Well given that the government pays lower fees to doctors/hospitals for the same service than private health insurance does your argument doesn't seem to hold up.

Look, this is the problem we're discussing and at this point I don't think any non-deluded person of average intelligence can disagree over this reality:

Source.

Source.

And now the next question to ask is why is our quasi-private health care system so massively expensive(while delivering subpar results) when compared to other universal health care countries? Well here are some clues:

Source.

Here's another clue:

Source.

That last quote is the key. It's the whole reason our healthcare is so damned expensive compared to the rest of the developed world.

Bro: " open bracket youtube close bracket LeYCk5ooNvY open bracket /youtube close bracket "



Pretty good video. I hope Warren gets into the senate.

Ha! I suck, but will adjust! Thank you.

But I don't give a crap about inner workings of the system. All I really care about is that if I need to go to a doctor I can and it won't bankrupt me. I can do that in Canada while people in the USA can't.

So please explain why it's the wonderful US system where costs are spiraling out of control and the socialized systems where it's not? Like the article I poasted said, an MRI in Japan costs $98, in the USA it's $1500. If the market-based approach was better, shouldn't it be the other way around?

I love it how you compare getting treatment for your kid's stomach infection or cancer to getting a free cell phone. With one I have my child's life in the balance and the other an easy means to play fruit ninja. Very analogous situation there.

But the tax pool isn't dry. Taxes are at their lowest point since like 1950. Meanwhile 40,000 people a year are dying because they lack health care coverage, all because a few ideologues are scared to let the rates revert back to where they were under that communist Ronald Reagan. It's fairly disgusting.


The actual reality is that when it comes to this issue the right is as usual full of sh*t. The US has screwed up health care not because it has a market-based system, and not because it's socialized, but because it has BOTH. I mean if you're Native or a vet, you have government provided health care, and if you're over 65 or destitute you have Medicare and Medicaid, which is kind of like the Canadian system. Also factor in that there are guarantees that ER's can't turn away sick people when they come in for acute injuries and then private insurance companies with all kinds of coverage loopholes and conditions and all you have is a hodgepodge clusterf**k.

So now someone comes along who wants to reform the system with a sensible plan that would solve a lot of the problems, and you and your buddies on talk radio an in the GOP oppose it on ideological grounds saying that you're against "government intervention" or "socialism" or whatever nonsense. So I say fine, be against it, but how about also being against it and speaking out against the VA Medical service, the Native system, and Medicare and Medicaid? Why not be consistent just one goddamn time?

Oh wait, I know why: Because if the GOP were out there standing true to their so-called values and beating an anti-Medicare/anti VA drum they'd never win any elections, would they?

According to this poll, more voters would like to see Obamacare repealed. (than not)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ealth_care_law

Most people like every single thing Obamacare does when its presented to them individually and explained without the label of Obamacare.

Without knowing any details of this result, if true, this would not be surprising to me. I mean given that around 2/3 of the population want universal health care in place...

Source.

...and given that what you and others refer to as Obamacare IS NOT universal health care, I wouldn't be surprised if most people are not happy with Obamacare. [especially when you factor in all the 'private = good/government = bad' propaganda combined with the lolpropaganda that Obamacare = socialized big evil always inefficient government health care--so you have a reason for those on the left to be pissed (no UH) and those on the right to be pissed (evil socialism)]

Sigh. How many times do we have to go over this?

54% of the voters somewhat favor repeal. But that also includes 10-15% who favor repeal and replace with single payer or public option. Which leaves you about 39-44% who don't believe in UHC at all - or basically the same people who are going to vote republican in every election until they die.

I am in europe and for me its not the healthcaresystem itself

1. If you have to pay for your doctor education you need a higher income to pay your education debt = higher wages

1a. Food Industry, if you look at sample to Japan they " eat " much
healthier = lower costs

2. Private means that you have not only pay the treatment you also
have to pay the profit, this profit can be regulated. But if you choose that the industry write the laws its hard to break.

3. In a " balanced " system you pay nothing if you dont have something.
For the money that the US spend now its easy possible to support any in the US first class.

Sure that works only if a few companys cut there profit and a few lobbyist loose , thats called regulation...not free market

wat

They were good points, actually. Read them again.

The only good in the US system is that a part of the profits are spending
for high end healthcare. I would say that the US have the most high end
healthcare...but i guess 99% will not get it.

Like here its pretty simple, we buy for 320 million people " Penecillin".
The best offer get the order you would be surprised about the price.

And many "new drugs" are not better than old ones only in a new box and with a new patent.

Why must healthcare be a extreme profitable business ? Sure as a sick person you pay anything to survive.....but the gouverment can easy protect you if they want.

I think part of the problem here is that people (and not just Americans) just don't think of health care as something that is their responsibility to save for. I'll bet that a lot (but NOT all) of the people that are bankrupted by bills of that size are people that probably could have paid the bill if they prioritized saving for health care over other spending that they don't didn't really need (new TV, nicer car, etc.). But people just don't do this.

As far as things that are important to survive, I think for a rational person, health care is probably around the third most important priority as far as an individuals spending is concerned (after food and shelter).

Of course people generally don't forget to allocate money for food and shelter, since they are faced with those needs daily. Health care is just about as important, but many people allocate zero money towards it since the need for health care, for most, is sporadic.

This was specifically to Obamacare, so given the thread title this may not be an applicable poll.

In 2009 the Democrats had a larger control of government than the Republicans had had in over a 100 years. The Republicans haven't had a filibuster-proof majority since the 1800s.

Congress, controlled by Democrats, voted to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Government is not run by a few ideologues. Since the Republicans haven't had a filibuster-proof majority during any of our lives -- everything they've done has happened with the consent of the Democratic party.

If Democrats thought that paying for healthcare was a priority they could have used their absolute control of government and enacted laws to pay for universal health-care. They chose not to.

Well it's not just that, it's the fact that you really dont get what you pay for most of the time. I got hit by a drunk driver and was able to walk away from the crash. However my mother convinced me to go to the doctor anyway since I might have internal bleeding or something and be unaware. They gave me 3 x-rays and a doctor examined me. I was in and out in about an hour, and the bill was ~$2800. ****ing stupid.

Not filibustering = consent?

The minority can't bring issues up for a vote without the consent of the majority. The majority has total control of the agenda.

But the minority has the power to stop whatever they want. That's the way government works. That's why when one party is in control they accuse the other of being the Party of No.

That's the only power the minority has. Say no, and force the other side to compromise.

How do you think government works?

Except this is the real world, not the world of "should", and in this world the Dems couldn't get their conservative wing to support a single-payer system. That's just reality. That hardly serves as an excuse to not support a decent plan that could make it through, though, don't you think?

The point I was making had nothing to really do with whether the charges were appropriate in your case or even most cases.

If anything, that sort of experience should make people want to try even harder to save for possible health care expenses.

Lemme tally this up real quick.

Dems didn't do everything they could to stop Repubs.

Repubs do everything they can to stop Dems.

Any party out of power is the party of No.

Yes, I think I see where you're coming from on this equation.

The most damning indictment of our health care system is this:

Life expectancy, Mexico : 76.5 Years (2009)
Life expectancy, United States: 78.1 Years (2009)

So, we spend 8.7 times as much as mexico to live 1.5 years longer. You could argue that lifestyle plays into life expectancy, but mexico is fatter than us and sucks on a number of variables related to life expectancy compared to us(sanitation, pollution, availability of clean water, etc etc).

Not in Oklahoma! We opted out of that bull****!

70/30


I voted to opt out.