Compulsory Medical Insurance
One of the things that many may not realise around Obama’s Healthcare Reform, is that it does not in fact create a public health system. To increase health insurance coverage, it has made it illegal not to have health insurance, with limited exceptions such as hardship or religious belief.
If a Republican President had tried to make private health insurance compulsory, I suspect the left would have decried the reform, instead of supported it. And i guess the right would have supported it, instead of opposed it.
13 states have filed lawsuits claiming it is unconstitutional to force people to take our private health insurance. I suspect this issue will get to the Supreme Court, and you do have to think there is a reasonable chance that may breach the Bill of Rights.
What I find ironic, is that Obama’s reforms have now made the US system almost the polar opposite of the Canadian system.
You see in Canada, it is illegal in some provinces to even have private health insurance. And federally there are laws that forbid hospitals from charging private rates (even if a private clinic).
So effectively in Canada it is illegal to have private health insurance, and now in the US it will effectively be illegal NOT to have private health insurance.
March 25th, 2010 at 2:25 am
The left were certainly decrying it – such was the tension within the Democratic party, liberal activists were attempting to launch ads attacking conservative democrats on the basis of their lack of support for a public option. Rahm Emmanual called them a bunch of retards, and the democrat right won out.
Let’s not forget the immense consensus Obama had to attain to push this bill through.
March 25th, 2010 at 2:48 am
You still have that tendency to just make stuff up don’t you David, Canada for exaple.
Canada
Main article: Health care in Canada
In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited extra billing by doctors on patients while at the same time billing the public insurance system. In 1999, the prime minister and most premiers reaffirmed in the Social Union Framework Agreement that they are committed to health care that has “comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility.”[7]
The system is for the most part publicly funded, yet most of the services are provided by private enterprises or private corporations, although most hospitals are public. Most doctors do not receive an annual salary, but receive a fee per visit or service.[8] About 29% of Canadians’ health care is paid for by the private sector or individuals.[9] This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare such as prescription drugs, dentistry and vision care.[10] Many Canadians have private health insurance, often through their employers, that cover these expenses.[11]
The Canada Health Act of 1984 “does not directly bar private delivery or private insurance for publicly insured services,” but provides financial disincentives for doing so. “Although there are laws prohibiting or curtailing private health care in some provinces, they can be changed,” according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine.[12][13] The legality of the ban was considered in a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which ruled in Chaoulli v. Quebec that “the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance, while it might be constitutional in circumstances where health care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness, is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services.” The appellant contended that waiting times in Quebec violated a right to life and security in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The Court agreed, but acknowledged the importance and validity of the Canada Health Act, and at least four of the seven judges explicitly recognized the right of governments to enact laws and policies which favour the public over the private system and preserve the integrity of the public system.
Colombia”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care#Canada
I’ll not hold my breath awaiting a retraction.
March 25th, 2010 at 5:04 am
David said: “You see in Canada, it is illegal in some provinces to even have private health insurance.”
Your quote says: “Although there are laws prohibiting or curtailing private health care in some provinces, they can be changed”
What’s to retract?
Canadian friends of mine have certainly told me they cant get private insurance or care in Canada, and I’m always inclined to believe actual people over wikipedia.
March 25th, 2010 at 7:56 am
Yes, you now have to have health insurance in the US. But the fine for not having it is $760. It’s much cheaper to not have insurance than to have it. And also now insurance companies cannot decline for pre-existing conditions. So anyone with half a brain will not get insurance until they get sick.
See how that works? Only sick people will be paying insurance premiums, and these will skyrocket.
Love those smart thinking Democrats.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:13 am
From recent coverage, I believe you’re missing the important words “for children”.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:15 am
Perhaps not.
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/11075.htm
Critics of Obamacare are now upping the ante, claiming that its basic outlines are not just unwise but unconstitutional. I’m no healthcare expert, but I have spent the last three decades studying the Constitution, and the current plan easily passes constitutional muster.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:15 am
Actually, I believe I’m not. But I’m happy to go back and look again.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:16 am
Would love to see the actuarial matrix for health complications arising from Clinical Obesity in so many Americans.
The main effect of this legislation will be the departure of most Health Insurers from the marketplace immediately, followed by the rest unable to make any money who will just go bust.
Got to love those smart Kenyans. Barry O’Bummer the President who will be know as the biggest charlatan in modern history.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:17 am
“See how that works? Only sick people will be paying insurance premiums, and these will skyrocket.”
Which will bankrupt the insurance providers, which will allow the Dems to take over the entire health industry, which was the objective all along.
JC
March 25th, 2010 at 8:20 am
Sounds like this whole health care system is heading for FUBAR.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Assuming your quote from Wikipedia is an accurate summary of the complex Canadian situation, sonic, I can’t see that DPF’s contentions are inconsistent with it. So why you should expect a retraction from him is a mystery. It would be more appropriate for you to apologise to DPF for accusing him of deliberate dishonesty.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:24 am
What really amazes me is that the bill was 2800 pages and I gather that few, if any, law makers from congress or the senate actually read it. Even Obama did not seem to know exactly what was in it.
How many laws in NZ are passed by MPs who have not even read them? (Based on the years from 2000-2008 I’m thinking quite a few!)
March 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
Sonic you retard, the Wikipedia passage you quote actually supports DPF’s statement. I’ll not hold my breath awaiting your retraction…
March 25th, 2010 at 8:38 am
Health & HMO Insurance Index
http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=AMBUH
Quote Details
Previous close 1,024.69
Open 1,024.69
Day high 1,027.75
Day low 1,016.68
Today’s volume 6,884,460
Average daily volume (3 months) 12,172,637
Average P/E –
1 year change +71.22%
Data as of 3:06pm ET, 03/24/2010
March 25th, 2010 at 8:41 am
DPF: “I suspect this issue will get to the Supreme Court, and you do have to think there is a reasonable chance that may breach the Bill of Rights.”
Or not. There is no right to not have to have health insurance … even the “penumbra” of “unenumerated rights” don’t stretch that far! The states will instead claim that the federal government’s actions breach the distribution of powers (i.e. it is trying to do something that the constitution doesn’t allow it to do – healthcare is a state-by-state issue, not a central federal government one). Which is part of a broader “states rights” movement in the USA – see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/17states.html?scp=1&sq=states%20rights&st=cse.
As for “You see in Canada, it is illegal in some provinces to even have private health insurance. And federally there are laws that forbid hospitals from charging private rates (even if a private clinic)” … this is sort of right. Quebec had a ban on buying health insurance to cover procedures that were offered by the public system (to stop queue jumping and the drain of health professionals from the public to private sector). However, in 2005 this law was struck down by the Canadian Supreme Court (see http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/2005scc035decision.html).
The all-knowing Wikipedia also says this: “About 30% of Canadians’ health care is paid for through the private sector. This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare, such as prescription drugs, dentistry and optometry. Some 65% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers. There are also large private entities that can buy priority access to medical services in Canada, such as WCB in BC.”
March 25th, 2010 at 8:43 am
Its only three trillion dollar of other peoples money after all.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:45 am
Sonic is blinded by the truth. Blinded by the reality, and blinded by the consequences of both. DOGMA rules ok?
March 25th, 2010 at 8:46 am
As I read it, plenty of Canadians go to the States to get operations doen privately because back at home they suffer on waiting lists. Just like we do.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:54 am
Brian,
Many of whom are actually funded by the Canadian health system (i.e. taxpayers) because of a shortage of capacity in Canada (i.e. not enough doctors, etc). Which we also see here in NZ (flying cancer patients to Australia for radiography treatment, etc).
However, you need to be careful about what lesson is drawn from this. The US rations on the basis of “who can pay” – if Canadians can pay in the US (due to public funding), then they get treatment there at the expense of potential US patients who can’t pay. If the US was treating everyone who needs treatment (like the Canadians do), then they may also face the same problems of capacity. So it’s a question of “how does each system ration treatment”, not “Canadian patients’ choices prove the US system is better”.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:54 am
And they pay too Brian, just like we do when we go private.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:57 am
It seems to be quite unclear how the SCOTUS would rule (if a case gets that far) on the constitutionality of the compulsory purchase of Insurance. My comment would be that if it is constitutional, then obviously it must be also acceptable to compel all US citizens to purchase a GM car or be fined. The Commerce clause is broad, but is it really that broad ?
One reason that many states are planning lawsuits is that the bill mandates significant benefits that are to be paid for by the State governments, and most states have enough trouble balancing their budgets without adding huge and uncertain extra liabilities.
Ephemera, “huge consensus” , WTF. With almost every poll published showing a significant majority of the public opposed to the Bill, with every single Republican and 30 or so Democrats voting against, the Bill only passed the House by the time honoured but definitely unconsensus building method of piecing off vulnerable and grasping Congresscritters and flat out threatening or bribing them to vote Yes.
I also note that the Herald on Tuesday went with the transparent fiction that this bill will reduce the US Federal deficit, a sick joke. The Bill’s proponents claim they can find $500 billion in “inefficiencies” (Snork, never yet found a claim of that type that isn’t a flat out lie. The inefficiencies exist, but a public service will double rather than halve those inefficiencies over time), they also include 10 years of additional taxes and imposts with only 6 years of expenses for most parts of the Bill. A more realistic assessment is that this measure will add somewhere between 1 – 3 Trillion to the deficit without additional taxes being levied, over and above the taxes already in the Bill.
I believe that it is likely that this will lead to a very significant shift in the make up of the House and Senate come this November, although how big a shift depends on how well the opposition can organize themselves.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:58 am
Sonic,
You’re a fucking idiot.
Farrar said: You see in Canada, it is illegal in some provinces to even have private health insurance. And federally there are laws that forbid hospitals from charging private rates (even if a private clinic).
Sonic said: there are laws prohibiting or curtailing private health care in some provinces
Perhaps YOU should retract buddy boy, after your sociology class.
March 25th, 2010 at 9:04 am
Graeme, the pre-existing conditions thing kicks in for adults in 2014, and was supposed to kick in for children this year. But there has been a ‘drafting error’ that means it won’t kick in until 2014 as well.
March 25th, 2010 at 9:13 am
This may come as a surprise to you (I imagine many things do) but our entire capitalist system ‘rations’ on this basis – for food, cars, computers, cosmetic treatments, etc.
It’s turned out that ‘rationing’ by price works far better than rationing by prescriptive rules and regulations administered by very smart bureaucrats directed by ever so smart politicians. The latter have led to all sorts of bad results
You’re almost there. Almost, but not quite, and if you have not yet made the connection between government controlled ‘free’ systems and supply shortages, then I guess you never will. As I said – a surprise for you.
March 25th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Tom,
That orthodox praise of the market is very reassuring for an uninsured 30 year old diagnosed with skin cancer in the USA. I’m sure they are very, very happy that rationing through the market is the most efficient practice, that it seamlessly meets demand and leads to optimal outcomes – including their slow and lingering death.
Once again, there is only no “supply shortage” in the USA because a large number of people are excluded from making a claim on the resource because of an inability to pay. But, of course, so long as you ignore them, everything looks perfectly peachy.
March 25th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Democrats: “We need health care reform”
Republicans: “Liberal fascists! Give us a majority and we’ll do it better”
Democrats: “Done, you have majority of both houses”
12 years later, health care is irrefutably worse in every respect for every single person in the United States
Democrats: “We need health care reform”
Republicans: “Liberal fascists! Americans are tired of partisan politics!”
Democrats: “OK, let’s compromise”
Republicans: “OK, get rid of half your ideas”
Democrats: “Done”
Republicans: “Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas”
Democrats: “Done”
Republicans: “Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas”
Democrats: “Done”
Republicans: “Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas”
Democrats: “Done”
Republicans: “Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas”
Democrats: “Done. Time to end debate”
Republicans: “Too liberal, we need more debate, we will filibuster to prevent you from voting”
Democrats: “OK, we’ll vote–sorry guys, debate is ended. It’s time to vote on the bill”
Republicans: “Too liberal, we vote no”
Democrats: “OK, it passed anyway–sorry guys.”
One month later
Republicans: “Wait–wait, OK, we have less of a minority now so we can filibuster forever.”
Democrats: “Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now”
Republicans: “But we have enough to filibuster”
Democrats: “Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now”
Republicans: “Liberal fascists! You haven’t listened to our ideas! You’ve shut us out of this whole process!”
Democrats: “Sorry, show us your proposal”
Republicans: “Smaller government”
Democrats: “That’s not very specific”
Republicans: “OK, here’s our detailed proposal–It’s our common-sense ideas we spent 12 years not enacting”
Democrats: “OK, we’ll add a bunch more of your ideas”
Republicans: “Liberal fascists! You included all these back-room deals”
Democrats: “OK, we’ll get rid of the back-room deals”
Republicans: “Liberal fascists! You’re using obscure procedural tricks to eliminate the back-room deals!”
Democrats: “No, we’re using reconciliation, which both parties have used dozens of times for much larger bills”
Republicans: “Liberal fascists! You’re pressuring Congressmen to vote for your bill! Scandal!”
Democrats: “It’s called ‘whipping’, it’s been done since 1789″
Republicans: “Liberal fascists! Can’t you see the American people don’t want this?”
Democrats: “This bill is mildly unpopular (40-50% support), doing nothing (your proposal) is extraordinarily unpopular (4-6% support)”
Republicans: “We need to start over! We need to start over!”
Democrats: “We should really consider voting–”
Republicans: “Liberal fascists! Start over! Clean slate! Common-sense! America!”
March 25th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Well done Kieran_B, you’ve worked out how to copy and paste
March 25th, 2010 at 10:14 am
AG
I find your sarcasm silly.
Why should a 30 yr old think that the state is going to pay for their treatment anyway?
We don’t have that here do we?
In fact why should we think that everyone else in society is going to pay for all our medical needs?
Is there enough money in the system to do that even?
In a Health Insurance System you get managed by the type of cover you have and its Limits, but you have to have cover.
In Public Health System how is it managed?
By the severity of your condition?
Or is it the likelihood of your recovery and ability thereafter to contribute economically again?
Or by the political use of waiting lists?
Is that what Labour used the waiting lists for in the last 10 yrs?
March 25th, 2010 at 10:50 am
There is a reasonable argument that can be made for a degree of health insurance and healthcare being public goods. Where you stand with regard to this argument will depend upon your perspective, but it’s certainly a valid argument that can be made.
March 25th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Not all medical needs. No need to cover cosmetic surgery, but if you are in an accident, you don’t want the doctors running a credit check before they do something
March 25th, 2010 at 10:58 am
MikeNZ,
So many questions!
Here’s my point in very simple terms. Either you have a healthcare system that is rationed by the patient’s ability to pay, which will deliver all the health services the rich can buy at the expense of those who cannot afford treatment dying. Or you have a healthcare system that rations by some concept of need, which inevitably will result in waiting lists for some treatments but fewer people with treatable illnesses dying.
I prefer the latter. If you prefer the former, then I suggest you form a political party and campaign on that proposal. Then magically leverage your 3.65% of the vote into government policy. Then see if you get reelected.
That’s a nice, simple, empirical test in the marketplace, isn’t it?
March 25th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Considering teh millions of people who could not get any insurance due to there conditions i think that the change is unquestionably for the best. To those that say , oh but the insurance companies will have a hard time now, get a real FFS, health insurance is dam big business, and as we all know, big biso is more powerful than government in this age, what i find to be a very classic illustration of this is how the US government turned around and said that we cant afford to fund the nasa program like we have been and that if its to continue in the ways it has that it will have to be funded privately and i bet you it will be too. Anyway, thats my opinionn to the current situation.
Really though, i believe canada is well and truelly on the money, the cost per person is far less when done by a state system than a public system, ive spoken to a lot of people about the costs for private coverage in other contries and acc is a lot cheaper man, a lot! and especially in teh states, if you dont know already you should to some googling and read the forums/blogs about the cost of insurance in the states.
Unconstitutional, what about compulsery car insurance in countries like australia and germany then?
March 25th, 2010 at 11:48 am
US healthcare wasnt rationed by ability to pay. Anyone who needed emergency care would get it, hospitals arent allowed to turn folk away. Obviously somethings are rationed by, for example, how long you might have to spend in the waiting room.
If you have to be insured for a pre-existing condition, it’s not really insurance is it?
March 25th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
KiwiGreg,
Granted if you show up in ER with a gunshot wound, they have to patch you up then and there irrespective of your credit.
But what if you show up with a malignant melanoma that has spread to your lymph system, and requires extensive surgery and chemotherapy treatment costing some tens-of-thousands of dollars?
March 25th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
But insurance companies apply this to children as well as adults. Its pretty messed up.
The way I look at it 80% of people are better off under one system, 20% on the other (being the top 20%). The answer to me seems simple, you can argue for the 20% but personally I find it unpalitable even if I would be part of that group.
March 25th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Actually I’m trying to get across to you the basic law of supply and demand, which exists whether there is a free market or not. The degree to which you’re willing to try and override or ignore that law determines the degree to which any product or service delivery gets screwed up.
That law applied even in places like the USSR, moving along underneath the patina of “everything is free”, and it can be denied or suppressed for a long time depending on how far you are willing to go to control people’s lives. In your case I’d bet that’s quite far.
Wow – you’re going for the emotive rhetoric this early in the debate.
Your chances of surviving almost any type of cancer are much better in the ‘price rationed’ US system than anywhere else, not just because of a lack of waiting lists for applying a cure (which is why rich people from around the world – often enriched by political connections in socialist crony capitalist societies – constantly fly there to try and get cured.), but also because there are not waiting lists for screening.
But don’t take my word for – talk to the Guardian:
Britain’s population is 1/5 that of the US. I’m not aware of any medically based claims that 50,000 people are needlessly dieing of cancer each year in the US.
You could also create a logon at the Medscape website to see their article Cancer Survival Rates Improving Across Europe, But Still Lagging Behind United States”
March 25th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Oh dead sonic, major fail.
So what made you want to argue that DPF was wrong by proving him right ?
March 25th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Jeff83
So one size must fit all then ? I don’t believe that there are people in NZ who still don’t notice that we already have a two tier health system. Why keep your head in the sand pretending we don’t already have what you think we must not allow to happen?
March 25th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Tom,
And now we get into competing bits of information that we’ve each found on the web, such as this:
http://www.istge.it/fp_acc/index_file/Comparative%20cancer.pdf
“For all cancers combined, 5-year period survival estimates for 2000–2002 were much higher for the American patients monitored by the 14 cancer registries in the SEER programme (66.3% for men and 62.9% for women) than in the 47 European cancer registries included in the EUROCARE period survival analysis (47.3% for men and 55.8% for wo- men).20 The huge difference for men was largely due to the lower incidence of rapidly fatal cancers (mainly lung and stomach) and the exceptionally high incidence and survival for prostate cancers in the US ) largely attributable to over- diagnosis.49 After excluding prostate cancer, the survival dif- ference between American and European men decreased by about half (46.9% in the US; 38.1% in Europe). Nevertheless, with a few exceptions (stomach, testes, Hodgkin’s disease and acute myeloid leukaemias), average survival for specific cancer sites was higher in the US than in Europe. For most of these cancer sites (not for prostate or large bowel cancer), however, US survival was within the range of European countries. European patients need to know that there is no particular reason to think that cancer treatment in the US is better than can be obtained in Europe. It is also important to stress that in both Europe and the US there are large survival differences between the rich and poor.17,50″
But that’s a rather pointless exercise, as neither of us will fundamentally alter the basic underlying values of the other (I want to control peoples’ lives, you just don’t care if the poor die). So my answer to you is the same as that to MikeNZ at 10:58am … let’s allow the political marketplace to choose which approach it prefers.
March 25th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
This entire issue is an issue of the difference between public funding and public provision. Socialists can’t allow these two things to be separate or their ideology is shown to be the crock of shit it really is.
Fund the people who can not afford to fund themselves, provide a competing service to keep the private operators honest. Look at the State Insurance model when it was first established – this stuff is not rocket science, just not popular with lovers of one size fits all monopoly state provision.
March 25th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
AG
What happens in NZ when this happens? How long on the waiting list before you can be treated? The ideology of state provision is fine, the implementation and the reality of being sent back to your GP again and again to keep waiting lists below politically acceptable target levels is another issue entirely.
March 25th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Menace your 11.20 1st paragraph was retarded, well make that the entire post in general.
What do you think is going to happen to the price of health insurance if everyone is forced to have it, and insurers are forced to cover people with pre-existing conditions?
Will the price of insurance for hardworking Americans go:
1. Up
2. Down.
It is impossible to have a debate on healthcare at all when some people talk about it as if it is a “right”, nothing that involves having your hand in the pay packet of someone else can ever be considered a “right”.
March 25th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
After excluding prostate cancer, the survival difference between American and European men decreased by about half …
Let’s make our socialist healthcare system look better by excluding one of the most common male cancers.
It is also important to stress that in both Europe and the US there are large survival differences between the rich and poor.17,50″
!!!!!!!!!!?????????
You mean to say that the fabulous government healthcare systems you favour in Europe …don’t care if the poor die I guess I should be thankful that you only condemn me of callousness – while condemning yourself of callous hypocrisy.
March 25th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Fund the people who can not afford to fund themselves, provide a competing service to keep the private operators honest.
May be wrong, but strongly suspect that was in the healthcare bill at some stage, but protests about the federal government’s ‘unfair advantages’ from Republicans may have beaten it down.
March 25th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
AG (925) Says:
March 25th, 2010 at 10:58 am
MikeNZ,
So many questions!
Here’s my point in very simple terms. Either you have a healthcare system that is rationed by the patient’s ability to pay
A system that works by peoples ability to pay is not rationing you dickhead. Its called a market
March 25th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
I wonder how many people realise that to remain a financially viable insurance company it requires wholesale support called “REINSURANCE” which represents effectively financial risk management and support for the acceptance of a “RISK” which is actually what insurance represents.
The main Reinsurers are not American but the Lloyds/London Market and the German (Munich Reinsurance) and the Swiss (Swiss Reinsurance). America’s largest are with in Berkshire Hathaway group (Warren Buffet).
These companies will charge a “premium” according to risk. No company can trade without Reinsurance support or go bust.
March 25th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
AG
One of the key things we need to do to accurately assess just how good the public monopoly systems we have in NZ are is to look at what the participation rate for MPs is. How many MPs have private health insurance and how many MPs sent their kids to private schools. These details should be published along side how these individuals have supported their parties stance on the same issues.
How many Labour party MPs have any level private health insurance ? How many send their kids to private schools?
You gotta eat your own dog food – Many of our politicians tell us we need a one size fits all system but apparently they don’t fit that one size themselves.
March 25th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
nickb, the reason i said its an improvement is that now at least the people that couldn’t get covered before can now be covered instead of working solely for the purpose of paying for medical costs, seems like a better living standard for all which in my opinion is what governments are for.
March 25th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
“t least the people that couldn’t get covered before can now be covered”
And they previously were, under Medicare and Medicaid.
These new reforms will only hurt people who were previously uninsured, because it will make insurance more expensive than it was before, and also pushing up premiums for those who already had insurance.
More government intervention= higher costs
March 25th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
What rubbish. At most we are talking about 8 million American citizens who are uninsured for health for long periods of time out of 300 million people. The $600 billion Medicare (pensioner poor), $300 billion Medicaid (non-pensioner poor), and $12 billion SCHIP (poor families kids) programs were all put in place precisely to allow people to pay for healthcare who could not afford it out of their own incomes. All have been considerably extended over the years – usually with the voting agreement of large numbers of those awful rich people – the ones who just don’t care if the poor die.
If those massive government systems are too broken to be expanded to just another 8 million people then devising an even bigger, more comprehensive Government healthcare system would not seem to be the answer – at least to a pragmatic person.
The current US healthcare “market” (flawed as it is) consistently polls as having 80%+ support in regular random surveys – which is why Obama had to run his deceptive campaign of if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
It was always a rather fundamental weakness of his argument that the system is horrible and needs a complete overhaul – while also being forced to grovel to the voters and tell them that they can keep their chunk of it because the majority are satisified with it.
Rather contradicted in the case of cancer as cited above. I guess you could always go for that other classic – infant mortality – in which case a nation of 300 million people, with millions of new immigrants (illegal and otherwise) is compared to Sweden or some such European utopia and found wanting. When you compare a US state with a fairly homogenous population (say Utah) with Sweden the comparison is not so bad – and that’s without digging into how such mortality is counted – in the US it’s just about any baby that gets out of the womb breathing that’s counted as alive.
That’s about the only thing we can agree on – that this choice is indeed about your preference. An aesthetic preference as it happens, since your collective system does not actually produce any better outcomes even at your chosen level of collective success, while at the same time fucking over millions of individuals – except for the members of Manhattan, D.C and Hollywood.
Still, as long as the emotive message of “I care” is reinforced, reality does not matter.
Only in the political marketplace – a place where votes can be bought with endless amounts of free money supplied by small, easily demonised groups of “rich” people.
All of this aided and abetted by your preference (often expressed on this site) that 51% of the vote is good enough to do whatever you want to the other 49% – with none of those messy US constitutional checks and balances on government power.
It’s really okay though, the way things are trending with all government healthcare programs in the Western world there will not be enough money for them even if all the rich pricks are lined up against the walls and shot.
March 25th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
“And they previously were, under Medicare and Medicaid.”
Ignorant bullshit. 60% of poor Americans are not covered by Medicaid.
“Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups.”
March 25th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
The best simple outline of the US health care debate remains Paul Krugman’s op-ed from last August:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html
Punch-line; Obamacare is what they have in Switzerland. Krugman wanted at least Switzerland+(public insurance providers to help restrain costs in the private insurance sector), but Obama couldn’t get that ‘+’ through. So pure Swiss it is (which was essentially the early ’90s Clinton plan too).
As in many debates, much of energy is devoted to caricature and slippery-slope mongering, e.g., pretending that there’s no difference between Obamacare/pure Swiss/Clinton and fully-blown UK/NZ-style nation health service, and when that fails, retreating to saying that a Swiss-style system inevitably collapses into a Canadian one into a UK one.
One might have expected some elements of the right both in the US and here to celebrate the element of compulsion about buying insurance in Obamacare. Like requiring people to carry third-party auto insurance, there’s an element of forced taking responsibility (perhaps particularly among the young) about this that should have considerable curmudgeon appeal. Alas not. Partisanship trumps everything.
March 25th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
“Rather contradicted in the case of cancer as cited above. I guess you could always go for that other classic – infant mortality – in which case a nation of 300 million people, with millions of new immigrants (illegal and otherwise) is compared to Sweden or some such European utopia and found wanting.”
How about the decidedly non-utopian European country of Great Britain having less than four deaths for every 100,000 pregnancies while the US has 13.3 pregnant women die out of every 100,000.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/12/maternal.mortality/index.html
It’s all the dirty illegal immigrants fault, right?
March 25th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
tom hunter my view with people of your views is to treat them how they would treat others.
I spent a fair amount of time with a volunteer fire brigade, with people with your view my ideal would be to treat them as you would have the poorly paid treated in health care.Crashed a car, upside down with petrol dripping, that will be $5000 in cash or gold or do you prefer to grill ?
Harsh, yep it is, but that is the system you prefer.
March 25th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
But grumpyoldhori that Fire Service is an essential government service, no one would argue that being saved from a burning house should be user-pays.
Will people argue about their tax dollars being used to fund dialysis for a fat person that doesnt exercise? Well yes, I would.
March 25th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
“no one would argue that being saved from a burning house should be user-pays.”
That’s how it used to be, and in fact given (I think) the fire service is paid out of insurance levies pretty much how it is. No inherent reason we couldnt have multiple competing private fire services.
March 25th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
GOH
I’m surprised you did not come out with the old line about US doctors and hospitals not doing anything until they check the victim’s credit cards! Certainly that’s what my dear old parents worried about when I went to live in the US. Of course they had never lived there and did not have access to the Internet.
You don’t have the latter excuse and yet you really just don’t know anything about the US healthcare market and you apparently did not really read anything I wrote.
Let me repeat: Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP.
You can look them up.
March 25th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
nickb I see no difference to health care, no health care because they are poor they die under the system wanted by some.
I would just expand it to take in bludgers who as in the past dodged the fire levy, they can fry.
Funny argument, VOLUNTEER firefighters are essential but health care for all is not ?
March 25th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
grumpyoldhori,
Where is that the system that some prefer? In the US all hospitals with emergency centres have to provide free treatment. They do not demand payment in the ambulance, they do not demand payment in the emergency room.
I have a friend who went on holiday to the US last year, and rather stupidly forgot to buy travel insurance. He was admitted to an emergency centre, treated and kept in hospital for 5 days. He says the treatment was fantastic. Only at the end did they query the payment, he left without paying (with them knowing all his details) and he is now paying the hospital back. Note: A tourist to NZ is also expected to pay for their own treatment.
If you have never used the US medical system you cannot comprehend how good it is. Going to Wellington hospital in the last few years twice, also my daughter having an operation after a ONE year wait where she was in agony once a month, is like being in a third world country (maybe a slight exaggeration, but there is a huge difference in quality) . People in NZ think they have a good health system because they have not seen anything else.
March 25th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
StephenG
Surely not?
GOH – Crashed a car, upside down with petrol dripping, that will be $5000 in cash or gold or do you prefer to grill ?
Harsh, yep it is, but that is the system you prefer.
Ah – I see what you mean.
March 25th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
“no health care because they are poor they die under the system wanted by some.”
Try again old chap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574344900152168372.html
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/get-ready-for-health-insurance-slumlords/?singlepage=true
[quote]Yes, the U.S. “rations” by ability to pay (though in the end no one is denied actual care). This is true of every good or service in a free economy and a world of finite resources but infinite wants. Yet no one would say we “ration” houses or gasoline because those goods are allocated by prices. The problem is that governments ration through brute force—either explicitly restricting the use of medicine or lowering payments below market rates. Both methods lead to waiting lines, lower quality, or less innovation—and usually all three.[/quote]
[quote]Insurance price controls force insurers to lose money on sick people. To avoid losses, insurers will design policies that are unattractive to high-risk customers. “If you think insurers mistreat the sick now, just wait until price controls turn every single sick person into a $15,000 liability. Insurers would go to even greater lengths to avoid and dump the sick; those that didn’t would go out of business,” explains Cato Institute scholar Michael Cannon.[/quote]
GOH, you seem like another Obamalover who has watched Sicko too many times. Do a bit of research, and then come back with a properly formed opinion.
March 25th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
As a disclaimer I can honestly say that I have never cost the NZ health system a single cent, I have needed glasses and a few dentist checkups from time to time, all paid out of either my own pocket, or (when I was a bit younger) my family’s health insurance (yes they are just lower-middle class kiwi’s, but don’t believe in any kind of govt handouts).
March 25th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
« Doubled UpBlog Bits »
DPF
“If a Republican President had tried to make private health insurance compulsory, I suspect the left would have decried the reform, instead of supported it. And i guess the right would have supported it, instead of opposed it”.
Does this mean New Zealand has to wait tell a Labour socialist govt to be voted in.. Before NZ can make private health insurance compulsory…
Look at Rodger Douglas back in the 80s when he was in Labour selling of state assets… A right wing National government could have never been allowed to do that.
Maybe John Key and National should have waited for another future Labour government to allow mining of DoC land and change social welfare.. could be the begining of the end for National.. NZ has a lot more socialist voters than it has capitalist.
Some say John Key is a really a socialist in the wrong party.. like Rodger Douglas was an all out capitalist in the wrong party back when he was in Labour.
Who knows it could be a political master plan.. to fool the people all of the time… with likes of Rodger and John.
No im not serious.. it just looks suspicious that were being hood winked.. after all they do scratch each others back.
March 25th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
@nickb
Were you born in a Hospital ?
March 25th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Not sure GTP, don’t think I made it, perhaps in an ambulance? If so, perhaps I have used the public health system once
March 25th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Everytime you visit the GP and “pay out of your own pocket” you’re basically only paying the co-payment as well.
Unless you’ve never been to a GP in your life. You have used the Public system
March 25th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Once I believe, GTP , to get a vaccination. And you?
Anyway, arguing over pedantries about the NZ system is a bit redundant, this thread is on the US system.
New Zealander’s are far too reliant on the govt to hold their hand in general anyway, and as such are never in a million years going to vote in a govt that will tamper with the public health system.
Americans are not in the main as attatched to big government as we are, thus why the reforms are going down as such a shitstorm over there.
March 25th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
And speaking of said shitstorm: I’d long thought that many of the proponents of Obamacare (especially with the public option) were using the “30 million without healthcare” as a rhetorical club.
But since the bill passed I’ve seen numbers of Dem commentators and pundits talk about how these 30 million will now be a powerful ally in pushing back Republican attempts at repeal or reform – which tells me that the Dems actually believed their own propaganda.
If that’s the case then they could be even further up shit creek because the last time I looked that 30 million consisted of some 18 million earning more than $50,000 per year, of which several million were earning $75,000 per year. There was also some cross-reference with several million aged between 18-29. If that was so then we have a huge group who have deliberately chosen not to buy health insurance even though they could, and if that’s the case then they aren’t going to be too happy at being forced to buy it at the spear point of an IRS agent, especially when it’s some stupidly regulated ‘comprehensive’ package containing lots of shit they don’t want.
And lo and behold we have our first anecdotal indication that this might be so:
March 25th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
workingman The US system,yes I have used it, needed a couple of stitches.
The bill to the insurance company was over two grand for no more than five minutes.
So you are in favour of the US system where they have health care refugees living out of the USA because they have children who were born with some medical problems whom the insurance companies do not want to cover ?
March 25th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Michael Moore’s Sicko goes into a lot of depth on that, grumpy. The insurance companies own congress and the democrats are almost as bad as the republicans except the republicans have a backbone. The US system is horrible. What most people don’t realize is the medical system in the states is socialistic for the cheaper HMO like the one Tom Hunter has explained. 120 a month is cheap for the states. But the care won’t be that good, either. My brother-in-law was paying 1600 a month for medical insurance for his family, wife and 4 kids. Very few people can afford that but he made a lot of money. I don’t know about Obama’s plan but I have heard making insurance compulsory is actually helping the insurance company. Making a profit off of the sick is terribly wrong like that bill of 2 grand grumpy experienced. Wrong. they should nationalize it like Canada but most americans have been brainwashed to think that is COMMUNISM>>>> the horrors and the insurance companies are making billions on that rhetoric alone.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
I’ve heard that forcing people to buy cars would actually be helping the car companies. Who knew!
March 25th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
lol @ Chronic and the rest of the Obama Defence Brigade. What I find amusing is the idea this will shave $1 trillion off the deficit. Even the most devoted fellow traveller in his cabinet and Congress don’t admit to that.
March 25th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
I am not sure there will be much success in arguing that forcing folks to talk out health care insurance is unconstitutional, considering it is also compulsory in the USA to take out car insurance.
Also on this topic, a rare nugget of coherence from 4chan’s /b/ – http://i.imgur.com/590Ev.png
March 25th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
You’re forgetting about ‘Big Pharma’. They’re immensely richer than the puny insurance companies. That’s why they were able to pump $180 million of advertising into pushing Obamacare. Perhaps they care as much about poor people as left-wingers do?
If the Republicans had backbone they’d have fixed the systems flaws during the 12 years they controlled Congress, although they did not have solid control of the Senate. Still – they did not make the arguments.
I can only assume that he’s on a personal private plan, as the ones you get via employment with largish firms are usually vastly cheaper than this due to negotiated discounts but more to the corporate tax credit, which is less socialism than crony capitalism.
That’s one of the longstanding flaws in the system. John McCain proposed an individual tax credit to level the playing field and enable people to buy similarly priced insurance that was not tied to their employers, so they could shift jobs and not be exposed to being blocked due to pre-existing conditions.
Naturally Obama opposed it, claiming it would cause companies to dump their healthcare – which is exactly what will happen with Obamacare. But hey – why should the Dems take any notice of hardline partisans like McCain.
Oh God.
Making a profit off feeding hungry people is terribly wrong. Wrong. They should nationalize farms like the USSR did but most Americans have been brainwashed to think that is COMMUNISM……..er….umm…umm.
Oh God II.
The 1500 US insurance companies made such huge profits in 2009 (industry profit margin 3.3%) that they could keep Medicaid/Medicare going for almost a week!.
March 25th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Butthurt from /b/ is never new, Durandal.
March 25th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
The US system is the inevitable result of having screwed up incentives in the private and public sector, most of which have got there over long periods of time.
Even so, it produces collective results that are comparable or superior to supposedly ethically superior systems of collective caring.
They produce things like the French hospital that one Yank had to take his kid too – check out the photos. I especially liked the exposed power wires sticking out of the hole in the children’s ward, and the broken window taped shut.
..and situations like this in a British NHS hospital
Or as this more general report on the NHS
Still, as the Cubans would say – Looxury.
Where are you getting these ideas from?
Ah. Of course. Americas richest communist.
March 26th, 2010 at 12:55 am
“the US system is the inevitable result of having screwed up incentives in the private and public sector, most of which have got there over long periods of time.”
Tom Hunter- yes, we all know the incentive and Michael Moore pointed the results out… my wife saw that here, a kiwi, and she was crying seeing these heroes of 911 and how the city of New York wouldn’t cover them because they were VOLUNTEERS!!!! Shit, they put their own lives in danger and this is the thanks they get????? To call Michael Moore a communist is pretty bizarre when he is only telling the truth. Tell me one thing, why hasn’t he been sued??? He is a true American with guts. When he started with Roger and me he went into debt of 1/4 of million dollars, he wasn’t expecting any government to bail him out if that movie flopped.
“Even so, it produces collective results that are comparable or superior to supposedly ethically superior systems of collective caring.”
If you have money, yes, Your average family have to rely on the corporate HMO’s which are far from good. I could go into lots of examples e.g. Kaiser- delaying a cancer patient treatment by shoveling him off to different departments waiting for him to die. . The doctors are on the board and want profit. Come on don’t bullshit me..
Did you live in Orange County, California by any chance?
March 26th, 2010 at 8:09 am
What I find very frustrating in the states is that taxpayers pay trillions for advanced war machines yet it is communism if I should be supporting national health care. It is affordable to everyone.
March 26th, 2010 at 8:18 am
Jackp
I now live back in NZ. I did live in Chicago, the home of dirty, backscratching politics that appears to now be the SOP in Washington D.C., and which would become the basis of any Federal healthcare system if they ever foolishly got to the point of an NHS-type deal.
…..yes, we all know the incentive….
Whereas the NHS in Britain and the State-run medical system in France supposedly operate on a kindly, caring, principle of non-profit, and still produce the horrible results demonstrated in my links. You’d swap an American hospital for one of those if you had the choice?
[Moore] is a true American with guts.
Muhahahaha. Only in the sense that he comes from a fine, old American tradition of hucksters and snakeoil salesman who play the suckers to enrich themselves. The fat, greasy prick appears to have struck a goldmine with you.
Tell me one thing, why hasn’t he been sued???
That would require personal slander, and the US goes fairly easy on ‘opinion’.
If you have money, yes….
Jeez, you’re not really reading or arguing at all, you’re just baring a rock-solid set of ignorant prejudices. As I said above: Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP. The US government at City, State and Federal level already accounts for about 50% of all healthcare spending in the US – $1.25 Trillion per year. Aside from Medicare pensioners who are better off than their predecessors of the 1960′s, that money is not being spent on ‘rich’ people.
And if you read AG’s example you’ll see that there are gaps in survival between rich and poor in both Europe and the US – meaning your beloved public, non-profit systems fail the poor even as they screw up those who don’t need them.
In any case my point was that even the profit-driven system produces overall, collective, societal-level results as good as or better than their public health counterparts around the world – in the same way that profit-driven farming beats collective farming and profit-driven driven anything beats a state-owned industry.
Profits and prices are what make things work and when ‘caring’ idiots screw with them people (usually lots of people) get hurt. But you don’t get that even as you live in a world where you receive the benefits of it. The sad thing is that people like you, with your base, stupid hatred of evil profit – still wouldn’t get it even if every public institution ran out of ‘rich’ people to screw and collapsed.
…..I could go into lots of examples…
But you didn’t, and certainly not with any supporting links as I gave you with the NHS examples. What I saw of the US system was that when doctors and hospitals screwed over patients there was a lawyer standing right beside the patient ready to exact a toll on the medical system – try suing the government some time and see how far you get.
Even if you did have examples rather than assertions, would they be any worse than the public failures I listed? I think I’ll be the one to call ‘bullshit’ on you.
….taxpayers pay trillions for advanced war machines yet it is communism if I should be supporting national health care
Oh God III.
Read what I wrote. The US taxpayers do spend $1.25 Trillion per year on healthcare – vastly more than they do on the US military. Another moronic assertion lifted from the well of 1980′s Left-wing cant.
March 26th, 2010 at 8:26 am
I have a few questions for anyone who’s across this issue.
(1) Is it true that all insurance cover premiums are to be paid to the IRS then disbursed to the insurer? if so I’m guessing that those fees will be skimmed to help pay for the extra 15,000 IRD agents who will spend their days crawling over the financial records of every US citizen ostensibly to ensure they’ve paid their premiums.
(2) Is it true that the federal Govt is able to describe the acceptable terms of cover, and deny anyone the right to choose an insurer’s policy that fails to meet their guidelines? If so, any idea how many Americans will be without cover… until they change to an ‘approved’ scheme?
March 26th, 2010 at 8:40 am
krazykiwi
(1)
Is it true that all insurance cover premiums are to be paid to the IRS then disbursed to the insurer?
No
…if so I’m guessing that those fees will be skimmed to help pay for the extra 15,000 IRD agents…
No. The bill has a specific budget to hire these extra IRS agents, and it looks like 16,500 of them.
… who will spend their days crawling over the financial records of every US citizen ostensibly to ensure they’ve paid their premiums.
Very likely, although they’ll start with companies first and work their way down to individuals as needed.
(2) Is it true that the federal Govt is able to describe the acceptable terms of cover, and deny anyone the right to choose an insurer’s policy that fails to meet their guidelines?
Yep.
If so, any idea how many Americans will be without cover… until they change to an ‘approved’ scheme?
Nobody knows.
March 26th, 2010 at 8:46 am
I have in an interest in a small US medical supplies company. We are going to be subject to a 3% excise tax on our products. No doubt by increasing the cost of medical supplies they will make them more accessible to people or some such logic.
March 26th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Kiwigreg
Get out now! At least shift your investments away – to India perhaps. Different problems there, as there are anywhere, but at least they’re moving away from Fabian socialism, not toward it.
I dumped the last of my US investments months ago (luckily I pulled the vast bulk of them back in 1999/2000), once the market had recovered enough and the $US/$NZ ratio had improved.
The in-laws were fairly sobered by that, as we had been talking about buying a house in Chicago after the big drop-off in prices: planning ahead for future college attendance for kids and all that. But all that really looks very unlikely now.
I’ve always had confidence in the US to survive almost any insanity fired at it – but this whole thing really does feel different to anything I experienced there in the 80′s and 90′s – and that covered two recessions and two major terrorist attacks. All my in-laws voted Obama. They’re a damn quiet, sad bunch now; to such an extent that I held off telling them about my decisions for a long time.
Voting with your feet and putting your money where your mouth is, really does cook theoretical arguments down quickly.
March 26th, 2010 at 9:47 am
@ tom – LOL it’s not that liquid an investment. At least no one will be able to accuse me of profiting from the sick tho
.
The US is still a great place to invest. Even tho manufacturing is only 20% of the economy it is still (just) a larger manufacturer than anyone else on the planet. It has deep, well-informed and liquid markets and endless opportunity.
March 26th, 2010 at 9:47 am
“All my in-laws voted Obama. They’re a damn quiet, sad bunch now; to such an extent that I held off telling them about my decisions for a long time.”
LOL they arent the only ones with buyer’s remorse.
March 26th, 2010 at 10:09 am
That part I agree with – but the real question is whether they’re liquid enough and deep enough, and whether the opportunities are still large enough to cope with the $100 Trillion liability that is SS and Medicare. Even for a $15 Trillion per year GDP economy that’s pretty grim – and Obambi just doubled down on the bet.
Maybe. One word for you though – Kulak.
March 26th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Time will tell. Obviously nothing he is doing is good for the business environment but the US economy is still bigger then the next 3 combined and has better demographics then pretty much any developed nation. I back the Americans to come to their senses, throw the commie out after one term and fix the damage.
“Maybe. One word for you though – Kulak.”
LOL it wont be for that that they get me.
March 26th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Tom Hunter, I wish I could stick that fucking beemer up your ass. You are one arrogant prick….
March 26th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Tom Hunter, here’s your link you were asking for about medical care in the states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
Read the third paragraph how the US fairs with the rest of the world, even against those french hospitals with wires hanging from the whatchimicallies.
Can’t find a link about that cancer patient because it happened to the husband of a friend of mine. She was shattered.
Even Warren Buffet made a comment about the health care statistics.
March 26th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Tom Hunter, I wish I could stick that fucking beemer up your ass….
It’s a Chrysler 300 V8. Only US Government cars here.
I think ACC covers me for cars shoved up my ass. Sheesh – the wonders of government coverage.
You are one arrogant prick….
I must tell my Obama lovin friends – they’ll be shocked, shocked I tell you.
March 27th, 2010 at 1:06 am
Don’t worry, guys, Barky’s plan has the support of Castro. We’re in the very best of hands.
March 27th, 2010 at 11:02 am
People like Tom Hunter think they have all the answers yet they don’t know it, they are only puppets in a wider scheme of things. He doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about. Only talking profit and loss and keeps the human equation out of it. I have seen the states decay these last 30 years. To say the states are a complete laize affair is such a joke. Corporations own the congressmen in the national, state and local levels which is why you get your obamas and bushes. The major corporations kill competition by using their political power if that doesn’t work, then more extreme matters are taken. That is the reality of it.
The Tucker is just a small example. Another one is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a74uarqap2E
March 27th, 2010 at 11:52 am
To say the states are a complete laize affair is such a joke
Indeed, which is why nobody here is saying it. I pointed out that it is a 50:50 public/private system in spending – as opposed to NZ where it’s more like 80:20 or thereabouts.
He doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
I lived and worked in the US for years. I have friends of all political and ideological persuasions there buried in the healthcare system. I’ve used it myself and am not unaware of it’s strengths and weaknesses. On this thread I’ve pointed you to numerous links to support my arguments – whereas you’ve simply pulled stuff out of your butt, immediately jumped to appeals to emotion, and ‘supported’ this via a link to a broadbrush Wikipedia article.
Only talking profit and loss and keeps the human equation out of it
Profit and loss is part of the human equation. Whenever it’s been kept out and suppressed by people like you who care, the human equation has been hurt – usually badly hurt.
The major corporations kill competition by using their political power…
Obamacare being the most recent example. But since socialists like you are passionate about pushing government ever further into the horrible private sector system – but no longer have the faith in full-blown socialism where the private sector vanishes – you’re the people the corporates use to kill their competition, and you’re quite willing to whore yourself to them even while squealing about how the right wing is owned by them.
The UAW is probably more upset by the competition of non-unionised Japanese car makers than the managers and stockholders of GM are. You think the UAW wouldn’t jump at the chance to get their Democratic Party to kill the compeition of non-UAW car makers? Of course they would – and idiots like you would be all for that – to defend the working class from predatory capitalists of course.
Big Business loves Big Government – and right now in the US the latter does not get any bigger than dealing to 1/6 of the economy – and you’re all for it.
…..yet they don’t know it, they are only puppets in a wider scheme of things
As opposed to large-brained mammals like yourself who can peer through the veil of deception. Cue music from the Twilight Zone – or more likely in your case – the X Files.
March 27th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Poor ‘ol jackp. Well owned by tom hunter
March 28th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Woh, hold on cowboy.
Profit and loss is part of the human equation.
Yes it is part of the human equation, question is, how much? Your mentor George Bush, made a deal with Canada. If Canada can sell its madcow beef to the states, Canada would stop selling pharmaceutical drugs to the states. The arrangement passed through congress with a republican majority. Don’t give me this shit about not having a backbone… they did it. Now Montana is trying to set up a deal with Canada to buy pharmaceuticals because it would lower its costs by up to 40 percent.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gFwnSjVr77OiysYn5ffY90B1dsFQD9ECO2GG1
veil of deception. – It isn’t a veil, it is pretty obvious. Pharmaceutical companies are making a killing and they certainly do not want “competition.” I have an idea, why don’t the US Pharmaceutical companies just lower their prices or do like what happened to the auto industry, bring on imported pharmecutical goods and stop lobbying the Washington. The taxpayers such as the state of Montana are getting desperate.
I lived and worked in the US for years .– I am from the states and I know quite a bit more of what is happening in my own country than you. When insurance wasn’t strictly profit, it was more affordable to everyone. I had blue cross insurance and went to my own doctor. 30 years later it got too expensive than I had to go to the HMO’s, corporations providing insurance, and my gosh, the quality of care was for the worse…. all for profit. Please don’t tell me how they work, I know how they work.
Unions–I have no idea where that came from… I am anti-union being self employed here.
Do I get emotional, you bet I do. 911 did it for me. Seeing your guru George Bush sitting listening to “my little goat” for 7 minutes while our country was suppose to be under attack made me sick and the news defending him. That is when I threw in the towel. Sold my investments and left.
I