The Economy

You're laughably uninformed. WHO ratings are rigged to give credit to health systems with socialized aspects. WHO rating the US vs. socialized systems is about like asking new york yankee fans to rate whether the new york yankees or the boston red sox are the greatest all time baseball team.
Also, WHO has notoriously allowed data to be rigged by reporting countries - eg (famously) saying the US infant mortality is high. The real reason is the US counts the death of preemies as infant deaths, where most others don't. Get a clue.

BLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH HA HA HEEE HEEEEEEEE CHORTLE GIGGLE YAAAAA HEEE HEE HARRR YUK CACKLE HA HA HEEE HEEEEEEEE GIGGLE CHORTLE YAAAAA HEEE HEE HARRR YUK CACKLE HA HA HEEE HEEEEEEEE GIGGLE

And who did the rating??? A component of the UK's socialized NHS. Hey, here's an idea: you and your friends play me and my boys a game of baseball - my team gets to be the umpires too!

Comparisons of socialized health systems vs the US are always rigged from beginning to end.

The health of a nation depends on all kinds of factors not included in rigged studies created by non-impartial sources, and other than the health system itself. Do euro countries have the rate of violent crime the US does? Nooooo. Do they have a huge underclass like we do, which is addicted to all kinds of health destroying behaviors such as illegal drugs, unhealthy food, gang warfare, unprotected sex etc? Nooooo. Do they have 20 million illegal aliens who screw up the stats? Noooooo. Do they fight major wars and have millions of wounded veterans from several wars? Noooo. Do they drive cars as many per capita passenger miles as us? Noooooo.

Give it up. You've got nothing.

The bottom line of why jobs are disappearing from the US at an exponential rate is nothing but health care and accident premiums pricing the American worker right out of a business' budget. You can only milk "patriotism" for so long until the business owner sits down and crunches the monthly numbers.

Provide universal health care and accident insurance as a pooled fund with super-low premiums per person and you remove that burden from business and industry owners. Burden removed, legislation enacted to bring jobs back home where they belong, people go back to work. Then mortgages will get paid, housing values increase, banks stabilize and the economy recovers.

At the root of it all: Universal Health Care.

Hillary Clinton got it right. Too bad the GOP ripped it away. If it had passed then, we would not be in the crises we're in today.

Complete surrender from you. When it gets down to the real facts and arguments, Obamabots cut and run.

That's another manifestly stupid idea - there are all kinds of reasons why jobs are leaving the US, but the main reason is labor wages - everything can be done more cheaply elsewhere. With Obama's anti-trade attitudes, if he gets in expect many more jobs to disappear.

Sounds like magic to me! The insured won't pay, business won't pay - who will pay?? The tooth fairy?

Unforgiveably stupid and with absolutely no connection to the well-known facts - give yourself an "F".

That explains why the employment rate is so low.

Again, cite examples. Because I can list dozens where universal health care costs tons more. The French pay 50% of their income in taxes. That isn't a "super-low premium" to anyone who can use a calculator.

And I still don't see Cubans swimming back to Cuba to get that free health care, and to be in the supposed booming economy that resulted from it.

Both groups use questionable data to come to their conclusions.

WHO:
The problem here is that the rating system, rates how "socialized" the medical industry is. WHO openly stated that it's important that all people receive equal care, and this is a factor in how it rates. Well of course under any non-socialized system where people pay for service, care isn't going to be equal, and nor should it.

This automatically favors systems like the French system. In a normal system the newest best, more expensive medications would be available to anyone who could pay. However in France, those medications are simply not available, since the government won't pay for it (to control cost). Thus it is equal care. Everyone is equally stuck with older less effective medications. WHO would rate this higher than our system.

Another large problem in France, is people being hooked on medications. Since medications are free, people take pills even when they don't need them. Some take pills to remedy side effects of other pills they have taken, none of which they need. People are actually making themselves sick on unnecessary medications. WHO wouldn't look at that information, rather just that everyone has equal access to drugs.

That said, I can promise you, WHO would not rate France as #1 if they did the rating over. Why? Cause it's not equal anymore. They don't have universal coverage, and they have co-pays now. So poor people no longer have equal coverage to those who can pay.


With the other group, the problem is that they do not consider cultural differences. There are many problems socially in America, that effect simple statistical information, that are not the fault of the health care industry. For example, it's a known fact that the vast majority of Americans eat poorly. We have a fast food mentality. We smoke, we drink, and we do drugs.

Tell me, if a mother on crack and drinking alcohol gives birth at a hospital and the babe dies from complications due to those things... is that the health care systems fault, or the mothers fault? But from a simple infant mortality statistic, you wouldn't see that.

If a person weights 400 lbs and smokes 2 packs a day, and dies from any number of things, is that the health care systems fault, or the person? Again, that would not show up on a statistic.

For example, in my extended family, a former husband (he divorced) died just a month ago. He was an alcoholic. The doctor flat out said, if you don't quit drinking, you'll die. He refused to quit drinking, and he died. Now is that the health care systems fault, or his fault? He was being treated, and he was in the hospital, in theory they should have saved him ... but he had to much alcohol in his blood and it killed him. I could say the revolting details of what alcohol does to you, but here's the point. It wasn't our hospitals or health care systems fault in any of those situations. Yet if you simply looked at statistics, they all had treatable things, so that would look bad.

I posted on another thread about how Canada's infant mortality rate is better than ours. Yet, every year hundreds of mothers and babies that need neo-natal care are sent to our hospitals, and we save their lives. Mothers are literally told, your child will die. Then they come to the US and their lives are saved. Our system is making their system look better, because we're saving the infants that would otherwise be a statistic in Canada.

Two things. First, when I think of cheap, I compare how much it's costing ME. If I have to choose between insurance premiums, or 50% of my income, insurance premiums are far cheaper than 50% of my income.

Second, which is more important.. top quality care, or the almighty dollar? I would say top quality care. You keep skipping over the fact that the services rendered in France are not up to our level of care. Remember, 1/3rd of the latest greatest most effective, least side effects, newest drugs... are simply not available in France. Remember in 2003 a heat wave that hit Europe, killed thousands of people, but amazingly it killed people in hospitals. Can you imagine if a heat wave hit the US and people in hospitals died? There would be outrage nation wide, but in France, this was unavoidable, because the health care system simply doesn't pay enough for hospitals to afford AC. Can you even imagine a hospital in the US not having AC and people dying in hospital beds from heat stroke? Yet that happened in France.

So which is more important to you, reducing our health car costs, or providing top quality care where people don't die of heat stroke in hospital beds? You answer that, then tell me how much you want to copy the system WHO rated #1.

The only way to do that is to reduce care. Health care costs money. That's not going to change. The only way to pay less, is to get less. Hospitals are expensive to run. If you reduce how much they are paid, something has to give. In Canada, in order to reduce cost, the government established a quota on how many people can receive an MRI each day. People now wait up to a year to get an MRI. At the same time, the hospital will allow people to bring in their pet dog or cat to get an MRI after hours... for a fee.

Remember the key to beating cancer is early detection, yet if you wait a year for an MRI, that could be the difference between surviving it, or dying. Ironically I read another report that surveyed patients, and discovered a very high percentage (I don't remember the exact number off hand, but it was higher than 3/4) reported getting much worse while waiting 6 month to a year for diagnostic tests and scans like an MRI. But of course WHO would say as long as everyone had equal access... and statistically, as long as they don't die while waiting...

I disagree. I've seen lots of evidence that we have one of the best most advanced health care systems in the world. Granted that will change very quickly if we adopt socialism.

Well, I don't see people flying to India to get health care like that do in Canada and the UK. I don't see people dying in hospital beds because hospitals can't afford AC like France. I don't see mothers being told their babies will die because there's no room for them. I don't see people swimming to Cuba to get great health care. So I don't know where you get this idea our system is the 'mediocre' one.

Further, I still look at the cost to me, and I don't see another other system being 'cheaper'.

I agree. That's about the only statement you've made I agree with.

So the French are getting raped by corruption. Whatever. In the US we can institute oversight. There is no reason why the fine details of bringing jobs back home cannot be hammered out. Employers cannot afford American workers and compete globally. That you cannot deny. A superfund, with extensive oversight and regular revisiting, that is padded by low monthly premiums with people making more visits for preventative care without worry of cost will cost less than the mess we're in now.

Can you deny that?

No.

So support the one solution that will bring American jobs back, stabilize the banks, the economy and lead to a future for America instead of a predicted decline into forced socialism on more levels than you, Andy, would be comfortable with at all..

A little socialism in the form of universal health care is better than tons of socialism in the form of Trillion dollar public purchases of private businesses, eh?

This is the very very baffling aspect of conservatives. They know that universal health care is good for the free market. Way good, by seeing how bad it can get without it.

Yet they still balk at the one thing that will cause American business to get back up on its feet and kick the economy back into high gear so the free market can thrive again.

Then now that things are all in the toilet, they're totally OK with using public money to buy out private business all in the name of "a rescue".

What they're really saying is: "When rich people are eating it, socialism is just hunky dorey. When poor people are eating it, socialism is EVIL bad bad bad."

In an amoral nutshell.

Maybe you've seen something I haven't, but I don't recall hearing Bush say anything about it being "OK" with him. The only thing I've seen is his admitting that something has to be done, and him waiting for congress to come up with something he can sign.
I am happy to see that someone is trying to put some controls on this thing though.

The evidence and data, does not support anything you have claimed.

You know, I do appreciate that when you talk, I know you believe what you say... however... I don't see how you could possibly believe this.

This exact system you are talking about, has been duplicated in a number of countries. It hasn't worked. Why do you think it will work here? You even state the French are being screwed by corruption... and you think that will not happen here if our government gains control of the entire health care industry?

CORRUPTION:
You, Mr Sihouette who claims every part of our government is corrupted by evil BigOil, BigNuclear, BigBusiness, Big-whatever-the-latest-conspiracy-is-today, want to trust that government will be pure as the wind driven snow with health care? You are telling me that the same government that (supposedly) controls the media, has psy-ops running around, and might even have political plants on this very forum, yet can totally be trusted with your health?

But let's take a step back... is there anything in our own country that we can look to as an example of the system you claim you want?

SOCIAL SECURITY! (SS)
SS is a 'superfund'. It has "extensive" oversight, and is regularly "revisited", and has supposedly "super low premiums".

When SS was planned and sold to the public, it would be 1% tax on the first $1,400 of yearly income. You could retire at age 62-63. The SS contribution would be tax deductible, and most importantly, it was voluntary enrollment. If you wanted it, you could sign up, and if not, you didn't have to.

So where are we now?

• First, it is not voluntary. Like any government tyranny, you have no choice but to enroll in SS.
• Second, the tax rate is now 15.3% taken from your check (both sides).
• Third, you are taxed on the first $102,000 dollars, more than most will ever earn in a single year.
• Fourth, you can not deduct SS deductions from your taxes.
• Fifth, thanks to Bill Clinton, you now get taxed on the money you receive from SS, just as you got taxes on the money you put into SS. (double taxation)
• Sixth, thanks to Jimmy Carter and the democrats, now anyone who immigrates to the US, even if they are over 60 years old, and never paid a dime into the system, they can collect a check just like anyone who paid in their whole lives.
• Finely the retirement age was 62 years old, and now it's 70.

So let us review. Social Security has increased in cost, and reduced in benefits, every single year since it was enacted. Further, it is going bankrupt as we speak, thus more increases in cost and reductions in benefits, are in the future. But wait! MAYBE.... the pay off is really good!

In the early 80s, in Galveston County, Texas, thousands of employees were allowed to opt-out of SS. Their payroll taxes were given to a private retirement fund of their choosing. Here are the results.
Employees who earned $50,000 a year, *would have* collected $1,302 a month.
Under the private plan, they collected $6,843 a month.
Employees earning $20,000 a year, *would have* collected $775 a month.
Under the private plan, they collected $2,740 a month.

Hmm.... so the service is crap too.

CONCLUSION:

Based on evidence and data, not opinion and hearsay, and some utopian "it should / could work" theories... I can safely say, that if you do the same thing with health care, the results will be similar, if not exactly the same as SS and every socialized care in the world... namely... higher cost, lower benefits, and reduced service.

Nope. Both are bad.

When I look around the world at other universal health care systems, and the economies in which they reside, it's not good. France is a clear cut example. They have one of the most stagnate economies in Europe. Socialized health care hasn't helped them, it's nearly bankrupted their government, and sent their economy into dormancy.

lol, are you trying to dress up socialism and a support for capitalism? How laughable

I am not OK with it.

Er, you meant immoral? Amoral, means it's morally neutral.

Well regardless, it's not relevant to me since I don't care who does or does not benefit from a bail out. All socialism is wrong. All bail outs are wrong. It is immoral to take money from one group of people by force, and hand it out to another that hasn't earned it. So this doesn't apply to me.

Maybe I missed something in Civics 101, but if we're to call it the "Bush bailout plan", wouldn't that intimate that Bush initiated the plan? As I understand it, this bailout plan was initiated by democrats in the congress...no? Therefore, wouldn't it be more accurate to call it the "Reid bailout plan" or the "Pelosi bailout plan"?

Again, perhaps I missed something (I have been VERY busy with work lately), I seem to recall that the AIG part of the "bailout" was to be an 8% loan rather than a "bailout". As far as Fannie and Freddie, frankly I'd be VERY happy to see them come back under full governmental control, and as a line item on the Federal Budget, or better yet killed outright.

I have a close friend who owned an automobile dealership for several decades, and one of the things that they used to do was to guarantee the loans on the cars they sold. If the person they sold the car to defaulted on the bank loan, the bank called him for the money, and it was up to him to either make the payments or repossess the car and sell it to someone who would make the payments. If we're going to ever have a solid home mortgage system again, the mortgage brokers are going to have to be required to do the same thing, guarantee their own loans, instead of doing the thing that got us into this mess in the first place, namely loaning money on the same property...twice! The MBS system allowed banks to write a mortgage to someone, and then to write bonds using the property as security! When you couple that with the ARM's, and "interest only" scams that were running rampant a few years ago, is it any wonder that these companies are going down like a MIG with an AMRAAM up it's tailpipe?

you right wing nuts caused this problem

you voted for w

twice

You didn't address the evidence. You didn't make a point. You didn't support your pointless theory with any evidence. You slandered a moderator, and a left leaning moderator at that, with a baseless accusation.

The bottom line, and the moral of the current crises is:

Accept some small measure of socialism so that your entire country doesn't HAVE TO become socialist. And I mean that from the mildest to the most horrific of potential scenarios..

If we had a socialized health plan for our workers, American companies could afford them. That would've kept jobs home, mortgages paid, the economy strong and our capitalistic free market thriving like no other. If we had not allowed insurance companies to lobby our country into the dirt and keep health care private (and of course, pricey), we would not be in the mess we're in today.

And if we'd not let BigOil lobby to stonewall our changeover to alternatives, that could've started 30 years ago in large measure, we would not be in the mess we are today. If BigOil hadn't coerced GM into gestapo-style recalls of the Volt in 2000, in favor of the collosal guzzler the "Hummer", we would be world leaders in production of electric and hybrid cars. Now we're bailing out car companies to be able to afford to stay in business long enough (hopefully) to quickly mass-produce cars that will undoubtedly have 8 years of bugs we already would've worked out to compete globally..

Lobbiests/bribery and greed are the evil garden from where forced socialism springs. They are the ones who sewed the seeds forcing us to buy the companies they work for in a socialist bailout. They get the profits from all those years of corruption and they get to walk away with more cream just for good measure.

Congress is making a mistake if they allot one US dollar to any of them!

"Here you go bad dog, here's a bisquit for biting me TWICE".

We need to reform lobbying laws. I say, make all lobbying illegal. Lobbying is nothing but bribery. Congress can and will work way more effetively if there aren't forceful distractions and coercion going on 24/7 on Capitol Hill. We are a nation of people FIRST and healthy capitalism a close second. The two cannot be separated in fact because the entire premise of capitalism lies on the productivity and well-being of the lowly worker and his family.