs) from bad food, overweight, obesity, unfitness in England are nearly as bad as USA, (and let's not even mention the disastrous Scots). There, both countries are the Biggest Losers.

[Wild Cobra]

Litigation costs and 'defensive medicine' only costs less than 5 billion in the US. That's less than half of one percent of the industry costs, which is in the trillions.

I don't believe that figure. If I'm wrong, then fine. However, the problem is not the health insurance providers either. They have a 75%+ efficiency of returning the dollars they collect to medical professionals. Do you really think the government can do better?

What about regulations. Have a number of how much our regulations cause more cost for the services than in other countries?

[boutons_deux]

"I don't believe that figure. If I'm wrong, then fine"

Of course you don't. Facts contradict fatally your ideology, and that's fine.

"They have a 75%+ efficiency of returning the dollars they collect to medical professionals."

iow, 20% - 30% of revenue is lost to private insurer's overheads (mega salaries, shareholder dividends, profits, bureaucracy)

"Do you really think the government can do better?"

Medicare, Medicaid have 5% overheads. VA is probably down there, too.

That's why Repugs had to give $50B subsidy to private insurers to entice them into Medicare Advantage and into competing with much more efficient Medicare.

Ideology makes Stupid.

[Wild Cobra]

"I don't believe that figure. If I'm wrong, then fine"

Of course you don't. Facts contradict fatally your ideology, and that's fine.

"They have a 75%+ efficiency of returning the dollars they collect to medical professionals."

iow, 20% - 30% of revenue is lost to private insurer's overheads (mega salaries, shareholder dividends, profits, bureaucracy)

"Do you really think the government can do better?"

Medicare, Medicaid have 5% overheads. VA is probably down there, too.

That's why Repugs had to give $50B subsidy to private insurers to entice them into Medicare Advantage and into competing with much more efficient Medicare.

Ideology makes Stupid.
25% or less by health care corporation is money that doesn't make it to the doctors and hospitals. 25% is about the poorest performance I say when looking. Somewhere around 9% is profits, somewhere around 7% taxes. That leaves somewhere around 9% or less in wages, utilities, leases, advertising, etc.

Medicare may only have a 5% overhead, but the lack of accountability causes a large amount lost in fraud. Funny how the government wants to take over the health care industry, but I wonder if they ever consider their losses in tax revenues from taxing the corporations, dividends, and capitol gains.

Be a Socialist/Marxist if you wish but leave me out. Move to Canada, Germany, England, etc. if you don't like what America offers. I believe in a smaller government and a free nation. Not you ideals of Corporatism.

[Duff McCartney]

I believe in a smaller government and a free nation.

Good then I think we should slash the defense budget in half. Smaller government.

Regarding British healthcare it's not perfect. Nobody here is arguing that the healthcare system in any country is perfect, but they still make it work. I think we should have a German system of healthcare where people who decide not to have public health care don't have to.

Britain has introduced reforms in the past ten years to reduce the waiting times on elected procedures. Even the most outspoken UK politicians against socialized medicine would NEVER dream of doing away of NHS. Hell even when they introduced some free market reforms for the NHS, people were protesting in the streets against it!

You may say that the healthcare is terrible and blah blah, but the numbers don't lie and the rankings don't lie. It's no coincidence that many European nations consistently are ranked near the top of health rankings in the world.

As far as waiting for an elective procedure the wait time may have been a year or two previously, but the reforms that the British have implemented have reduced them to 3 months maybe less than that. Besides I'd rather wait the three months than be here in the U.S. and have the procedure tomorrow and go bankrupt because I can't pay the bills.

[spursncowboys]

Good then I think we should slash the defense budget in half. Smaller government.

Regarding British healthcare it's not perfect. Nobody here is arguing that the healthcare system in any country is perfect, but they still make it work. I think we should have a German system of healthcare where people who decide not to have public health care don't have to.

Britain has introduced reforms in the past ten years to reduce the waiting times on elected procedures. Even the most outspoken UK politicians against socialized medicine would NEVER dream of doing away of NHS. Hell even when they introduced some free market reforms for the NHS, people were protesting in the streets against it!

You may say that the healthcare is terrible and blah blah, but the numbers don't lie and the rankings don't lie. It's no coincidence that many European nations consistently are ranked near the top of health rankings in the world.

As far as waiting for an elective procedure the wait time may have been a year or two previously, but the reforms that the British have implemented have reduced them to 3 months maybe less than that. Besides I'd rather wait the three months than be here in the U.S. and have the procedure tomorrow and go bankrupt because I can't pay the bills.

How was Brittian able to have socialized medicine?
It was through America's Marshall plan. Since its inception it has never worked the way it was designed, planned or explained.

[ElNono]

How was Brittian able to have socialized medicine?

The British rolled out their healthcare system right from the ashes of World War II. It was arguably one of the most delicate times in that country's history. And they made it work. You could argue all you want about how effective or not it has been over time, but Duff is right that at this point nobody in their right mind is proposing doing away with it.

[spursncowboys]

The British rolled out their healthcare system right from the ashes of World War II. It was arguably one of the most delicate times in that country's history. And they made it work. You could argue all you want about how effective or not it has been over time, but Duff is right that at this point nobody in their right mind is proposing doing away with it.

But how did they bankroll it? Of course no politician can get rid of it. Someone else is paying for them to have free healthcare. Why are the dems ok with all their people losing elections? They know this will win them elections once people start becoming slaves to the state, errr I mean being helped by the state.

[Duff McCartney]

But how did they bankroll it? Of course no politician can get rid of it. Someone else is paying for them to have free healthcare. Why are the dems ok with all their people losing elections? They know this will win them elections once people start becoming slaves to the state, errr I mean being helped by the state.

What does it matter how they started it? They have it. It's irrelevant how it got started. I know how it is paid for..with taxes.

Nobody is becoming a slave to the state. Don't be stupid and start spouting off ad hominem statements that make no sense.

[spursncowboys]

What does it matter how they started it? They have it. It's irrelevant how it got started. I know how it is paid for..with taxes.

Nobody is becoming a slave to the state. Don't be stupid and start spouting off ad hominem statements that make no sense.

It matters because it got started from America. We started it. Has it ever been paid for??? No. It has not. Also the quality of it has done nothing but decline.
However are you saying America should mimic the UK health system or is this just a the have it, so I will build it up argument?

[Duff McCartney]

It matters because it got started from America. We started it. Has it ever been paid for??? No. It has not. Also the quality of it has done nothing but decline.
However are you saying America should mimic the UK health system or is this just a the have it, so I will build it up argument?

It didn't get started from America. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Besides what difference does it make? How is that relevant to the topic? Has it ever been paid for? What do you mean has it ever been paid for? You mean have they repaid their loans? I don't know.

The quality has done nothing but decline? Once again I ask where you are getting your information. As per usual I guess you're just pulling it out of your ass. Just making general statements that have no weight behind them.

[ElNono]

But how did they bankroll it?

What does that matter? Do you see the Chinese coming over and telling you how to run the wars they are and have been bankrolling?

Would you actually be OK with that? They're bankrolling our growing debt after all...


Of course no politician can get rid of it. Someone else is paying for them to have free healthcare. Why are the dems ok with all their people losing elections? They know this will win them elections once people start becoming slaves to the state, errr I mean being helped by the state.

You got the story wrong. There have been politicians waving the flag of partially privatizing it and making it more like the American system (something mentioned in this thread). The people do not want that. Even with the drawbacks, they rather keep the system they have. And they've taken to the street so politicians get the message loud and clear.

And please. The Brits are first in line whenever we start some stupid war somewhere. You simply cannot say that the US-UK partnership is a one way street.

[boutons_deux]

Ask any NHS-hating Brit if they'd swap NHS for the US health care fiasco. That poll has been done. Guess what they said? :)

Private insurance exists in parallel with national health systems. EVERYBODY pays from payroll directly into the national health insurance.

For those that are richer and better than the rest of us, they can buy private insurance and get treated by private docs in private hospitals and clinics.

[Wild Cobra]

Good then I think we should slash the defense budget in half. Smaller government.

If you want to cut the military budget, then why don't you propose drafting people into the military that are in social programs for extended periods. Make use of them instead of making them a drain ion the system.

please remember. A military is authorized by constitution. Social programs aren't.

[boutons_deux]

"the government wants to take over the health care industry"

You Lie

[Wild Cobra]

"the government wants to take over the health care industry"

You Lie
Every bill congress has debated on has had provisions that would decimate the private health care system. We have talked about these. Sorry you are too stupid to make such connection.

[Duff McCartney]

If you want to cut the military budget, then why don't you propose drafting people into the military that are in social programs for extended periods. Make use of them instead of making them a drain ion the system.

please remember. A military is authorized by constitution. Social programs aren't.

I think the military is a drain on the system. Not that people in the military are bad but our defense budget is more than the entire worlds combined! That's a joke. What's even more of a joke is the wars we are fighting in are against countries that can barely provide running water.

How would drafting people cut the military budget? It would add more to it. I know a military is authorized by the constitution but nowhere does it say we have to spend over 500 billion dollars on it.

[Wild Cobra]

How would drafting people cut the military budget? It would add more to it. I know a military is authorized by the constitution but nowhere does it say we have to spend over 500 billion dollars on it.
Fine.

Want to cut it, cut all costs first that are not authorized by constitution.

Then we can talk about the military budget.

If you want to save government expenditures, look other places first.

[ElNono]

Want to cut it, cut all costs first that are not authorized by constitution.

What costs are not authorized by the Constitution, considering the Constitution grants arbitrary budgetary power to Congress?

[boutons_deux]

"provisions that would decimate the private health care system"

You Lie.

Mandated health care, subsidized by taxpayers for those who can't pay all their share, with no public option, forces 10 of millions of new clients into the maw of the for-profit insurance industry. That's the very reason why the insurance cos are supporting the bill, and why their stocks skyrocketed when that provision was added and public option was killed.

A public option would save America trillions that now got to for-profit insurers. They will be smaller (that's the cost savings), but just like in all countries with national health systems, they could still exist.

[Duff McCartney]

Fine.

Want to cut it, cut all costs first that are not authorized by constitution.

Then we can talk about the military budget.

If you want to save government expenditures, look other places first.

I am..I'd cut out Social Security too. As well as DHS...that's a big waste of money if I ever saw one. And the military could do with lots of cuts as well.

Bottom line, those who say the universal health coverage would be too expensive are the same people who want an increase in military spending. If other developed countries spend less of the GDP and less per capita on health care than the U.S. does, with far superior healthcare it really less something about the fucked priorities of this country.