Obama Healthcare

[Locke4God]

Well Said Jeordam - I really can't believe anybody could argue with that. It's what America decided on at its founding and it's worked ever since.

[Jeordam]

that so many other people around the world (and even some here in the US) just don't get about how America was set up.

Remember that this country was not established from a monarchy. Instead, this country was *literally* hacked out of the wilderness and to gain our individuality, we fought the biggest/strongest nation in the world. It hasn't been that long since that actually happened. It is with this mentality that our country was established...

That we are not entitled to pretty much anything, but instead we are given the freedom to search, strive, and work towards those things that we both need and want. But guess what...that means that you will have to work very hard, and there is absolutely no guarentee of success. You may strive your entire life for financial independance...and never get it. We are not presented the success, but instead we are presented with the capacity to try.

And it is possible. Three generations ago, my family wasn't even in the US. They were in Mexico. My own grandparents were children when they came here (oddly enough....after the last big flu outbreak). They worked the fields...hard...so that their children wouldn't have to. Then my parents worked their crappy jobs....hard...so that I wouldn't have to. I am one of a very few in my family who ever graduated from college. I'm the only one to have a Masters Degree....and I'm only a few decades away from picking produce.

Yes, I'm in debt. I don't have my own home...but guess what. I'm working hard...so that eventually my kids will have the means to accomplish their goals without crushing debt. Do I begrudge the rich or expect the government to pay for me to succeed? No in the least, because that will just diminish my hard work.

Just remember that something is always more valuable to a person when they have to work to get it themselves...instead of it being handed to them.

~Jeordam

[Aerif]

First a note about left-wingedness

I really can't believe that people are still accepting the propoganda bull-shit* from the cold war. I really don't see why Communism, Socialism and anything left-wing is seen as evil in the United States.

To me, the image of evil conjures several images:

1. Satan
2. War
3. Inequality

Do you really think that Satan supports free health-care and sharing in hell?

"COMMIE, COMMIE, COMMIE!" - Although this is an exaggeration on my part, this is exactly why I don't like to participate in the I.D. forum on TFF. The propoganda that was drilled into every US citizen is probably the longest running propoganda in recent history. Socialism and Communism's key point is equality, no country has ever been communist or socialist, but the closer countries (rather than the ones that claimed to be, i.e. the Soviet Union). Equality can never be branded a bad thing.

---

I'm not saying that universal health-care is perfect. To be honest my family have health insurance which is used only for very specialised cases that may not be available quickly on the NHS. However it certainely works better than health-insurance.

On the monetary side of things, we have to remember that there is a world-wide recession. Most things are failing financially, the state of European health-care may have racked up debts, but only a fool would state that those debts are worse than the debts the US have acquired through much less urgent things.

How much do you pay for health-care insurance? If taxes were increased to support a universal health-care system then would it cost as much as private health-care? No.

I can't exactly find who said it, but I think a few people have thrown out the idea that doctors would suffer from universal health care. Take a look at these figures:

Average Salary of a Doctor in the United States

That implies non-nationalised doctors recieve around $144,000 per year. Nationalised doctors in the UK tend to earn around £100,000 a year, about two years ago that would be $200,000 a year, from a nationalised service. Now it's only around $150,000 a year. I can't really see doctor's wages being slashed too dramatically since the average UK doctor gets paid more than the average US doctor.

---

I was thinking about the famous JFK quote, JFK being a guy Obama likes to compare himself too, and both were quite popular. JFK of course said, "Ask not what your country can do for you," and he was right. I might wonder why we're doing the exact opposite of that now?

Let's look at the entire quote for this one:

And so, my fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

What's wrong with that quote (aside from the fact that it's *communist* by trying to get you to help your country.)?

"Ask what you can do for your country."

Would supporting 'Obama-care' not be supporting your country? After all, it supports citizens of the country.

---

This is where I expect this post to get long. Griffith you posted a link to a letter from a physician, who I honestly feel is a biased source. This is why.

The physician's opinion on the bill:

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self insure!!

It is simply unjust at the moment that any organisation should make a profit out of the 'business' that is life and death. If they're making an absolute fortune then anyone has the right to exploit this wrong-doing.

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

A committee that will likely judge on these treatments based on people's needs rather than the cost-effectiveness of the entire operation.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

For this I actually downloaded the Proposed Health Care Bill

(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits package with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph (B).

(B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.

It seems that healthcare will in fact be 'rationed' to the point that a family cannot put outragous plastic-surgery appointments into the healthcare system every few weeks. Very few families will come close to the $10,000 mark as the prices that Hospitals currently charge are simply unrealistically expensive. Do you really think it costs $20,000 to pay for bypass surgery? The surgeons are already being paid out of their salary and the equipment used most likely does not come to $20,000. Not to mention that the expensive equipment will get used more than once.

Page 42 of HC Bill:The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!

Why should you recieve treatment that you don't need?

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Do you mean immigrants, Dr. Fraser? I was quite sure that at the time of establishment, America consisted entirely of immigrants and Native-Americans. Does that mean that only Native-Americans should recieve health-care?

Or is it because they don't pay tax you have an issue with it? Do you really think there will be millions flocking to the US for free healthcare?

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Does that mean you trust the health-care companies (who can do that just now) more than the government that you elected?

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to you ur banks accounts for elective funds transfer.

You mean they can't already?

Page 65 Sec 164: is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

So retirees shouldn't be re-imbursed?

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange.

Meaning they can stop unfair plans.

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example - Translation: illegal aliens.

Not everybody's first language is English. America, being the 'land of the free' should tolerate that.

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

And...?

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members - your Health care WILL be rationed.

Covered that.

Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

They're still allowed to keep their private-plans. They'll just be on the system.

Page 124 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monopoly.

Prices are already fixed - and they are too high. If one company can convince customers to pay a certain amount then everyone will charge that amount. (Which is weird since everywhere else, people fight to have the lowest prices and hence the largest custom).

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make! (salary)

Believe it or not but the government are not completely idiotic. They will not dramatically change the pay of doctors as they don't want to have every doctor in the US sueing them.

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE!

If the employee still wants private health-care, they still have access. They are simply being put on the system.

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.

Everybody pays for everybody. There shouldn't be a problem.

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.

Page 150 Lines 9-13: Business's with payroll btw 251k & 401k who doesn't provide public option pays 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

I thought they had to anyway?

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)

Since this is a minorty of the people who may use the system, it shouldn't be too much of a burden.

After this point I stopped reading the letter. Since most of the things after it were simply repetition of what had already been said.

---

Can I also state that anyone who has not read Arthur Miller's 'Death of a Salesman' should do so before they argue that everyone has the freedom to be as successful or unsuccessful as everyone else.

[Jeordam]

Equality can never be branded a bad thing.

So I, obviously, snipped the entire post that you wrote...I only wanted to comment on this one line.

Yes, equality can be branded as a bad thing. You're probably shaking your head right now, but hear me out. Equality in our humanity...our personhood. Those are good things....necessary things...and right things.

Equality in our material have/have-nots? Equality in our accomplishments? To have everyone "have the same" is so crazy, that I can't even type the words out. Why on God's Green Earth should some crack head or high-school drop out have the nice clothes...good car...great apartment or anything else that someone who has worked very hard for?

Equality in the material things breeds nothing more than lazy, non-productive people. Why? Because through no one's actions, can anyone achive something worth while. Instead, there is no need to exert effort or work. Does it suck that some people live perpetually in poverty? Yes, it does. But lets put things into perspective...we are each responsible for ourselves.

I don't begrudge those who have more than me who haven't worked as hard as I have. Why? Because I am in no possition to get all "Robin Hood" on them, and steal from them....because I certainly wouldn't want someone stealing from me.

Forced quality among material possessions is an evil thing. For those who think otherwise, take a good hard look at your beliefs. History has proven that it does not work...it never has. And despite what some may believe, it never would. Why? Because human nature is selfish.

~Jeordam

[Joe]

As for why the concepts of socialism (or the application to communism) doesn't sit well with Americans? Because by its very nature, socialism assumes that every is entitled to what everyone else has. That isn't true. Some work harder than others. Some are smarter, more innovative, and just more accomplished. This isn't a matter of equality in our persons, but instead a distinction that there is an inherant inequality of what we each accomplish in life.

The crack-head or the high-school drop out or even the unlucky person does not *deserve* the flat screen TV....or the PS3....or their hybrid car. We are not "entitled" to good things....and guess what. We are not even entitled to necessary things. We have a bill of rights which ennumerates our rights...and health care is *not* one of them.

~Jeordam

So....what you are saying is that because I am far more disadvantaged that you right now, if I get sick, that I have no right to fair and equal treatment by a qualified physician?

Frankly I Am All For a Public health care system. People like me, who have been sick off and on, and in varying degrees, for most of their life, are pretty much boned by the "private" health insurance industry. Hell, even my little sister had trouble getting care, because we had to switch providers when my mom changed workplaces, during a nasty episode where we got stuck living in a moldy house, and my sis got sick. They refused to pay her medical bills because her condition was "pre-existing" and was therefore not covered. It took Forever, and a crapton of undue stress and worrying just to get basic treatment.

Health Care IS a right of all people whether you like it or not. Pulling yourself up by the bootstraps doesn't work very well, especially in a time of recession when there are very few opportunities to be had. (I've spent the past three months looking for work, with a college degree and more IT certifications than you can shake a stick at, with no luck) I'm currently about to be dropped very soon from my mother's health insurance, because I'm 19 and should be supporting myself. With cold and flu season rapidly approaching, what am I going to do if I get sick? Ride it out because since I'm disadvantaged, and unable to acquire insurance to get treatment? Please, explain to me how that is right.

Also, what I fail to understand, even as a proud American, is how my people can sit by, and support an industry whose sole purpose is NOT to help people with their health costs, as you may think, but to increase profits by denying as many claims as possible. Believe it or not, health insurance is a BUSINESS, which means it's there to MAKE MONEY. Not help other people.

In short, easy, affordable access to health care is something that EVERY American, and human being in general is Entitled to. No, we aren't entitled to hybrids, PS3's, plasma screens, or other Luxury items. Those we should have to work for, and should only purchase when we have the means to handle it. However, when you give your fellow Americans access to affordable health care, you are making it possible for so many others to pursue the American dream: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Something so many of us could do if we weren't terrified of what would happen if we fell ill.

As an afterthought: As per your Bill of Rights comment. Do you honestly believe that those are the ONLY rights granted to people?

[RagnaToad]

This discussion is set for nowhere fast.

Seeing how the US only has a history of about 300 years, it is a totally different world. I see how you people and your country are still evolving, changing in several ways. But I don't get how you can blindly believe that the country you live in is the greatest country in the world.

Do you think that the freedom you talk about is reserved to the US?

The so-called 'American' dream is just called capitalism. It's what the entire (read: ENTIRE) Western society is based on.

For some reason, Americans are just more paranoid and anal about any change that might effect them. It doesn't seem to matter whether it's good or bad for them, let alone for that group of poor people (who 'put it all on themselves') that can't pay for health insurance.

Because of the conservatism that blocks most discussions about change in the US, and partially because Sasquatch was so generous to give me bad rep without participating in this thread at ALL, I rest my case with the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLzo9pOXa-s

Granted, it's off-topic. But it's all in good fun.

Cause I'm just not as cynical as some of you.

[Govinda]

So basically, Jeordam, you're saying that America is neat because when you fall, when your life takes a turn for the worse, you're left to handle it on your own when there are people there who could help you? You're saying that in America the fate of the single mother whose husband died in a car accident and had no life insurance has nothing to do with anyone except that woman? That if you could pay for her food, you wouldn't?

I don't know where you get the idea that crackheads and so on end up with plasma TVs and great cars. It is not that way here. Unemployment pays £60.50 a week. Average rent for a flat is £200 per month. Food costs about £25 per week per person. Add it up. Living on benefits is not a nice life at all; it encourages you to improve yourself. Yes, there are some who can live like that; but they are a vast, vast minority when compared with the numbers of genuinely stuck people who could use a hand. There is gaping inequality in Europe. I was born working class, but I am upwardly mobile, because my fellow Brits, through the government, are paying for my university education. Because I'm from a 'deprived' background, they're helping me out with the rent too, because they want me to become educated and to help improve our country.

We're not talking uninsured crackheads/people getting money and TVs and nice houses here. We're talking them getting to visit a doctor without worrying about how much it will cost. We're talking everyone looking our for everyone else.

See, I don't think this can be reconciled. A European will never convince a conservative American to move, and vice versa. Many times now people have gone on about how the style of America's founding, and its principles, is why healthcare can't work. However, there's a big something missing that is ingrained here in Europe: I am because we are.

America is founded on individualism and selfishness, on stepping on the person below you to heighten your own position. I guess that works just fine for the comfortable ones among you.

I don't think this can be reconciled. New Orleans, at least the less well-off suburbs, is still the way it was after Katrina. The richest country in the world can leave those people there, trying to reclaim their homes and lives. A lot of them have left, but many haven't. It's been years, but you can't help them, for some reason.

Like hell are you ever going to pay for each other's healthcare. We can hit you with as many facts and rational ideas as we like. It just won't fly.

[Alpha]

I want to propose a vote.

If you live in a country with public ("socialised") health care provision, please state whether or not you...

1) support the system as it is.

2) have any issues with the current system (and describe them).

For myself:

1) I support the current system. I have lived my entire life under a public health system, and my family would not be where they are today without it. My younger (autistic) brother has had a recurrent bowel problem that has seen him hospitalised roughly every two months for his entire 15 years. I confess that I am not aware if an employer insurance scheme would be able to pay for this (US system), but as my mother was forced to quit her job as a teacher for many years to care for my brother, we weren't exactly rich (but not poor). Having absolutely no cost for my brother's care has been neccessary, especially due to the recurrent nature of his problem. And it wasn't a life-and-death issue either, moreso just that he needs to go to avoid living in pain.

2) For non-urgent health issues, it is occasionally slow. When I was 10 I tore a bone in my foot, and while it wasn't especially urgent, it did hurt a lot. I waited in triage (something I heard Americans don't even have) for about 5 hours on a weekday. However before you go and tell me that sucks, it doesn't. If my foot had fallen off, then I would have had immediate assistance. While I was in triage, a person who had been in a car accident was rushed through (probably increasing waiting time for everyone). I struggle to see this is a bad thing. Waiting five hours is better than having to pay.

---

I see this as a way of getting some primary evidence to support or condemn public health provision, and to fight some of the ignorance as to it's "evils".

[Che]

Reading this thread makes me want to move out of the US. I think I will turn this discussion into a "Where should Che move to?" thread.

@Ragna. I've seen that video before, but it's scary how true it is. However, there are a minority of people in the US who are different!

Also, if someone in the US believes they live in the best country ever hands down then you probably aren't going to change their mind. And if you don't live in the US, then why does it matter what they think? I tend to ignore people like that irl because there's nothing you can do that is going to make them wake the **** up.

[Jin]

So I, obviously, snipped the entire post that you wrote...I only wanted to comment on this one line.

Yes, equality can be branded as a bad thing. You're probably shaking your head right now, but hear me out. Equality in our humanity...our personhood. Those are good things....necessary things...and right things.

Equality in our material have/have-nots? Equality in our accomplishments? To have everyone "have the same" is so crazy, that I can't even type the words out. Why on God's Green Earth should some crack head or high-school drop out have the nice clothes...good car...great apartment or anything else that someone who has worked very hard for?

Equality in the material things breeds nothing more than lazy, non-productive people. Why? Because through no one's actions, can anyone achive something worth while. Instead, there is no need to exert effort or work. Does it suck that some people live perpetually in poverty? Yes, it does. But lets put things into perspective...we are each responsible for ourselves.

I don't begrudge those who have more than me who haven't worked as hard as I have. Why? Because I am in no possition to get all "Robin Hood" on them, and steal from them....because I certainly wouldn't want someone stealing from me.

Forced quality among material possessions is an evil thing. For those who think otherwise, take a good hard look at your beliefs. History has proven that it does not work...it never has. And despite what some may believe, it never would. Why? Because human nature is selfish.

~Jeordam

Hold on a minute. Are you saying that medical care should be treated as a material possession? I think this is where some supporters of public health care get lost in your position, myself included. What makes medicare so special that it should be treated as a material possession and not an essential service? No one pays to be serviced by the fire department or by the police department, so what makes medicare different than those two or other state provided necessities?

Please clarify your position on this as it may be the root of the argument.

[Locke4God]

What you have to understand is that a free capitalist society with a democratic repulic where the government has limited responsibility, CAN NOT lead to a dictatorship. That's the entire goal of America, is to prevent a dictatorship from ever forming here.

I've seen a few posts saying that Communism might be a good idea, and that American's are just overly paranoid of it. I'm very concerned about statements like this. Do you realize Communism is what America has stood against the entirety of the past 100 years? Have you seen what 20th Century Russia, and Modern day Cuba, China, and North Korea look like? If you think that Communist ideals are something worth pursuing, I urge you to look at the countries who have lived under this system. It just hasn't worked, and I'm very curious why you would think American's are simply paranoid. I think there's plenty of reason to stand against it.

Also I've noted several of you are interested in America's military force, and you've noted we spend a lot in that area. Well that's true, but you do realize that your own countries, if you don't live in America, are free to spend less on your military because our own in all likelyhood defends yours. Nobody in the world will attack a European nation or other American ally because they know America would obliterate them.

Just think about the power of that. Nobody will attack your nation, because they'd draw in the most powerful nation on Earth if they did so, and America for all it's grief with France or Gordon Brown, or any other nation, despite any ill will you bare us, would be at your door the next day to defend you.

So before you cast ideals on us about whether we appropriate too much on our military, or say that you'd never want to live here, understand that we protect you. We secure peace throughout the world so that your nation can use it's own funds on anything it's people choose, including free healthcare for your people if that's what you wish. And we do it willingly.

[Locke4God]

appologies for the double post, but this was a completely seperate idea.

I wondered if any of you in favor of the Government Healthcare plan had considered it's downsides. For instance,

• The Congretional Budget Office has officially stated that Healthcare costs would go up, not down, under the proposed plan
• None of the effects would kick in for 4 years anyway, so what's the rush
• 1 trillion dollars would be added to the record deficit created this year
• taxes on all American's would go up, something that was promissed to us not to happen
• Business taxes would also go up forcing further layoffs, preventing the hiring of new employees, and preventing business growth
• 70% of Americans are perfectly happy with their current care and don't want it changed.
• Only 22% strongly support this bill
• 44% are strongly against this bill
• 55% are against the bill outright, and yet the claim persists that it's "what people voted for". More people are against the bill than the number who voted for the man who wants to implement it.

[Joe]

What you have to understand is that a free capitalist society with a democratic repulic where the government has limited responsibility, CAN NOT lead to a dictatorship. That's the entire goal of America, is to prevent a dictatorship from ever forming here.

I've seen a few posts saying that Communism might be a good idea, and that American's are just overly paranoid of it. I'm very concerned about statements like this. Do you realize Communism is what America has stood against the entirety of the past 100 years? Have you seen what 20th Century Russia, and Modern day Cuba, China, and North Korea look like? If you think that Communist ideals are something worth pursuing, I urge you to look at the countries who have lived under this system. It just hasn't worked, and I'm very curious why you would think American's are simply paranoid. I think there's plenty of reason to stand against it.

Also I've noted several of you are interested in America's military force, and you've noted we spend a lot in that area. Well that's true, but you do realize that your own countries, if you don't live in America, are free to spend less on your military because our own in all likelyhood defends yours. Nobody in the world will attack a European nation or other American ally because they know America would obliterate them.

Just think about the power of that. Nobody will attack your nation, because they'd draw in the most powerful nation on Earth if they did so, and America for all it's grief with France or Gordon Brown, or any other nation, despite any ill will you bare us, would be at your door the next day to defend you.

So before you cast ideals on us about whether we appropriate too much on our military, or say that you'd never want to live here, understand that we protect you. We secure peace throughout the world so that your nation can use it's own funds on anything it's people choose, including free healthcare for your people if that's what you wish. And we do it willingly.

So have you not figured out that Communism and Socialism are totally different things yet? Frankly, I don't see how universal access to health care leads to an evil dictatorship of doom. Are you saying that every European nation with universal healthcare, and socialist policies are the equivalent of Russia, Cuba, and North Korea? Please clarify this point.

This insanity about America being the world's protector is quite incorrect. America looks out for number one first and foremost, and while we do spend a large amount on our military, we're spending far more pursuing unnecessary military objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not our place to push our ideals onto other people. The reason America's democracy works as well as it does (even then I'm not positive we're doing that well atm), is because we had to fight for it OURSELVES.

I, for one, do not WILLINGLY fund our military actions overseas. The only reason my tax money is collected is because I need to purchase things to survive. My tax dollars would be far better off taking care of people over here, helping us all toward a collective improvement, than sending our troops, with families, often children, Lives here, to go die in needless waste.

I wondered if any of you in favor of the Government Healthcare plan had considered it's downsides. For instance,

* The Congretional Budget Office has officially stated that Healthcare costs would go up, not down, under the proposed plan
* None of the effects would kick in for 4 years anyway, so what's the rush
* 1 trillion dollars would be added to the record deficit created this year
* taxes on all American's would go up, something that was promissed to us not to happen
* Business taxes would also go up forcing further layoffs, preventing the hiring of new employees, and preventing business growth
* 70% of Americans are perfectly happy with their current care and don't want it changed.
* Only 22% strongly support this bill
* 44% are strongly against this bill
* 55% are against the bill outright, and yet the claim persists that it's "what people voted for". More people are against the bill than the number who voted for the man who wants to implement it.

[CITATION NEEDED]?
Show me the sources you pulled this data from. I want completely unbiased sources, so no Fox News or the like.

For the record, I'd wager that the main reason people are against the bill, is because of the person introducing it. After all, people are still fighting tooth and nail because they are convinced that he's not a legitamate president and he's gonna turn us over the teh terrorists because his middle name is Hussein.

I disagree about your point over layoffs. Most businesses are laying people off to send their businesses overseas, That's where the real problem is. If that stopped there would suddenly be many more jobs available.

and Sure, money Would be added to the deficit, but then again, we're adding billions upon billions upon billions to the deficit through needless wartime spending, so what's your point? Eventually when our people are healthier, happier, and well enough, the amount of productivity at businesses goes up, businesses make more money, businesses then pay workers more, and money flows through the economy again.

But again, I want sources, Official Sources, for each of those bullet points listed. Please don't disappoint me.

[Locke4God]

@ JoeSteel - certainly, I definately respect your need to see unbiased info and I'm happy to share. Check Rasmussen reports and you can do that at Rasmussen Reports: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

There are a number of different aspects of the plan surveyed so please look for them all, including how it effects taxes, quality of care, and costs.

It's odd that among Healthcare supports, it seems most of you assume that everybody supports it, but actually most of the nation doesn't. You'll notice in the polls Obama is below 50% in favorablity. 10% more people think he's doing a terrible job than think he's doing a great job. But I see a lot of Obama supporters that seem to think everybody just loves him. That's not the case.


And Joe, I'm definately aware of the differences between Socialism and Communism, however they are shades of gray. Socialism implies redistribution of wealth and government intervention into society, while Communism is just taking the next step with a full government take over of industry.

What's troubling for those of us against this healthcare plan and against Obama in general is that he's taking socialist steps already, and our interest lies in stopping him now before he takes it any further.

Do I believe he's communist? No, not at all. But I do think that the growth of power in the presidency has reached an acceptible limit. He's a guy who has said he prefers a single payer plan, and yet now tries to claim that he only wants "a government option". So he's lying. He wants more than what he knows americans will accept for now, and so that means he is willing to take another step after this. For that reason I don't trust him, and I'm not willing to let him take the first step so that he can take another later.

[Jin]

I'm definately aware of the difference between Socialism and Communism, however they are shades of gray. Socialism implies redistribution of wealth and government intervention into society, while Communism is just taking the next step with a full government take over of industry.

Based on those definitions, I'm not convinced you do know the difference between socialism and communism. Communism is more than just taking socialism one step farther, as you claim. To say that Mao Zedong is just a hardcore version of Robert Owen or Benjamin Tucker implies a gross misunderstanding of the complexities of leftist political theory. The term socialism itself is ambiguous. Are we referring to an actual system of government such as utopian socialism or democratic socialism or are we referring simply to the economic opposite of laissez-faire capitalism, which communism, democratic socialism, utopian socialism and anarchism all use in varied forms as economic policy? This issue isn't so black and white.

A side note: everyone here should also know the difference between social democracy and socialism proper. The former is where public health care is steering towards, not the latter.

[Alpha]

What you have to understand is that a free capitalist society with a democratic repulic where the government has limited responsibility, CAN NOT lead to a dictatorship. That's the entire goal of America, is to prevent a dictatorship from ever forming here.

Explain which countries with public health provision currently have dictatorships. In fact, America has a very unrepresentative democratic system - two parties!? Lesse, there's 7 in the NZ Parliament, and voting for a minor party or an independent is not throwing your vote away.

Also, WE'RE NOT COMMUNISTS! Besides, modern-day China, for all it's failings (and there are many), is the world's fastest-growing economy, and we all depend on it to get us out of the recession.

Thirdly, many of us don't want your freaking military. Your nuclear-powered ships are banned from New Zealand's waters, and that is not going to change anytime soon. No one would dare attack states that are simply non-aggressive (i.e. small military, using diplomacy instead of force). You fail to realise the fact that America is an aggressor, not some protector of freedom that the world looks to for it's salvation.

And the problem with your source, Locke, is that it is opinion polls. Sure, it is clear that "88% of Republicans and 67% of unaffiliated voters say middle-class tax hikes are very likely, just 29% of Democrats agree", but it doesn't give factual information. Just where have these opinions been informed? From watching FOX? Besides, even if tax rates increase, you must be aware that the benefit of this is that everyone will have free healthcare. I.e., you pay a small additional tax, and have the FREEDOM of being able to have treatment when you need it, without cost. Some people will 'lose' in this arrangement if they never require healthcare, but many will 'win', because they will pay less in taxes than what the treatment costs for them to access.

And the stuff that isn't opinion polls is horribly biased. Like this guy who says: "The price of freedom is that you will not be taken care of comprehensively. The price of being taken care of comprehensively is that you won't be free. You pays your price and you takes your choice. Down with Comprehensiveness! Up the Revolution! "

[Jin]

Can we please not turn this into an America versus the world thread? It really isn't necessary. We already have tons of those.

Let's just stick to health care. Because, you know, it's the topic.

[Govinda]

Last comment about the military. Locke, you're ok with America being the world's 'protector', yeah? Makes you feel a little proud. You're happy to pay tax to defend other countries who aren't as capable. Wouldn't it be more patriotic to divert some of these dollars into making your own country healthier and fairer? Wouldn't that be a greater love of America? (This is just hypothetical. I'm not suggesting that America'd ever going to actually do it).

[T.G. Oskar]

I presume this will be brief yet showing a different side to the sides. Mostly because I'm a bit unaware of how will Obama's plan will eventually work, because I'm biased against a specific plan that hasn't worked as it should, and because I believe that there's something wrong with healthcare in the US beyond the concept of healthcare plans.

First, what may seem liberal: I believe in health as a human right, an inalienable right of humans, something that should not imply having consequences beyond those you could prevent (and if you're working to prevent them, those shouldn't penalize you). Free healthcare would be the culmination of that belief, if only because you shouldn't be penalized having medical healthcare if your funds are challenged between rising costs in food, energy, water, gasoline, and let's add Internet access just for the heck of it. If you rent or have a mortgage or paying your house, add that to the bills, too. No one should be denied to be attended (something that most countries don't and shouldn't deny, and in that regard the US and most free-health countries are a bit forward, or so I think) because they have the flu, or because they have a heart attack, or for any medical reason beyond self-inflicting that ailment.

Then, the reverse: if doctors wish to be paid for their job, let them do so. If they have to pay a bit extra to offer a better-quality service, then that shouldn't be denied. After all, they spent a lot of time studying and working for that; makes sense they get a good reward.

Now, how these two concepts come together and tie in neatly with the topic (or so I hope): if health should be an inalienable right, important because it is the very foundation of our well-being and thus a necessary key to society, and I find myself unable to pay it because of any factor (be it unemployment, a tight budget, or something between the two factors), why then I eventually will find myself worse being healthy and unable to pay a huge operation than unhealthy, probably dead, and probably best left off laid as a corpse on the street, but not dragging my family into debts?

And even then, at times being dead is the same... That's funny.

I know this doesn't make much sense; I'm trying to make some sense out of the discussion, because I'm quite confused by it. Am I expected to pay nearly one and a half times the cost of energy and water and monthly gasoline and Internet and food costs, either of them separately but considering the average of all and a tad more, to have someone else stave off that debt, and even then I have to pay a bit more just to have a doctor check me and tell me "oh, you have this; take two and call me in the morning"? Probably sacrificing having to pay food even when I may stave off an entire month or two going to eat anywhere aside from home, cooking food each day and perhaps stretching food by eating once or twice a day instead of all three meals; or for gas when I don't have a gas-guzzling SUV but perhaps a bicycle or a high fuel efficiency vehicle, or even using public transportation; or even saving on energy costs and water costs?

Because that's something I see most of the time, and I find a tad weird: I've seen in this discussion saying "if you can't pay, it's because you don't work hard and do capitalism as it should" and whatnot. I find it odd that people that barely can make a functional budget along with healthcare suddenly find themselves in risk because of a sudden operation that costs more than their savings allow them to work around, perhaps for a month or two. That thing about "if you can't deal with healthcare, it's because you're not responsible", when at times even being completely responsible and working a tight budget isn't enough. I can't say all Americans are like that, but I figure those people who work hard and still can't seem to make things work are not a ridiculous minority swallowed by the people who aren't willing to work, or immigrants.

Just in case, I have nothing against immigrants, even more with Latin immigrants which are currently the majority on immigrant population and, IIRC, the largest minority currently. A vast side of that population actually wants to make things legal, and are willing to be hard-working citizens and pay their taxes like a responsible citizen. These are mostly the people who, despite their work, often find themselves unable to make ends meet, since they have to start from zero almost literally. But that's for another discussion.

I've heard about the President's proposal for a health-care plan, and mostly still digesting both sides (the supporters and their right idea of ensuring healthcare is affordable; the detractors and their right idea of protecting the country's finances and protecting the economy). Since, despite all the info offered, I'm still a bit undecided, I can't make a definite choice and prepare to defend it.

If I were to say something, all I can say is I wouldn't mind, given that it'd be a relief for people that can't afford proper healthcare plans because their budgets are tight (and as things look, more people may suddenly find themselves in that situation, despite their savings)

However, and I mention this from experience, I wouldn't accept just about any proposal. And here's mostly the reason. Notice that I'm talking about something tiny, perhaps of little relevance, but it's what little I can talk.

Puerto Rico has a free healthcare program, aimed at the people who can't afford a health care program because of their resources. Most of the local options for health care programs have monthly costs of around $150 - $200, depending on the kind of plan. There's American companies, there's local companies, and there's even health cooperatives offering such services. This can increase depending on the plan, and how it is handled; an individual plan may cost that, while a family plan may cost about $400 or $500, and there's additional costs depending on the kind of plan. Fortunately, most of those plans allow free selection of doctors, and the actual costs for visits to the doctor may end up in around $2 - $20, again depending on the plan.

I, personally, can't afford that. Currently, I'm looking for a job, and I have to stretch some costs to pay for house, water, telephone line and Internet. Fortunately, I have some savings and I don't like to spend that much, and I don't have to work with all the costs. As well, fortunately the bills aren't so high. However, if I were to pay such a program, I may find myself out of savings and a bit desperate currently. Thus, I must accept the offer from the government; fortunately, given my current conditions, I am eligible for it.

And I must say, I'm not satisfied with the results. The plan does not allow for free selection of doctors aside from the clinic you can visit, and the dental plan (which is, I must say, the only good thing it has; fortunately, the dentist I visit allows the plan and it's a dentist I have grown some confidence towards). The rest, I must make a visit and have the doctor sign a paper to allow me to visit a specialist. So far, if it worked like it should, it shouldn't be that bad, aside from having to visit just one doctor of many and pretty much explain my condition or trouble. Also, it aids on paying costs for emergency.

Sadly, I don't feel I receive the quality treatment I should, and I'm not speaking of remediative medicine, but preventive medicine. In a nutshell: I ask for a full check-up, since I find myself having some slight troubles. Time after, during a time I could afford a healthcare plan and pay it on my own, a doctor attempted to control cholesterol and triglycerides, since they usually are high (aside from that, I'm mostly fine). Despite the treating, cholesterol levels are still high. I couldn't make a follow check-up for some time, so I had to go to the doctor I chose for the plan, since it's the closest to my home and on a relatively safe place. I requested, if it was possible, to have a full check-up. Mostly, the only thing that they decided to allow was a lipid panel, and nothing else. I would have expected a bit more, given that I already have several lab reports telling me I have the same trouble. So I found that said action was a bit off, using pretty words, perhaps expecting more of a doctor that should be a bit more careful with someone who asks to prevent that tendency from growing out of control. Although it was the first time, I found that said treatment wasn't enough to inspire confidence, enough to tell me "it's a good doctor, I should keep treating myself and make a good use of the plan". Needless to say, I find myself willing to pay around $70 to treat myself with another doctor, plus the costs of all laboratory tests (about $320 or so, including glucose test for diabetes and a test to check thyroid gland function), than to do the same thing for a long and extended period of time, without seeing much results, or worse.

So yeah, I think I spoke a bit too much, but I hope it draws some of the ideas I wanted to transmit:

One, that preventive medicine and remediative medicine aren't the same, and one kind of medicine reduces the eventual cost of the other. It's almost like having a payment plan for not having to pay a costly surgery. I dunno if countries with free healthcare sponsor preventive medicine, but that's one of the signs of a good doctor, and I find it's a tendency spearheaded a lot in America.

Two, that no free healthcare plan will be successful if the method does not sponsor truly caring for the patients instead of getting a fat commission for attending the patient. This is one of the problems with the aforementioned local healthcare plan, where the government (along with federal funding) essentially negotiates with the insurance companies. Then, the company and the government gather all the clinics that decide to participate in the program, and forms groups of patients that choose to be attended per clinic; afterwards, the patient (or family group) can't choose to which doctor wishes to visit unless it goes with the chosen doctor and asks for a referral, which mostly depends on whether the doctor thinks it is just an ailment that can be solved, or a ruse from the patient or whatnot.

Three, that the current program for "free" health care in Puerto Rico is far from perfect, and at most a "good thing to have for emergencies". Worse, it reeks of corruption, and it has a severe deficit problem. This isn't a foreign country; this is a jurisdiction from the United States. At best, this should serve as a reminder of a program that should not be adopted by the President, or at least a "prototype" that shows which would be the key flaws in a free healthcare program, flaws that should be addressed and not considered for such a program. This isn't a reason to make people think a free healthcare program will be dangerous, bad, or catastrophic at all; just a point on how a specific concept can go all wrong, even if in theory works.

In theory, Socialism is potentially effective; see if that happens in practice. In theory, Capitalism is also effective; see to it if it's fair in practice, where the one with the most money can gain unfair advantage and where subterfuge can be allowed. Neither political system is perfect, and both are in theory equally effective in practice.

Fourth, and this is what I believe should be considered the root of the problem, would be the costs of healthcare in the United States. Notice what I placed as health care costs in my place; consider it is a jurisdiction of the US but that it has a modicum of sovereignty regarding certain issues. I can't say this is the norm in all of the United States, but as far as I have heard, health care costs in the mainland United States are a bit more expensive; simple jobs such as tooth treatment and a mere checkup can cost twice, or even four times what it would cost in a smaller and roughly self-governed territory, with roughly the same degree of quality and quality control in both sides (since because of the odd relationship we have with the US, anything that applies in the mainland applies here as well) If a doctor can do it with much less money, and perhaps paying a relatively equal amount for the same instruments and whatnot, why the costs in healthcare, as far as I can reckon, are so distant? Perhaps the laissez-faire praised by the capitalist model needs a bit of a reign, even if it means the government has to intervene. Otherwise, more doctors will come to the US and get lots of money even if half the population can't afford their costs, and without the same degree of quality that another doctor may offer. Worse, when despite the same amount of demand (economics won't apply much to medicine since it's closer to an elastic demand, if only because there will be always sick people and people seeking to prevent medical conditions), and a growing amount of supply, costs seem to increment instead of decrease.

I'd say, remaining on the same model of non-free healthcare while allowing doctors in private practice (those to which most people seeking preventive medicine look for) place potentially exorbitant costs for a relatively simple practice, placing acquisition of wealth over the patient's right to a proper checkup and treatment, and defending their price with the half-right excuse of "because I burned my eyelids to get this degree, I deserve it" (forgetting that the Hippocratic Oath serves as a reminder of medical ethics, which strongly defend the practice of medicine as a service and not a luxury, good or commercial entity), will prove quite devastating depending on how the economic crisis fares. In those grounds, if the end result of a free healthcare program overcomes this deficiency better than the current system, or if government intervention allows handling this problem a bit better, then let the Constitution be damned (in that particular regard, I must point out). If the trouble of health care costs can be handled without the need of a free and universal health care system, and the latter ends up being a severe liability, then Obama be damned.

And sorry to add personal experience to half of my post. I needed to push the point that what's really important is the quality and affordability of the service offered, be it to remedy a malady or to prevent it.

And if things go as they go, I'll rather go with natural medicine. It's technically cheaper and supposedly scientifically proven to be more effective than conventional medicine...

[Sasquatch]

Alright, it's late and I'm not going to spend too much time on this tonight, but I wanted to, at least, hop in quick and make a few points, so I can come back later and correct all the insults and false accusations.

First, come on children, please do not be so ignorant as to think that every Republican (or even "most") is some sort of racist, inbred, shotgun-toting, Bible-thumping hillbilly. That would be about as ignorant as to stereotype liberals as pot-smoking, tree-hugging, Satan-worshiping, gun-hating gay vegans.

Second, anybody who tells you that people in America cannot get health care without health insurance is full of shit. It's that simple. Either they're full of shit and don't know it -- but instead of trying to get more information and learn, ignorantly fall back on what they DON'T know -- or they're full of shit and DO know it, and are intentionally lying to try to make America or its health system look worse than it is. For one thing, there are dozens of government programs, through local, state, and federal level, to pay for a person's health care. Second, there are thousands upon thousands of charitable organizations, including religious institutions, that would help cover treatment costs. Third, hospitals, by law, must offer financing programs, and their payments can be almost nothing -- you can pay five bucks a month if you want, and as long as you're paying it, you're fine (and even if you don't, medical bills do not go on your credit record). And fourth (and most importantly), NO TREATMENT CAN BE DENIED ON FINANCIAL GROUNDS. It is illegal for a hospital or doctor to refuse to give testing or treatment because somebody might not be able to pay. Doing so would violate their Hippocratic Oath and they'd never practice medicine again. So again -- the claim that "if somebody doesn't have health insurance, they cannot get medical treatment" is complete bullshit.

Third, unless somebody can come up with some credible evidence that Fox News is biased, shut the hell up about it. Quit spouting the bullshit claim that Fox News has a heavy conservative bias just because you don't like the fact that they don't have a heavy liberal bias like most of the rest of American news sources. And here's some news for you: "credible evidence" does not mean youtube videos of Bill O'Reilly. He is not a reporter, he's a commentator -- it is not his job to report the news, it's his job to give his opinions on news stories. So if you're going to claim that Fox News is biased, back it up with something substantial. (I wouldn't try to claim that the Yankees are the worst team in baseball, then "prove it" by posting some videos or articles on specific games, or a few videos of errors, strikeouts, passed balls, hits into double-plays, etc. -- I'd find numbers and compare them to other teams. So please, be smart enough to try to find some numbers, some credible evidence, that Fox News is biased in their reporting.)

Fourth, there needs to be a lesson on the word "free". If money is forcibly taken from you without your consent and a sub-par service is provided in exchange, there's nothing "free" about that. That is completely NOT free. If you walk into a Pizza Hut and the cashier pulls a gun on you and forces you to hand over your wallet, then gives you a plate of breadsticks, those breadsticks weren't "free" at all ... though I suppose some people are living happy lives off the teat of the taxpayer, so ignorance is bliss.

Finally, some people need to realize that there's a reason American healthcare is expensive -- because it's the best. I spoke to a guy from Canada once who was proud because his province just got their third MRI machine -- some American hospitals have two or three MRI machines. There are cities in Michigan that make their money by providing health services to Canadians who come across the border because the Canadian government refuses to pay for their treatment. America has developed a large majority of the medicines and procedures that are used around the world -- how do you think those medicines came to be? Research and development costs money. The same medications and technology that is given away by the United States costs American money to develop. There are credible reports of people waiting two years or more for Britain's NHS to let them see a specialist -- and of English people pulling their own teeth out of their mouths because the NHS took way, way, way too long to fit them into a dentist.

[Govinda]

That's all well and good, Sasquatch, but if hospitals provide financing programmes then how do people end up being bankrupt by their healthcare? Even if it's just a few. I don't think anyone was suggesting that American doctors defy their Oath on financial grounds, but what about after-care? The non-life threatening stuff after the car crash which, if treated, can make your life so much more comfortable? Also, since you're using specific anecdotes (like the guy who removed his own teeth) what about the story of the young girl who went into hospital with a fever in America? The doctors at the first hospital wouldn't treat her; they insisted she be moved because of her insurance. Hours later, after being moved around, she died. This story can be seen in Michael Moore's 'Sicko', and it's not Moore, it's the mother of the girl talking. How can that happen?

And yes, I remember the scenario a few years ago with the English and their dentists. Basically, there were no dentists, and the few that were around had too many patients. These days there are plenty of dentists who started training when they saw the gap. I don't get why someone would pull their own teeth out though, most people just went to A&E if things got too bad. Luckily, since Scotland was devolved by then, we didn't face a fraction of the same problems.

I'd expect hospitals in, say, New York City to have a couple of MRI machines each, just like the ones in major cities here do. Aberdeen Royal Infirmary has two of them. The whole of the Highlands has one MRI machine, because the population is roughly similar. If your Canadian lives in a quiet province, it'd make sense to only have as many as you need.

The Japanese are quickly becoming the most technologically advanced nation in the world, and that includes healthcare. Theirs is single-payer, for the most part. R&D is still very active here in the UK too; A major breakthrough in our knowledge of Alzheimer's, found by Cardiff University only a few days ago. I could easily go and find more. Over 85% of universities in the UK have research departments rated at 'internationally distinguished', five-star level by the RAE (Research Assessment Europe), an independent academic survey. The universities in cities mostly have medical research centres based in city hospitals; while Dundee's university may be shit, it's the best place to learn medicine in Scotland, simply because the Ninewells hospital is massive and drowning in investment funding from charities, business, and even the government. A lot of good comes out of Ninewells which, considering it's in Dundee, is an achievement.

There are armies of volunteers here as well, and charities that look after you while you recover/if you are housebound. The government runs similar programs, and helps to fund the charities. Marie Curie and MacMillan nurses, Maggie's Cancer Centres, various hospice charities, the Great Ormond Street centres...they're all very healthy, even with our single-payer system.

The NHS is not without its problems; but stop acting like your system is flawless, Sasquatch. For every NHS horror story, it's easy to match it with an American healthcare horror story. And as for Fox News, well...didn't Glenn Beck call Obama a racist not too long ago? And say he wanted to poison Nancy Pelosi's wine? Beck was reporting while doing this, on Obama's Road to Socialism. Maybe Beck's a caricature, maybe the rest aren't as bad...but jeezo.

Also, where the hell did you get the idea that America 'gives away' its technology? Its refusal to do so is helping further bankrupt developing nations. Ever heard of TRIPs? Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property, part of the 1994 Round of the ITO (International Trade Organisation, then the General Treaty on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)). Basically, TRIPs states that any ITO country wishing to produce technology created by another ITO country will have to ask to do that, and then, if allowed, do it at the price set by the original country. It should be pointed out that the ITO runs on consensus; nothing can be agreed unless everyone signs, every single country. There's a lot of developing nations in the ITO (who probably shouldn't be, it's all TRIPs and NPT's and....another day, another day) who only agreed to sign the treaty with TRIPs in it because of concessions made to them regarding agriculture.

So if America makes a new AIDS drug and Honduras wants to produce a cheaper, generic version, they cannot. To do so would be illegal, and Honduras would be subject to sanctions. The company that created the drug in America can charge whatever price they damn well please. So, they charge through the roof. Eventually someone will create a similar product in India or China, and the price will drop from $100 per pack to 50 cents per pack. They're just as bad with machinery. Thus, TRIPs keeps new American techonology away from the rest of the world. Western countries can afford to buy from America, but the rest of the world can't. (TRIPs is bad for America too, since we can charge whatever the **** we like on new things, but they make far more from it than they lose; plus they can pretty much buy anything anyway).

[Clint]

Finally, some people need to realize that there's a reason American healthcare is expensive -- because it's the best.

That's a false statement, and you need to learn a little bit about politics. American health care isn't expensive because it's the best, it's expensive because there's people getting rich off of it. They know that they can purge money from the American public, because people need health care. Why do you think that high-ranking government employees and anybody elected into a federal office gets free health care for the rest of their lives? It's because they're rich, and the rich are the ones that get cutbacks from payments, plus the fact that they're getting richer from overly expensive health care. Nobody gives a damn if you work hard for your money anymore, because all anybody wants to do is screw over the working class in order to widen the gap between middle and upper class. The rich want more money and the middle class want cutbacks that are only available to the rich.

It's the same thing with cancer and AIDS treatment. There damn well is a cure by now. They've been "looking" for a cure for long enough. If they haven't found one by now, then somebody needs to get laid off. The reason why there are only treatments available, and no cures, is because cancer and AIDS treatments are a business. The government loves when people are sick, and the most certainly love when people die, because as everybody who's lost somebody knows, it costs more to die than it does to live.

Socialized health care in America is an impossibility, mainly because the boys up top are too money hungry to even begin to give a damn about the lives of the people.

[Zargabaath]

Health care is not a right. Nobody has the right to a service; the only right a person has is the right to life. Life is a process of self-sustaining, self-generated action; the right to life is the freedom to engage in self-generated and self-sustaining action – to take all actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment, and the enjoyment of their own life (such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). The right to life means that a person has the right to support their life by their own work and the person cannot be deprived of their life for the benefit of another person nor of any number of other people. The notion that someone has the right to forcibly receive service from someone else is in nature not a right. Nobody has the right to initiate force against another human being; there is no right to violate the rights of others, yet so many of you think that people do. Health care is a service, it is not something given to humanity by nature, it is the product of people who have worked hard to acquire the skills needed to be sufficient in their trade in which they intend to make a living from. Many of you here believe that is totally within your rights to force people to either give you a free service or for other people to pay for your expenses. The only person responsible for their expenses is themselves, not others- people are not the caretakers of other people, they are not chattel as many of you want them to be. You do not respect their right to life at all, you would wish them a life a slavery paying for those who leach off of them. Those who support universal health care support the enslavement of humanity; that some people have more rights than others, that some people’s rights are not as important as others. Nobody’s rights can be violated, that is the nature of inalienable rights – semi-inalienable rights are contradictory in nature but many would wish it a reality.

Loaf, just because your hospital bills are high does not warrant the need for universal health care, if you want the real reason why health care is so high, look at the government that regulates it forcing prices sky high. It is not my or any other persons problem that you cannot afford a service, and health care is a service. Why should others be burden by your or any other person’s expenses? This is now more general not just aimed at Loaf- I love how all these people who support universal health care say that they are selfless, yet it is they who wish that other people pay for their expenses, for their livelihood, it is all about sustaining them, you ignore people’s rights to live their own life and want them to be forced to cater to you- that is more selfish than what the detractors desire. That type of selfish, is the brute that does not care about other people and takes whatever they want, not what I call for. If someone can afford health care then they can get, I will not stop them no matter what they are. You guys hide behind selflessness but are truly the brute who does not respect people treating them as sacrificial animals.

What has the government done that makes health care, health insurance costs so high? In the U.S you cannot buy health insurance from a different state, this constricts the market. Remember the recent “scandal” in New Jersey about them selling organs “illegally”? They were supplying the demand for that product at a much cheaper cost because the regulations on them are so strict it forces the prices and the surgeries so high. Now you will probably say, “Oh Zargabaath, the organs may not be suitable, they can be dangerous for them and die.” And I reply that they knew what they were buying, they knew the risks, it is the government that has caused the price to skyrocket, if the regulations from the government were abolished then prices would go down as more organs could be used, supply would go up to meet demand dropping prices all around. One more thing, if they didn’t get that organ “illegally”, then they would have suffered and died anyways because of the regulations set by governments. If all the regulations from on health care/health by the government were to be taken away, costs would come down. Everyone still may not be able to afford health care but then I say don't force people to provide service and pay for it, instead why not become a doctor and treat those who can't? Of course you would never do that because you can't be bothered, it is much better just to enslave others.

What many of you can’t seem to realize is that everything that government does costs exponentially more than what is first predicted, government cannot accurately predict costs because the program always expands and there is no competition against government- leading to massive debt. Government has its citizens to pay for their programs; government does not operate like a business that must make money to stay afloat. A business relies on the voluntary action of the consumer to buy their product, a government can just increase taxes.
Che, nobody has the right to force someone to give them a service. If you are sick and don’t want to pay then cure yourself, if you are dumb, educate yourself, otherwise pay for the service. Now it does not mean it must only be with money; my aunt was a chiropractor who accepted other forms of payments for those who did not have the money.

There is more opportunity in America than anywhere else. Where else can so many people from poor/bad backgrounds become professional athletes making millions, or actors, doctors, lawyers, it requires hard work but it can be done without help! Anyone read “Gifted Hands” it’s about a black man becoming a very great doctor through hard work. My aunt went through college in Colorado working three jobs. I mention the state of Colorado because my aunt lived in New York and she had no car or money for a plane ticket, so my grandparents drove her out of New York and she biked the rest of the way! A young woman bicycling to Colorado from Pennsylvania or New Jersey, sleeping in graveyards at night when the weather permitted and she somehow survived the trek. Now what you people are so upset about is that the difficulty of each person’s life is different and you find that unfair, which just shows that you are either envious or jealous or both. It is not somebody’s problem that they had an easier time than somebody else. Do not criminalize them for it! Just as you criminalize people who make too much money. Isn’t the goal of a company and person to make as much as possible? But once they cross a certain gross revenue they become “evil”. This behavior is irrational and shows how you don’t want people to succeed, to live their life, but that they must never get ahead of you- and who is the selfish one? Who wishes to hold people back? Who demonizes people or companies because they make a million dollars, it is so arbitrary it is pathetic. Tell me, when do they become evil? Is it at $250,000? Is that when you curse their name and say they oppress their employees and are corrupt.

Let’s take a look at some other U.S government run programs. Medicaid and Medicare are broken and their costs have risen more than what was expected. Amtrak, which is heavily subsidized by the government is broken as well and broke, and finally the post office which is 6 billion dollars in debt. And what does the great Obama say about those worrying about a government health care takeover? Look at UPS and FedEx, they’re doing fine against the USPS, that the USPS is the one in trouble. What?! Did anybody get that? Obama is saying that the government health care system could turn out to be like the USPS, but it would be trillions of dollars in debt and we would spend trillions more trying to fix it because government is not the answer. It is the problem. All these programs that are not working properly and are going bankrupt and we want to establish a bigger program? The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me.

The function of a government is to protect the rights of the people, by stopping those who would or have used force against people. It is not the job of the government to provide a home, car, job, health care, food, etc to people, that is not a person’s right or the function of government. The opposite suggests that some people can be forced to provide a service for others, which is in itself breaking the rights of people making the action illegal. Socialism may not be a bad word in Europe but I would never trust a European to guide the world, or look to for advice ( there are a few exceptions, but they are in the vast minority). We do know what a communist and what a socialist is, but the actions of people like you try to hide it so it can be filtered in and we won’t realize until it is too late the dagger sticking in our back.

America was founded on individualism and selfishness for people to achieve, through hard work their goals, to live their own life. It is only the your messed up sense that in order to succeed, someone must be stepped on. That is what is going on in Europe, except instead of the poor being stepped on by the nobility or rich as it was back in the day, it is the opposite. Europeans feel entitled to service without paying for it or for others paying for it- that is more selfish than letting people live their own lives, succeeding or failing at their own hands.

There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism- by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide. Both violate the rights of humans by ignoring the right to property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal.

Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality- to think, to work, and to keep the results- which means: the right of property. The modern mystics of muscle who offer you the fraudulent alternative of “human rights” versus “property rights”, as if one could exist without the other, are making a last, grotesque attempt to revive the doctrine of soul versus body. Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of their effort. The doctrine that “human rights” are superior to “property rights” simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of “human”. The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man’s mind and labor. As you cannot have effects without causes, so you cannot have wealth without its source: without intelligence. You cannot force intelligence to work: those who’re able to think, will not work under compulsion; those who will, won’t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of people towards people’s property is the policy of criminals, no matter what their numbers. Criminals are savages who play it short-range and starve when their prey runs out- just as you’re starving today, you who believed that crime could be “practical” if your government decreed that robbery was legal and resistance to robbery illegal. – Ayn Rand.

What really sucks is that even though the U.S is going downhill, there is no other country as great as the U.S. Let me add that the only reason why Europe still has some form have power is because of U.S liberals/democrats; they want to emulate and feel that Europe is “hip”. In reality, Europe has no power; ever since WWII Europe has lost all of its former glory. Now most Europeans are spoiled who feel they are entitled to everything and they must not do any hard work. This is the place where if anyone gets fired they start marching in the streets destroying property. This is the place where they hate on America because they know we are better deep down, yet if they ever got in trouble militarily they would feel entitled that America should come and save them. If someone like Hitler started a war on Europe, it would be way easier than the beginning of WWII, Europeans would give up in a matter of seconds, saying that something the West did to the country was the reason for their behavior, most blame would go to America as a new avenue to hate on the U.S. Getting back to it, so Europe would feel that the U.S. must help them because they are entitled to it, which if it was my way I would let you rot, but we would help because we are better than you who won’t lift a finger nowadays. Afterwards you may cheer us, for the third time, but eventually your hatred for us will rise and Europeans will shout that we committed war crimes and protest that our people should be held accountable, that the U.S should pay for the restoration of Europe and should pay the aggressor money as well because it was our fault for starting the war. But it is still not yet done, feeling that you guys have done something so wonderful in fighting the good fight, you would demand of your government that they pass a bill forcing all companies to give their employees 6 months of paid vacation because you work so hard, especially during the war and you feel entitled. Because, how many is it 2 months or one month is not enough. Then after twenty years you will be back in full swing hating on America, and becoming more lazier till there is nobody to pay for your socialist programs and you full into utter chaos, hopefully showing the world, yet again that communism/socialism does not work.

What we stand for is to respect each person’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no right to a guarantee of some product or service, only the right to pursue it and if you accomplish your goal to keep your reward. We don’t support slavery, unlike you guys. We respect humanity.

[Locke4God]

Sorry I missed a few days guys.

@ Govinda - The comment that you said where we should divert money to Healthcare to be Fair. I think you're not understanding what America has traditionally felt fair means. Fair here doesn't mean everybody gets the same things. It doesn't mean everybody is equal. It means, everybody has an equal chance. And everybody does have an equal chance to get healthcare and in fact over 95% of the nation has it for themselves. Speaking of fair, is it fair that I should have to pay more under this plan? Is it fair that in all likehood my quality of care will go down? Is it fair that my taxes would go up to pay for my pot addicted neighbor who has never tried to improve her life. I might as you why the word fair in your eyes means giving something to somebody who hasn't earned it. I don't think that's ever the defintion of the word.

[RagnaToad]

I think you're not understanding what America has traditionally felt fair means.

America was built on pure capitalism. I understand that. But it makes it so that it's a pretty selfish world over there. To say the least.

And everybody does have an equal chance to get healthcare and in fact over 95% of the nation has it for themselves.

Do you really believe that? Saying that everyone can become a millionaire is both naive and kind of a paradox. If you love your capitalism, and know something about it, you know that not nearly everyone can get rich.

Speaking of fair, is it fair that I should have to pay more under this plan?

You see the people who don't have health care and can't pay for it as 'just a minority'. I can do exactly the same with people who's costs would be a little higher.

Is it fair that in all likehood my quality of care will go down?

Why would the quality go down? It would still be the same doctors. It would just be paid for in another way.
I guess the quality of health care in non-American countries is all crap, right?

Is it fair that my taxes would go up to pay for my pot addicted neighbor who has never tried to improve her life.

I don't see where this statement comes from.
And marijuana is far better a drug tha alcohol, in almost any way imagineable. You should have said 'crackhead'. It would have made more sense. But that's a different issue.

I might as you why the word fair in your eyes means giving something to somebody who hasn't earned it. I don't think that's ever the defintion of the word.

The issue is not what the definition of 'fair' is. But rather in what way a government should take care of her civilians.

And I really don't get why all those people are so paranoid about the government taking over their lifes. There is absolutely no reason to suspect such a thing. Before all those ridiculous claims about the USA turning into a communist dictatorship were to come true, there would have to happen a lot more than a plan to make health care affordable and accessable to all American civilians.


@ Sasquatch:

Bill O'Reilly may not be news reporter, but it's still on Fox News Channel, isn't it? I thought you were better than someone not seeing through the quality of Fox News. I take a look at some broadcasts, and they're a joke. It's really just entertainment. It's almost impossible to not laugh at how they approach certain subjects.

The other day, they were critisising Obama for visiting children in schools. They said he was recruiting democrats, and just might have been brainwashing them about the new healthcare reform. Of course, he didn't tell the children anything about that and was just telling them how important it is to stay in school, explaining them the value of a good education. But don't think the people at Fox bothered to tell the viewers that.

Another example would be the following: Rapper Jay-Z was celebrating about something Obama had done. At a particular party, he was rapping away, shouting words like 'nigga', 'motherfucker', the whole thing. The reporters at Fox were discussing and asking so-called experts why Obama didn't say anything about it. They just couldn't believe it... Why the hell would he? Because they are black rappers who like him, he should express how he doesn't agree with the language they use and the way they party?

Also, there was this woman last week who was debating in favour of the conservatives. She said to her opponent 'yeah but you probably have medicare'. The guy was like 'No, cause I'm not over 65...'. I mean, she doesn't even know what medicare is, and she's going to explain how socialised healthcare is from the devil? Sad.

That's just 3 small examples from the last two weeks alone.

Then there's Glenn Beck. Granted, he's not a News reporter, but he makes me laugh every time nontheless. When I watch him talk, I'm not sure whether I should be sad about the fact that some Americans actually eat that shit he sells, or just laugh away.

The other day he was explaining how the USA will become an oligarchy. He has this chalkboard on which he draws all these words and then connects them for whatever reason. For example, he connects some communist activist that Obama met when he was 8 years old. That MUST mean Obama is Stalin. Another example is how he calls Obama a racist, how he himself is extremely frightened to live in the USA right now.

Don't say THIS doesn't make you laugh:
YouTube - Glenn Beck Does Not Know How To Spell "Oligarchy"
(Don't pay attention to the spelling mistake. I'm not talking about that.)

But the worst (/best?) things I've seen him say, were comparisons between Obama and Hitler. (Yeah, the German guy.) He showed some advertisements from Nazi-Germany, constantly saying 'Does this sound familiar to you?', playing the crowd at home. But the most disgusting part of that farce was in the beginning when he started to cry about his daughter who was born with cerebral palsy. He paused now and then, crying about how Obama wouldn't want her to live and how it was all just like in Nazi-Germany.

I can't believe a guy like that still has a show on tv. Even if it is on Fox... There's a reason why most major sponsors during Beck's show have asked Fox for another time to show their commercials.

[Sean]

you can pay five bucks a month if you want, and as long as you're paying it, you're fine (and even if you don't, medical bills do not go on your credit record)

False. Medicaid failed to pay my dad's hospitalization bills, and my credit was hit and plummeted as a result. A mistake to charge the wrong member of my family, but a credit rating was still hit for not paying. It took over a year to get it settled with Medicaid and another year to get the negative hits off my credit report.

My brother's credit is total shit for going through cancer treatments for the past few years and getting hospital bills tacked onto his credit rating, even though a lot were covered by different organizations, the bills he had to pay he couldn't afford, and his credit now suffers as a result.

[Alpha]

Just a quickie:

Is it fair that in all likehood my quality of care will go down?

The United States already spends a larger fraction of its GDP on healthcare than any country in the world, but it's health indicators (such as child mortality and life span) are lower than those in many other countries of comparable income.

This outcome is explained in part by the relatively high inequality in the US. Poverty and poor health are closely related, as low income leads to poor health and poor health leads to low income.

Health care costs have been rising faster than the cost of living in general.

Major illnesses can be a major source of anxiety, especially for middle-income Americans who are too well-off to receive Medicaid.

----

Before someone tells me to shut up because I'm not an American, I'm getting this from a book written by Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics, business, and international and public affairs at Columbia University, and co-recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economic Science in 2001.

My impression is that American healthcare costs are soaring, and your quality could be better for your input. For all you conservatives, it's already inefficient. You stand to gain from heath care reform, as non-American Western nations already have it right.

[Jeordam]

But let me first start off with this. I am not unsympathetic to your troubles. Whether that is being financially at a disadvantage or having an acute medical issue or chronic one. Not having finances sucks. Believe me...I know. Being sick is awful...not just for you, but for those around you. I realize this. I understand this. None of these things are under debate. We can all agree that being financially devistated by a medical issue is awful, and it can years (if ever) to straighten out.

Ok, that being said. I am going to circle around to the question which someone needs to answer in a convincing manner. Why should I pay for you? What ever happened for you caring for you and yours? Personal responsibility and all that. We are responsible for clothing ourselves. We are responsible for feeding ourselves. If we want a "higher" education, we are responsible for finding a way to pay for that.

Yes, there are instances when we assist people with housing & food, but there is a difference between those and medical coverage. Why? Because you can live for a time without it. You can't go very long without food, and housing is viewed as necessary. But notice that not even housing is considered "a right". We are not all "entitled" to a home. Are we all worthy of having a home? Yes...entitled? No.

Is medical coverage a material property like a LCD TV or a PS3? I'm going to say that it is. Why? Because it is priced & sold in the marketplace. Different coverage programs have different features. Some are better than others. Those all seem like attributes of a material property like a TV. Is this right, fair, just, or "the way it *should* be"? No. But again, that isn't the debate here.

What we are talking about is insurance to help offset the cost of a medical incident. Should everyone have it? I think it would be wise. Is everyone deserving of it? Yes...because we are all equal in those regards. Is everyone "entitled" to it? No. If you can't pay for your PS3, you don't get a PS3. Seeing as how medical coverage is not a tangible good, you can't really steal one...so it really is, you pay, you get.

Is this fair? No. But again, we're not talking about fair. We're talking about an item bought & sold. Is this a cold, heartless stance? I would say that it can definately be seen from that perspective. Think about it from this other point of view. You studied hard and stayed in school...even when many of your friends dropped out. You got a job which required many hours...and you stuck with it even when all your friends were out having fun on the evenings & weekends.

Now you have a job where you can take care of yourself...and you have medical coverage "just in case". But you really don't think that you'll need it unless something odd happens. You're healthy...you eat well & regularly excercise. You don't make *that* much, but you make enough that you have a few nice items which you saved up & paid for.

Now all of a sudden someone wants to come along and tax you even more to pay for someone who never worked hard...or for someone who isn't healthy & doesn't eat well/excercise...or just someone who is unlucky. How does any of that fit in with a free market society? I have been careful & deliberate in my life to ensure that I can care for myself...yet my hard work is set aside to help some who hasn't worked hard? Let's not fool ourselves. The Government (whichever party is in control) has issues estimating money. Everyone (except those using the program) will be taxed.

So there it is. It comes down to the fact that health care is not a right. Just like marriage is not a right. Just like home ownership is not a right. These are all things which to gain their advantages, one must first meet certain criteria. If you don't meet those criteria, that's a shame, but by no means should the entire system be changed just so that "everyone" could meet those criteria.

~Jeordam

[Sasquatch]

That's all well and good, Sasquatch, but if hospitals provide financing programmes then how do people end up being bankrupt by their healthcare?

How exactly is it the hospital's job to protect people financially? If I want to be irresponsible with my money and not have enough to pay for health insurance, that's MY fault, and it's MY obligation to live with it -- nobody else's.

And why do people claim to go bankrupt because of their medical bills? Could be a few reasons. They could not have researched, and thus not know about, the myriad financing plans. They could have insisted on paying their entire medical bill instead of forming any financing plan at all. Or -- and this is by far the most likely -- they could just be irresponsible with their money, and no matter how much they pay on their medical bills, they blame their medical bills for causing them to not have any money.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that American doctors defy their Oath on financial grounds, but what about after-care? The non-life threatening stuff after the car crash which, if treated, can make your life so much more comfortable?

... so you're not suggesting that doctors break their Hippocratic Oath because patients can't pay, but you believe that patients can't get care for non-life-threatening issues without paying for it? Pick one.

I say again: NO medical care can be refused on financial grounds.

Also, since you're using specific anecdotes (like the guy who removed his own teeth) what about the story of the young girl who went into hospital with a fever in America? The doctors at the first hospital wouldn't treat her; they insisted she be moved because of her insurance. Hours later, after being moved around, she died. This story can be seen in Michael Moore's 'Sicko', and it's not Moore, it's the mother of the girl talking. How can that happen?

First, since Moore has been proven dishonest multiple times, and he has been proven to have dishonest people in his movies multiple times, I wouldn't trust anything he supports. Second, "the guy who removed his own teeth" wasn't a short anecdote, it's something that has happened more than once -- at least three times I'm aware of, and from what I've seen, at least six percent of NHS patients have resorted to self-treatment. Third, I highly doubt that any little girl died because hospitals refused to treat her because her parents couldn't afford it -- if anything like that happened, the doctors that refused to treat her and the Chiefs of every hospital wing and every hospital that refused to treat her would be out of a job by the next week. Heads would roll. Do you have any articles on this little girl, or anything?

I'd expect hospitals in, say, New York City to have a couple of MRI machines each, just like the ones in major cities here do. Aberdeen Royal Infirmary has two of them. The whole of the Highlands has one MRI machine, because the population is roughly similar. If your Canadian lives in a quiet province, it'd make sense to only have as many as you need.

It would make sense to have as many as you need -- unfortunately, Canada doesn't have as many as it needs, which is why thousands of people every year cross the border and get an MRI in one of the northern states of the U.S. Three for one province is not enough.

The Japanese are quickly becoming the most technologically advanced nation in the world, and that includes healthcare. Theirs is single-payer, for the most part. R&D is still very active here in the UK too; A major breakthrough in our knowledge of Alzheimer's, found by Cardiff University only a few days ago. I could easily go and find more.

Of course every country, even those with socialized medicine, still has R&D that develops new drugs or new procedures. But not to the extent of the United States.

Over 85% of universities in the UK have research departments rated at 'internationally distinguished', five-star level by the RAE (Research Assessment Europe), an independent academic survey.

I'd like to see more about that, but searching "research assessment Europe" gave me three links, all non-related. You have any cites?

There are armies of volunteers here as well, and charities that look after you while you recover/if you are housebound. The government runs similar programs, and helps to fund the charities. Marie Curie and MacMillan nurses, Maggie's Cancer Centres, various hospice charities, the Great Ormond Street centres...they're all very healthy, even with our single-payer system.

This proves that people give to charity and that charity helps people who need it. Why go further and force people to support others, when most willingly give to charity anyway, and the charity works?

The NHS is not without its problems; but stop acting like your system is flawless, Sasquatch.

When did I say that the American healthcare system was without problems?

For every NHS horror story, it's easy to match it with an American healthcare horror story.

Alright, find a survey that says that more than 1/20th of Americans rely on themselves for medical treatment.

And as for Fox News, well...didn't Glenn Beck call Obama a racist not too long ago? And say he wanted to poison Nancy Pelosi's wine?

I didn't hear anything about poisoning Nancy Pelosi, but Obama is indeed a racist. Not only does he belong to one of the most racist churches in the country (or did, at least, until he realized how poorly it reflected on him), not only does he claim one of the most racist preachers in the country as his spiritual mentor (again, at least he did, until he started separating himself from the people that got his political career well off at the state level), he also has repeatedly said things that generalize whites. Like claiming that his grandmother is a "typical white person" because she was racist.

And again ... it's Beck.

Beck was reporting while doing this, on Obama's Road to Socialism. Maybe Beck's a caricature, maybe the rest aren't as bad...but jeezo.

Glenn Beck is not a reporter. He is a commentator. Even if he reports his own stories and does his own research, Glenn Beck is not a news reporter for Fox News. So I ask again -- please provide some sort of credible evidence of any type of bias in Fox News reporting, or admit that you simply accuse it of bias because it's not to the extreme left.

Also, where the hell did you get the idea that America 'gives away' its technology?

I got it from America giving away its technology. It's pretty easy to make that connection.

Its refusal to do so is helping further bankrupt developing nations.

Wait, hahahahahah ... you think America is developing all this technology and medicine, and you think it's hoarding it all or charging outrageous prices for it, and you think that a developing nation's inability to get something for free makes it bankrupt?

I suppose I'm a horrible, horrible person, then. Because I don't spend the money I make to buy food and hand it out to every homeless person I can find, not only am I not helping them, I'm making them more homeless!

Basically, TRIPs states that any ITO country wishing to produce technology created by another ITO country will have to ask to do that, and then, if allowed, do it at the price set by the original country.

So if my country spends its money to produce something, and your country wants it, you can't just force me to give it to you for free? How unjust!

It should be pointed out that the ITO runs on consensus; nothing can be agreed unless everyone signs, every single country. There's a lot of developing nations in the ITO ... who only agreed to sign the treaty with TRIPs in it because of concessions made to them regarding agriculture.

So they joined because they could get something for free, or on the backs of the other nations that had joined -- and now there's a problem because they can't get everything for free?

So if America makes a new AIDS drug and Honduras wants to produce a cheaper, generic version, they cannot. To do so would be illegal, and Honduras would be subject to sanctions. The company that created the drug in America can charge whatever price they damn well please. So, they charge through the roof.

Yes, they charge extreme prices, so nobody can afford to buy it. That's great for profit. They could discover it for themselves, they could wait, or they could go without. Nobody force them to buy the new AIDS drug, and if they choose to buy it, they have nobody to blame but themselves for being short on money.

Thus, TRIPs keeps new American techonology away from the rest of the world.

So you're saying that the only way a country can buy something from America is through TRIPs, and that America always charges exorbitant amount of money for them, and that there's absolutely no way for countries to form a pack to combine funding for the purchase, and that there's absolutely no way to get the same product at a lesser price from another vendor?

American health care isn't expensive because it's the best, it's expensive because there's people getting rich off of it.

There are people who get rich off of anything. If it's worth paying for, somebody will provide it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The idea that American healthcare is expensive because the leaders of insurance companies, doctors, etc. are somehow overcharging so they can crap on solid - gold toilets and wipe their ass with hundred-dollar-bills is extremely ignorant.

Why do you think that high-ranking government employees and anybody elected into a federal office gets free health care for the rest of their lives? It's because they're rich, and the rich are the ones that get cutbacks from payments, plus the fact that they're getting richer from overly expensive health care.

You need to learn something about American politics, kid Government officials do not receive healthcare from private insurers, they receive a form of government healthcare -- a form much, much more expensive than anything offered to the public, and with much, much better care. This is why it's always funny to see a politician who supports Obama's healthcare plan stumble whenever they're confronted with a perfectly logical question -- if you support it for the public, would you support having your Congressional health care plan changed to fall under the same standards? (I'll give you a hint: The answer is always, in one way, shape, or form, a resounding "hell no".)

If health care providers actually did what you're accusing them of and gave free care to rich people, that would be one thing. But you're claiming something that is incredibly false. Try again.

(Besides, wouldn't it be damn stupid to not charge the rich people, but charge the poor more? Try to figure out how that would make any sense at all, and get back to me.)

Nobody gives a damn if you work hard for your money anymore, because all anybody wants to do is screw over the working class in order to widen the gap between middle and upper class.

Yes, of course -- everybody who saves money, everybody who goes to college, everybody who works two jobs, they all just want to screw other people over. It has nothing to do with having money, it's all about making sure that nobody else has as much as you do.

The rich want more money and the middle class want cutbacks that are only available to the rich.

Please tell me, what "cutbacks" are "only available to the rich"? You failed miserably trying to point out one so-called "cutback" not long ago, I would find it highly entertaining to see what other "cutbacks" you claim the rich get.

It's the same thing with cancer and AIDS treatment. There damn well is a cure by now. They've been "looking" for a cure for long enough.

Of course there's a cure for AIDS and Cancer -- and Bush was behind 9/11, the '93 WTC attack was done by the FBI, the moon landing was faked, aliens landed at Roswell, LBJ had Kennedy assassinated, contrails from planes are actually filled with biological agents, Elvis Presley is still alive, carburetors exist that give your car five hundred miles to the gallon, the war in Iraq is all about oil, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy really does exist, the government assassinated Tupac Shakur, Jews are trying to control the world, Courtney Love killed Kurt Kerbang (sorry, "Cobain"), Paul McCartney has just been a look-alike since '66, O.J. really didn't do it ... anything else?

Socialized health care in America is an impossibility, mainly because the boys up top are too money hungry to even begin to give a damn about the lives of the people.

Or because the boys at the bottom want good quality healthcare. That's got a lot to do with it, too -- as shown by the fact that the majority of the population doesn't support Obama's healthcare plan.

America was built on pure capitalism. I understand that. But it makes it so that it's a pretty selfish world over there. To say the least.

Ah, that's what I love about liberals -- the hypocrisy. If I want to keep the money I work for, I'm selfish. But if I want the money YOU work for, I'm "needy" or "less fortunate".

Do you really believe that? Saying that everyone can become a millionaire is both naive and kind of a paradox. If you love your capitalism, and know something about it, you know that not nearly everyone can get rich.

Nobody said that everyone can become a millionaire. What was said was that everybody has the chance to get health care. Capitalist economies will never have to worry about everyone trying to get rich, because there will always be people who, instead of working hard for their money, will rely on others and demand that those who do work hard for their money are forced to give it to them instead of keeping it.

You see the people who don't have health care and can't pay for it as 'just a minority'. I can do exactly the same with people who's costs would be a little higher.

The difference is that the people who don't have healthcare are a minority, whereas the people whose costs would be higher aren't. So he would be correct, and you wouldn't.

Why would the quality go down? It would still be the same doctors. It would just be paid for in another way.

It wouldn't be paid for as much. They wouldn't get the same equipment, they wouldn't get the same training, and they wouldn't have nearly the same work ethic.

I'll give you a situation, and I'd like you to answer a question for me. You and I are both just graduating high school. You want more -- I don't. I go out and get a minimum-wage unskilled labor job. You go to college. You have a better work ethic than I do. Since you don't have the money to pay for college, you get a full-time job while you're in school, like millions upon millions of people have before. In five years, I move up another couple dollars an hour, not because of my work ethic but because I've been there for a while -- you finish college, having worked a full-time job that paid all of your bills and some of your college off. You get a good job that pays a decent salary -- say, twice as much as I would make in a year working the unskilled labor job that I have. In another five years, your supervisors and managers have recognized your superior work ethic -- you stay late after work and come in early or work on weekends, you try to take night classes to give you more education in your field, etc. -- and you get promoted. If I'm still at the same job, I'm making twelve or fifteen dollars an hour, because I only work what I have to, and I only work as hard as I have to work, and I only got the education that I had to. Your work ethic has helped you get an education, a better job, and a higher position within that job.

Now: if you were going to make the same amount of money I would, why would you have a better work ethic?

I guess the quality of health care in non-American countries is all crap, right?

Not all, of course not. Canada and Britain, yes -- at least in comparison.

I don't see where this statement comes from.

We'd be forced to pay the medical bills of people who don't take care of themselves. Under this type of program, I could eat right, exercise daily, get plenty of sleep, and work a low-stress job; or I could smoke three packs of cigarettes a day, drink like a fish, and eat enough fast food to make me 300 pounds. Either way, I wouldn't pay any more for medical care, but of course my medical care would cost much more if I did the latter.

The issue is not what the definition of 'fair' is. But rather in what way a government should take care of her civilians.

The problem with that idea is that our government isn't some omnipotent being -- it bends to the whim of the people. The citizens don't answer to the government, the government answers to the civilians. The government does not have ANY obligation to "take care of her citizens" other than protecting them from outside forces. The CITIZENS have the obligation to protect THEMSELVES.

And I really don't get why all those people are so paranoid about the government taking over their lifes. There is absolutely no reason to suspect such a thing.

Because it's not like the government is controlling what we learn at school or what kind of health care we get, taking over some of our largest businesses, using taxpayer money to buy out private corporations ... Wait, no, that's not right.

Bill O'Reilly may not be news reporter, but it's still on Fox News Channel, isn't it? I thought you were better than someone not seeing through the quality of Fox News.

I do see the quality of Fox News -- but honestly, I can't say that I thought you were better than someone who shouts "bias" at whatever you disagree with without looking at the facts or the logic.

Yes, O'Reilly is on Fox News Channel. So? Kieth Olbermann is on MSNBC, and he's more liberal than O'Reilly is Republican. That doesn't automatically mean that everything MSNBC reports has a liberal bias, of course not -- MSNBC's liberal bias would exist whether Olbermann was there or not.

I take a look at some broadcasts, and they're a joke.

So you don't like them. Good for you. Prove that they are biased in their news reporting, or admit that you made false accusations against them and drop it.

The other day, they were critisising Obama for visiting children in schools. They said he was recruiting democrats, and just might have been brainwashing them about the new healthcare reform.

Who? Not reporters -- commentators. And it's not the President's job to be a parent to America's children -- I'm sure the time he spent doing that could have been better spent doing something else, like his job.

Another example would be the following: Rapper Jay-Z was celebrating about something Obama had done. At a particular party, he was rapping away, shouting words like 'nigga', 'motherfucker', the whole thing. The reporters at Fox were discussing and asking so-called experts why Obama didn't say anything about it. They just couldn't believe it... Why the hell would he?

Again -- WHO? Commentators. People who get paid to give their opinions.

And if I was Obama, I would have said something about it. The lack of a liberal outrage shows a clear double-standard -- that people who support Obama can be disrespectful and improper, even enough to use the word nigget, but people who support Republicans or conservatives are attacked for everything they do.

Also, there was this woman last week who was debating in favour of the conservatives. She said to her opponent 'yeah but you probably have medicare'. The guy was like 'No, cause I'm not over 65...'. I mean, she doesn't even know what medicare is, and she's going to explain how socialised healthcare is from the devil? Sad.

You don't have to be 65 or over to receive Medicare. Maybe she assumed that he received them without being 65, or maybe she assumed that he was 65 or older. Those were ignorant assumptions that she made -- followed by the two you made. First you assumed that she doesn't know what Medicare is (for which you have absolutely no evidence), then you assumed that she must not know much about Obama's healthcare plan (for which you have no evidence).

That's just 3 small examples from the last two weeks alone.

And not one of those three would reflect bias in the news reporting of Fox News Channel. Try again.

Then there's Glenn Beck. Granted, he's not a News reporter, but he makes me laugh every time nontheless. When I watch him talk, I'm not sure whether I should be sad about the fact that some Americans actually eat that shit he sells, or just laugh away.

And because you don't like what he says, you automatically discount it as false. No need to listen to people you don't like, right? I mean, if you don't like what they have to say, there's no possible way that it could have any truth to it!

For example, he connects some communist activist that Obama met when he was 8 years old. That MUST mean Obama is Stalin.

Did he keep up with this communist activist? Did the communist activist help launch his political career, like the domestic terrorist David Ayers did? (Yes, that was yet another political ally and personal friend that Obama abandoned once he realized it'd be bad for his reputation.) Did the communist activist get Obama into socialist/communist groups like Democratic Socialists of America?

Don't say THIS doesn't make you laugh:
YouTube - Glenn Beck Does Not Know How To Spell "Oligarchy"
(Don't pay attention to the spelling mistake. I'm not talking about that.)

The bullshit about the spelling mistake -- his missing one letter, then acknowledging it and continuing it but not correcting it -- and the dumbasses who posted comments on it did indeed make me laugh. As far as the video itself, no, it was prettymuch accurate -- a little too extreme for me, but not that much.

But the worst (/best?) things I've seen him say, were comparisons between Obama and Hitler. (Yeah, the German guy.) He showed some advertisements from Nazi-Germany, constantly saying 'Does this sound familiar to you?', playing the crowd at home.

Because Nazi Germany bought into focusing on the man and the symbol instead of the policies. I don't care for anybody pulling out the Nazi card, but that doesn't mean he wasn't accurate.

I can't believe a guy like that still has a show on tv. Even if it is on Fox... There's a reason why most major sponsors during Beck's show have asked Fox for another time to show their commercials.

Any credible evidence for that claim? I'd like to see it.

False. Medicaid failed to pay my dad's hospitalization bills, and my credit was hit and plummeted as a result. A mistake to charge the wrong member of my family, but a credit rating was still hit for not paying. It took over a year to get it settled with Medicaid and another year to get the negative hits off my credit report.

My brother's credit is total shit for going through cancer treatments for the past few years and getting hospital bills tacked onto his credit rating, even though a lot were covered by different organizations, the bills he had to pay he couldn't afford, and his credit now suffers as a result.

If he paid nothing at all, yes. (Like I said, five bucks a month will do.) If he didn't pay his insurance, yes. (That's not the hospital, it's completely separate.) But the claim that hospitals will refuse treatment for people without insurance or money, or that medical bills will affect one's credit score, is completely false, even with your anecdotal evidence.

But you say that your dad was hospitalized, and that your brother went through years of cancer treatments? Did they have insurance at the time? Or did the hospitals refuse to treat them because they didn't think they'd get their money?

The United States already spends a larger fraction of its GDP on healthcare than any country in the world ...

I already explained this.

... but it's health indicators (such as child mortality and life span) are lower

than those in many other countries of comparable income.

First, child mortality: the United States takes numbers differently than some other countries, considering a live birth to be a child, whereas some others wait a couple weeks or month before they would consider it a child fatality. So if a baby is born and lives for ten minutes, it's considered a child death in America, whereas the same situation would be considered

As for life span -- America has millions upon millions of people who risk their lives to come to America and do whatever it takes to hide from the people who would send them back to their home country. America has many, many people do not get medical treatment in time to cure their situation because they've only learned the lie that people without insurance cannot get treatment. America has people that come from other countries for medical care, when it's too late to cure them. America has a thousand factors in why the life span might be lower. Trying to say that life span reflects directly and only upon the healthcare system is like trying to say that the reason so many people get into car accidents is because the roads are bad.

Before someone tells me to shut up because I'm not an American, I'm getting this from a book written by Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics, business, and international and public affairs at Columbia University, and co-recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economic Science in 2001.

And because you quote from a book, you know everything about the situation?

[Govinda]

I refer to my earlier post about this being irreconcilable. Points, for Sasquatch:

Got RAE's name wrong for the millionth time. It's actually Research Assessment Exercise. There's one involving Europe which has a very close acronym, though.

Also, you backtracked yourself on the point of America giving away its technology. You backed me up.

Where's this survey that says 1/20th of the UK self-treat? I've never even heard of it. And I live here.

I take it you hate CNN?

I guess we just have to accept that Americans and Europeans are different. We think it is patriotic to take care of one another and better our society, because we like our countries. Know how you can tell? We don't use it as a point. We don't feel the need to say it. It's taken as granted that we are proud to be what we are. We don't need rhetoric, and it's kind of sad that you guys seem to. Repeating how much you love America isn't going to help it. Americans think it is patriotic to try to improve the country by only taking care of themselves and theirs. Good luck with that.