Quick Poll

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

When someone goes on and on about the vast totality of healthcare in other countries around the world - cost, delivery, quality, etc. - based only upon their minimal personal experience with short-term work visas - I completely disregard their opinion

well at least I have personal experience.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sort of like the 60 million people in America who have no insurance, and thus can only get minimal emergency care if that?

Oh, wait. No, it's not like that at all. You have insurance so you stroll right into a doctors office by just calling for an appointment.

We don't need to imagine what it's like for those terrible lazy people with cancer or lifetime disability or serious disease who can't get insurance, let alone regular medical care.

Most of the bankruptcies in this country are related to medical bills. Most of those bankrupt people have insurance.

America should be ashamed of our health care system, that's only for the elite and the "haves". And those trying to repeal minimal insurance company standards so they can no longer abuse their clients in certain ways to profit from them (the ACA) - what are you playing at? Do you hate - or care so very little - about your fellow Americans so very much, you want to deny them the basic human need of health care?

So I made a statement about how crappy socialized medicine is in New Zealand and Ireland... so that means I hate my fellow Americans?

do you hate yourself? You have so much anger. Try prozac or at the very least valium. You will be happy again.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

What number of people do you think is limiting for having a single payer system,and why? (not "nationally" provided health care)

300MM is way too many, even half that is way too many. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare, like virtually everything else our government is currently responsible for. If the population growth continues at the rate over the last 30 years (mathematically it will expand much faster) we will have 450MM by 2040. Then what, huh?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

well at least I have personal experience.

All Indians walk in a row.

At least the one you saw does.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

So I made a statement about how crappy socialized medicine is in New Zealand and Ireland... so that means I hate my fellow Americans?

If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, then I'd take it as the clearly broad statement it was intended to be.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

300MM is way too many, even half that is way too many.

Based upon what? Do you have anything to back up your purely arbitrary, pulled-from-a-hat choice of figures?

It would be a bureaucratic nightmare, like virtually everything else our government is currently responsible for.

The "government" is responsible for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, our veterans (TRICARE) and SCHIPS. They seem to do pretty damn well. Not perfect, but damn - those are some good programs. My parents get their Social Security check like clockwork on the same date every month. They go to the doctor, and submit their Medicare claims. No "bureaucratic nightmares" involved at all. Quite reliable, predictable and easy, in fact.

You want to eliminate them all, I suppose?

If the population growth continues at the rate over the last 30 years (mathematically it will expand much faster) we will have 450MM by 2040. Then what, huh?

Then we have to believe your arbitrary numbers have already been proven as true, why?

We could have more healthy people in the pool lowering cost and risk for everyone.

Or, population could level out, as is predicted by nearly everyone (not the growth you are saying will happen)

[Clip-Clop]

[quote] You never address anything realistically. Any and all real math is shot down or completely ignored. Any arguments that point out what is wrong are responded to with something meant to tug at the heartstrings. I feel bad for you, your life must be awful for you to spend so much time here trying to convince people that the federal government is and should be the cure all for everyone's problems.
Perhaps GE could donate their fair share and that would take care of an awful lot were the government capable, in any way, of handling money. Obama should just ask Immelt for the money that company should have paid just last year alone and solve these issues for millions of your downtrodden.
You are unable to learn or even look at things from any other perspective than your own. I am through debating with you, it is pointless. [quote]

Done here too.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

They also have a very small percentage of our population. Makes it a bit easier. Oh yeah, things seem to be going very well for all of those countries too . Except Germany of course.

i wonder how much money other countries put towards their defense programs, knowing how much of the worlds spending belongs solely to the u.s.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Danzig, I'm curious as to where you read that statistic that entitlements currently take 60 percent of the federal budget, as I'm not sure that's accurate. I'm not saying you didn't report it correctly; I'm questioning the source where you read it. Most of the mainstream media, honestly, are idiots and don't understand statistics well enough to report on them.

According to factcheck.org, which is a vehmently non-partisan site I do trust:

"The largest components of federal spending are Social Security and Medicare programs for the elderly (33.5 percent of total outlays in 2010) and national defense (20.1 percent). Interest payments on the federal debt alone accounted for 5.7 percent of all federal spending, and that percentage is rising."

Large, but not 60 percent. Unless I'm misunderstanding what the report you read was saying, which is why I'd love to see the original link if you remember where you saw it.

Here's the link to the Factcheck page, which gives a good historical perspective on where we are now in relation to taxes and revenues:

http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/

I do have problems with them lumping SS and Medicare together, as they are two different programs and are funded differently, but it's overall a decent enough article.

Prior to Social Security, the poverty rate of the elderly was over 50 percent, and now, thanks to Social Security, it's 1 in 8 (about 12 percent). That's still high, but nowhere near what it was. And Medicare, a socialized health care program, not only protects the elderly's finances, but protects anyone who has an elderly relative. Get rid of Medicare, and you're basically imposing a 100 percent inheritance tax on the middle class, as many people will wipe out their own savings in order to pay for Mom or Dad's health care in the last six months of life. Or have to say to Mom and Dad, "Sorry; we can't afford dialysis so I hope death by toxic shock isn't too awful for you. Love you, Mom!"

Economic mobility is more difficult in the United States than it is in Europe. Whatever economic class you're in right now is likely the one you'll die in. If you're currently living in a mansion, you'll probably die in one. If you're currently living in a trailer park. you'll probably die in one. You can tell yourself otherwise, but that's how it is, and all the lottery tickets in the world aren't going to do anything other than take another $1 out of your pocket. SS and Medicare offer the elderly some small bit of security at the point in their lives when they are more likely to have difficulty getting work, not least because our nation is very biased against the elderly.

Now, the SS Disability program is in terrible trouble, and if I were a person on Disability, I'd be sweating bullets right now. But part of what is hurting it is raising the retirement age, as that pushes more people onto SS Disability.

And Medicare's problem isn't Medicare, which costs less than private insurance; it's the rising cost of health care, which Medicare doesn't have anything to do with. We have to tackle the cost of health care, not the existence of Medicare. The Health Care Act does start to tackle the cost of health care. Not as well as it could, but it's, at least, a start.

I'm working freelance this year, and it sucks that I'll be liable for the full 15 percent of Social Security payment, as we're just squeaking by right now, but that's the way it is. I'd rather have the program than not have it. My parents having a retirement that does not involve them having to move in with me because they can't afford their house anymore is a heck of a benefit I get now. SS helps give me, and them, that.

not sure where i read it, i've been to so many sites lately on all this. not sure if it's in the cbo that i posted quite a bit from in another thread. but i did find this:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_perce...n_entitlements
but not sure how accurate that is...however, i'd have to think the 60% is found in something i've put on here lately. if i used that number, i got it from somewhere.


edit~ went to the start of the thread, and sure enough-i said it came from a cbo report.