Now, why I like the German system. It lets people opt out. It forces family members to care for their own for protracted care situations. It's not bankrupting the govt. and the people, unlike their Solar Energy program.
Interesting story. Three points. One, the current private health insurance system is mighty inefficient - in my limited experience I'd stack it up against any government bureaucracy. So I don't believe we'd lose much on that score. Second, I think it is a falsehood that we need, or get, the best and brightest in the medical profession. A lot of what we get are those motivated by money. What's needed are people skills and pattern recognition, for the most part. Third, I forgot my third point. barfo
1. The lawsuits don't help. They're not going to go away. 2. The best and brightest do graduate from the top universities with honors. What other way do you want to judge them? 3. Alzheimers. I bet you want me to pay your way.
I don't dispute that. I think you missed my point. My way where? Am I going somewhere? But aren't you a sweet young man for offering to help! barfo
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. We don't currently have a national health care service, so there's no "current level of service" that we currently can't afford. The "current level of service" is largely done through private insurers, so I don't understand how it's meaningful to say we can't currently afford what people are, in fact, affording privately. To do a national health care service, money will clearly have to be budgeted and part of that will definitely require more taxation (the rest can come from reallocation of funds going elsewhere, like the enormous defense budget). Are you saying that all the wealth in the US can't finance a national health care service that provides service equivalent to what people currently receive and is paid for through private insurers? That's clearly not true since people are currently paying for it privately and the remaining 50M who need insurance wouldn't take all the remaining money people have. Which is fortunate, since 100% taxes aren't a very good idea.
I should have been more clear. If we can get the government to make corresponding cuts elsewhere, we could pay for it. But, Obama hasn't shown even a hint of cuts to spending. There is absolutely no evidence that he will start now. Proposals for paying for Obama's program have been centered around more taxes, not government spend cutting. Even with the new proposed taxes, we would not cover the costs. The middle class is already struggling right now, increasing taxes wouldn't help. Therefore, we can't afford it.
I think taxes can be raised if there's a corresponding removal of another cost to people. Adding national health care would remove paying for insurance/health care from the system. Since I agree that it will probably cost more for the tax-payers to do it, it won't balance out completely. Of course, that's where progressive taxation comes in. The rich will pay a bit more than the middle class. I'd rather as much of it was funded by cuts elsewhere. But I agree that that's probably not in the cards. Most likely it'll be done with some taxation and some deficit spending. Not my favoured approach.
But they are covered. They may not be insured, but they receive health care when they need it. You mean if companies could just pirate drugs that were developed? That would merely insure that no drugs are ever developed again. I'll make sure to watch it. Thanks for the link.
Hmm. No one responded regarding their personal difficulty getting health care. I guess insofar as this forum is concerned, there's no need for health care reform. Glad to hear it.
Here's some simple math: http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder061809.php3 It goes a long way to explain why no one here seems to have enough difficulty obtaining healthcare or dissatisfaction with it to post that they need the government to provide their healthcare for them.
http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/06/abcs-white-house-special-struggled-for-viewers.html ABC's White House special struggled for viewers President Obama's town hall meeting on health care delivered a sickly rating Wednesday evening. The one-hour ABC News special "Primetime: Questions for the President: Prescription for America" (4.7 million viewers, 1.1 preliminary adults 18-49 rating) had the fewest viewers in the 10 p.m. hour (against NBC's "The Philanthropist" debut and a repeat of "CSI: NY" on CBS). The special tied some 8 p.m. comedy repeats as the lowest-rated program on a major broadcast network. The special was shot at the White House and featured the president answering questions about his health care plan. The president's primary message was that those who like their current insurance will be able to keep it and that taking no action will result in higher health care costs. The special drew fire from Republican leadership after refusing to allow an official opposition response, or even a paid ad. ABC also interviewed Obama on "Good Morning America" to help promote the special. UPDATE: ABC points out that "Questions for the President" continued after the local news during late night on "Nightline" (4.3 million) and helped boost the news program to pull more viewers than CBS' "Late Show" and NBC's "Tonight Show."
