Government Heath care in the US

[ErikKiller]

I didn't look through the whole topic, so I'm not sure if it has been said already (and I'm sorry if this is something very important for you guys in USA) but,

Heath is not amused:

[coder0xff]

Have you seen the documentary Sicko? It's a little more than a documentary really, because it's obviously biased and trying to persuade you, but it does have some interesting information. Interviews Canadian patients, doctors, etc. Examines health care in Cuba (because it's actually better there), and so on.

[korge]

Examines health care in Cuba (because it's actually better there), and so on.

¿Lolqué?

[Simpletool]

I was watching something the other day and it showed Oprah over in Denmark. She was saying how wonderful and happy everyone was. They have a lot of social programs including Universal Health Care. However Oprah failed to mention the amount of money paid in taxes in that country. Sure when you have health care and schooling covered you may not need as much money as you would if you had to pay for those things yourself, but what she also failed to show was her inside a city apartment with little to no storage and when she asked them where they put their "stuff", they responded "We don't have stuff"

There's a lot of issues I have with this paragraph. First you equate having "stuff" (I can only assume luxury material possessions) with happiness after you already stated everyone in Denmark appeared to be happy. I would have a hard time believing the majority of Denmark's citizens live in empty apartments.

You also made no mention of the actual tax rates for Denmark.

And for more information on taxes in other nations look here.

The US is totally different from any other country. It is based on the principals of work hard and get ahead. It is what made us the envy of the world for so long. However over the last decade or so things have started pushing more towards a European way of life and not to knock other countries but I don't want that.

What is it in particular about European lifestyle that you see the U.S. adopting and what is it about these lifestyles that are negative?

The school I work at has a student who's grandmother is in the US Senate. She came to speak and something she said bothered me. She said simply "I believe in government". I wanted to scream out in that assembly, but held back to show respect for her office. But I staunchly disagree with what she said. People in power should not be say they believe in the powers that be and essentially the ruling class. They need to be saying "I believe in the people I represent". Politicians in the country, or at least many of them have forgotten that they are in office to speak for the people.

I'm trying to understand what is so inflammatory about an out of context remark made by a senator, a U.S. representative stating their belief in a system that they work within. A ruling class and a government are not the same things. A government refers to the entity comprised of the laws, procedures, and administrating agencies that preside over a nation of people. A ruling class refers to a group of people that hold some power, they can be a social, corporate, or even intellectual ruling class.

The majority of the nation is uneasy with the current bill proposed and want it gone. So if the majority is speaking out against the bill, why are the politicians still trying to push it forward?

Based on what polls? And being "uneasy" doesn't equate absolute opposition. In the past there existed large majorities of Americans that were against policies like racial integration, women's suffrage, and interracial marriage, but the government stepped in and made changes against the view of its citizens.

Polling results cannot always be trusted. It's deceptive to claim that the majority of Americans oppose health reform.

I do think health care needs reform. It needs to be made more accessible to people who currently can not afford it. Currently a big part of why health care is so expensive is the issue of tort reform. Take a look at this link if you do not know what it is. http://www.whatistortreform.com/ This is not even brought up in the health care bill now in play. Many other far easier options and far less expensive option are not mentioned at all. To me that is a shame and a big part of why the bill is so unpopular.

So would it be safe for me to assume that you are in favor of tort reform as a means of reducing health care expenses? Would it also be safe to assume that the lack of tort reform in the current senate bill is part of your reasoning for not supporting it? What if I were to tell you that if tort reform were enacted we would see little reduction in health care costs, and is partially a reason for its absence.

Those in favor of tort reform and many opposing health reform will attribute what is called 'defensive medicine' to the high cost of health care in the U.S. Defensive medicine is a practice where a doctor orders tests, procedures, and/or medication considered unnecessary and costly as a form of protection from future lawsuits. The problem begins when many procedures and tests that are necessary are included under the 'defensive medicine' label. Insurance companies, lobbyists, and health reform opponents intentionally inflate their statistics by including necessary procedures with 'defensive medical' procedures. This is just one of the tactics being used to distract from current health reform.

Another issue with tort reform is the claim that patient compensation for medical malpractice drives up the cost of health care significantly. Legal settlements make up about 2% of the $2.3 trillion spent on health care in the U.S. I don't really need to go beyond that. There are far better ways to cut health care costs than reforming tort. Tort reform risks removing the measures that continue to protect patients from negligence (however I will not argue that it is perfect system, and there is much we should continue to do to insure the safety of patients).

http://cherryhill.injuryboard.com/medic ... eid=267234
http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/ ... care-costs

You also claim there "far easier options and far less expensive option are not mentioned at all." without making any mention of what these options actually are.

I have lost faith in what our government is doing. I truly feel Obama is leading us in the wrong direction. I believe with the overwhelming majority of democrats in the government my voice is not being heard. I do however see a change on the horizon. I do hope we right the ship because I am confident the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves...

What specifics of our government has caused you to lose faith?

What specifics in Obama's policies do you believe are "leading us in the wrong direction".

Why do you believe that your voice is not being heard by the democratic senate majority? They were voted in by the people, so one can assume they are representing the majority view.

[MayheM]

I am not equating stuff with happiness, but rather saying Americans are used to having what they want.

Europe is more about larger government, higher taxes, more government handouts. I am more interested in this country going more towards its roots. Getting back to what the founding fathers had in mind. Where government protects you from the bad guys and the people live free. I am not suggesting anarchy, just the following of our constitution and the concept that all men and women are created equal but that does not mean they end up that way. I want hard work rewarded and a true capitalistic society.

I believe saying "I believe in Government" is the disconnect with many politicians. They feel government knows best and they can solve all the problems in a persons life. I am more interested in the people working together of their own free will and solving problems. There is a gross overreaching of government in America today. An=d yes they are elected by the people, but they are not doing what they said they would do. Although Obama did say he was about redistributing wealth.

Obama campaigned on the idea that we would all work together. Yet he did not involve the republicans at all in talks over health care. My opposition to the bill is partly that it does not contain tort reform and insurance being offered across state lines but it is more about the governments ultimate answer to saving money is spending money. The spending is out of control and needs to stop. Even if I was in favor of universal health care, which I am not, we can not afford it. Plus I mentioned special deal in another thread, look up Cornhusker kickback, Louisiana purchase, deals for union works, deals for a certain area of Florida who will not have the medicare advantage cuts which everyone else will have. Obama promised transparency and gave us cloak and dagger. As for Obama taking us in the wrong direction. I think it is an atrocity that he wants to put the 9/11 fucktards in civilian court. It will again cost way too much money while in my opinion it should cost no more than the price of a box of bullets. people tray and say Bush tried Richard Reid in civilian court, but he had little chioce. The law did not exist at the time to put him in front of a military tribunal. Then lets see, one of the guys Obama puts in charge of the deficit panel is the head of SEIU and has raped and pillaged the pensions of Service Employees International Union. The pensions were funded at around 90% before he stepped in and now are at below 60%. this means they do not have the money to pay the people the money they where promised. Why is he involved in any way with reducing the debt when it is obvious he just knows how to spend. Obama also announced he wants to spend more money we do not have on the education system. Bush expanded educational funding more than any other president in history with no child left behind and we see how that worked out. The dropout rate is ridiculously high and the government answer is... throw money at the problem. A more logical solution is to make sure kids have a good home life. Kids need to fail in order to learn, people need to fail in order to learn. I am the perfect example of that. I messed around in school and did not take life seriously and it took a kick in the ass from the real world to break me from that. Kids need to know they have to work hard to get ahead, they do not need to be taught the world is fair and you can get whatever you want from the government. Life is not fair, some people fail, some people succeed. Working hard will get you to a better place in life, government dependency holds people down. To clarify, it is not just Obama I am pissed at, It is all government. They have become a power hungry mod and the people are not going to take it. If you think I am wrong that the people are not upset with the state of our union, talk to me in 9 months when there is a huge turnover in Washington...

I will end my rant there...

[city14]

Obama campaigned on the idea that we would all work together. Yet he did not involve the republicans at all in talks over health care

Did you see the live youtube feed about healthcare? There were a whole lot of Republicans there, and most of them just wasted his time asking the same question and just talking for far longer than needed. Not like they were filibustering, which I am tired of the media over emphasizing, as there hasn't been a true filibuster for quite some time...

And I agree with some of what you say, but it so biased. The documents that were created by the founders were all for moderation. To make it equal for all people. To say that the "roots" of what the country was created for, is completely biased. The documents have been manipulated to mean whatever anyone wants. So don't do it as well, take some time to think about the other ideals...

[Dionysos]

I will only say this one more thing, because it has to be stated (apparently yet again).

Americans seem to think that in europe, you *don't* get ahead if you work hard. When actually it's exactly that mentality which dominates, especially in the mid-states, to a pathological degree. Germany and France for instance are hyper-capitalistic. And yet americans (yes I generalize, apologies) also say that here everyone is made equal and that if you work hard somehow you get repressed and don't make more money than others. That's BULLSHIT, and I'm tired of hearing it said to justify a more anti-social (in the definitive sense of the word social) policy or policies in general. One might even argue that you actually have a higher chance of getting ahead and rich for hard work in a social country simply because (due to the hated taxes) starting chances are equal and not as depended on luck and the social class you are born into.

People are created equal, but born into different circumstances. The governments role should be to even out those starting chances, so that everyone has an actual chance.

Sorry I got so worked up, but this myth that europe is some weird communist utopia where everyone is fed and bathed and gets their ass wiped for paying taxes is ridiculous. Europe is just as capitalistic as the US, with the moderation of equal fair chance in several countries (scandinavia, public school, everyone can study if they want etc).

[MayheM]

I am assuming you are talking about the one last Thursday. The one that took place after the House, Senate and Obama all scribed separate health care bills with no Republican input. Yeah I watched it... Obama himself talked more than all the Republicans combined so if anyone was wasting time it would be him. The Republicans only had an invite to talk after the Senate lost it's super-majority.

The manipulation of the Constitution is always in the name of progress. Bringing the country into the modern age. We honestly I think the founders did a pretty damn good job setting up this union. I fail to see how that is a bias stance. The more this country changes from what it was the worse things get. Ours is the first generation since the creation of the USA that will not exceed the level of success our parents had. To me that is heading in the wrong direction.

[city14]

I watched it for about an hour and a half, and it always seemed that a republican was talking... And then Obama would say something, and then he would be interrupted after only a little bit. Anyway, again this is getting maybe to heated...

[Terr]

Ultimately it becomes hard to separate cause from effect: Are Republicans excluded which causes them to be vengefully obstructionist, or are Republicans being obstructionists which causes them to be excluded? Pick your poison.

Back in 2007--in response to an article on filibusters--I tossed together some scripts and a spreadsheet crunched a bunch of numbers from the Senate website. Apparently it hasn't changed since then: There are more filibusters (that is, cloture votes) than ever since the Republicans lost their Senate majority. Early on in 2007 there was about 500% the density as back when then-majority Republicans were threatening "The Nuclear Option".

[Jman]

Free universal health care is honestly a necessity. Running hospitals for profit is horrible as it stops being about saving lives and starts being about making dough. Being in debt or losing thousands of dollars just for getting hurt is ridiculous. Canadabest.

[city14]

Well, a cloture vote is not a filibuster, but a preventing of an endless filibuster... But I get what you mean, that is how many filibusters were stopped.

I would like to see the research you did, I'm in a government class right now, and am kind of interested in it...

It's pretty retarted though if someone did a filibuster now, they would lose their constituency so fast...

[Simpletool]

The manipulation of the Constitution is always in the name of progress. Bringing the country into the modern age. We honestly I think the founders did a pretty damn good job setting up this union. I fail to see how that is a bias stance. The more this country changes from what it was the worse things get. Ours is the first generation since the creation of the USA that will not exceed the level of success our parents had. To me that is heading in the wrong direction.

There have been 27 amendments to the Constitution since its birth. Please explain how the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments can be labeled as "manipulation . . . in the name of progress"? Here, I'll even help you with this one.

The founding fathers understood that as the U.S. population grew the government and Constitution would require modifications to accommodate a changing nation. Which is why they put in place procedures to allow amendments to the Constitution. If we were to remain an unchanged nation, the practice of slavery would have continued to exist far longer than it did, public spaces would still be segregated, women would not have a role in government, presidents would not be restricted to two terms, you would not have the opportunity to a speedy and fair public trial, and many many other freedoms and privileges that you enjoy today. Prohibition was an example of a harmful amendment to our constitution, but to argue that the purpose of many Constitutional amendments were for manipulation is not only a ridiculous claim but reveals a complete absence of any understanding of U.S. history.

By what evidence and measurement can you claim that "Ours is the first generation since the creation of the USA that will not exceed the level of success our parents had." when we have evidence for things like crime and high school graduation rates that contradict your statement.

[MayheM]

How so? How would they lose their constituency? I would say 9 months from now we will see how upset the people are with our government. I am talking both sides here. It will be worse for the Dems if they pass this bill. Honestly the biggest issue I have with this bill though is the spending. The debt is ridiculous! It will only get worse. I find it interesting how people say the bill will reduce the debt over the next 10 years. Well first of all there is no way that can be true. If you cover 30,000,000 more people no amount of cuts to Medicaid will help the debt go down. That is unless they raise taxes. But then again Obama said he would not do that. Then of course there is the fact that the coverage does not kick in for a few years, but we start paying for it right away... It is like the stimulus bill. "WE NEED TO PASS THIS RIGHT AWAY!!!!' then it sits on Obama's desk for a few days, then he signs it and a year later 1/3 of the money has been spent. Why did they rush that through again? The Government is addicted to spending. The worst part is, it is not their money they are spending. The people pay for all this crap!!! If the economy takes a dump does the government start laying off Senators and Congressmen? Nope!!! so they have no worries and no true ties to the consequences of their actions. The same goes for the health care crap. When asked if the Senate and Congress would want to change their health coverage they all say no. Why is that? Why is it so great that they force it down our throats but do not want it for themselves?

[greenman]

Watch the film Sicko, it's obviously a little one sided but it's quite informative.
I live in the UK and have to say I have never had a really bad experience with the NHS.