We've hashed the health care debate to death, but I thought this article was fairly interesting. http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/4countrieswithbetterhealthcarethanours Canada: Percent rating the healthcare system A or B: 46 percent; D or F: 15 percent; annual healthcare spending per person: $3,895 France: A or B: 63 percent; D or F: 12 percent; spending: $3,601 Germany: A or B: 18 percent; D or F: 44 percent; spending: $3,588 Switzerland: A or B: 66 percent; D or F: 14 percent; spending: $4,417 United Kingdom: A or B: 32 percent; D or F: 20 percent; spending: $2,992 United States: A or B: 22 percent; D or F: 38 percent; spending: $7,290 And this... http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/health-reform-without-a-public-plan-the-german-model/
I lived in Japan for several years and was enrolled in their national health insurance. By law Full time workers have to enroll, pay about $150 a month and their employers are obligated to match that. The national health care covers 80% of the costs and there are private insurance plans you can enroll in to cover the other 20% I was happy with the care I received. I only went to the hospital a few times though. Once for a nasty flu bug and once to the dentist to get a root canal. I paid about $30 to see the doctor and the root canal set me back $300.
Are those satisfaction numbers independent of cost? Something tells me that putting the cost and satisfaction might be redundant. Would the satisfaction numbers change drastically if the costs went down significantly? If not, then it seems that the current reform proposals won't really improve our satisfaction numbers as shown in this study.
That is what I have been saying all along. There are so many folks that think the USA is just the best at everything. It's not. Some folks say they are happy with their help coverage. Why wouldn't they be happy with it for cheaper? Health insurance companies here in the USA typically mark it up over 30%. They are also trying to get a bill passed that will make it so that the person will be responsible for up to 35% of the bill when it comes. Yet folks just run around with their head up their ass, opposing health the health bill because they oppose the democrats in general. It has to be impossible that the party they oppose comes up with a good idea actually, right? That is why all the arguments against health care that you see for the most part, are just bullshit thrown to the wind. Because they don't have a legitimate argument against it. With our current health care system, the fat cats keep getting fat, and the joe average guy gets fucked. End of Story.
I once spoke with a gentleman who was born outside London. He said the average wait to see a dentist was four months.
As long as you don't care about how long you have to wait for treatment, what the nurse/patient ratio is, how qualified the physicians are that treat you and how new the equipment is that's used to diagnose you, socialized health care is great. BTW, I like the Swiss system quite a bit. It's the best of the programs out there.
I don't really understand the anger. All Democrats have to do is decide which health care plan is going to pass and it's done. Since it's only Republicans and Independents "oppose" progress on health care, why don't we already have a bill?
Switzerland? Are you kidding? Why do you think "Papers, please" are always made more ominous with a German accent?
You could also say All Congress has to do is decide which health care plan is going to pass and it's done. or All the country has to do is decide which health care plan is going to pass and it's done. My point, you ask? It's that Democrats don't all share one opinion about what the right plan is. Otherwise, I guess it probably would be done already. But then, your question was probably rhetorical anyway. barfo
But many of them are trying to paint the picture than the Republicans are responsible for holding up healthcare reform... just to spite the Democrats.
I think the issue at hand is not only deciding on what reform measures congress wants to implement, but how to transform out of what we have and into what we may want to have without losing millions of jobs and creating upheavel (or however it's spelled) in he medical profession. Also, without some deeply meaningful tort reform, the situation will just get worse. In fact, if it could be done smoothly, I also like the Swiss program.
There are more ways to hold up legislation than a filibuster. Creating fear, uncertainty, and doubt is one way. barfo
