« First « Previous Comments 31 - 70 of 129 Next » Last » Search these comments
Goran_K saysTotal costs to who? Are the total costs the same for everyone?
Now who's being argumentative for the sake of the argument, harming the spirit of productive discussion?
xample answers would be raising taxes, what kind and on whom. The assertion that other countries do it successfully is false they have similar problems and often worse care. State of The art care is often not reimbursed like in the US. Care for elderly is rationed etc.
Now who's being argumentative for the sake of the argument, harming the spirit of productive discussion?
mell saysxample answers would be raising taxes, what kind and on whom. The assertion that other countries do it successfully is false they have similar problems and often worse care. State of The art care is often not reimbursed like in the US. Care for elderly is rationed etc.
But it wouldn't be a tax increase. We'd be cutting costs.
All independent studies show the same thing. US healthcare system produces worse outcomes for double the cost of most other countries. That is a fact.
It's amazing that these counties achieve better outcomes with all this supposed "rationing". How do you think that is possible?
None of that makes their systems better for the individual and most experience similar inflation and of course the questions remains: if you give the same excellent healthcare (better than most if not all other countries) that the US currently provides for those employed: who is going to pay for this?
mainly because it is the number one country for unnecessary surgeriesAnd the US spends tremendous amounts on end of life care and procedures that are not going to prolong life to any significant degree, but are required under guidelines of senior living centers. My neighbor was placed in one of the most expensive assisted living centers in town because her late second husband, who was 22 years her senior was well off and died 21 years before she did after a brief illness and had provided handsomely for her, after she was well past the ability to care for herself. After six months, she was under 100% care and had to be restrained at all times. Yet she lived another two years like that and when she'd have a medical emergency, she was rushed to ICU where the meter started running--she finally passed away after three such occasions. In a more sensible climate, she would probably have been allowed to die a normal death of whatever the emergency consisted.
The same people who gleefully keep us in one war after another !
7 at last count !
No money for health care but we have money to kill and maim people. No money to take care of our wounded "heroes" either when they return from nation building misadventures.
Bingo !
Better outcomes for 1/2 the cost.
Feux Follets saysThe same people who gleefully keep us in one war after another !
7 at last count !
No money for health care but we have money to kill and maim people. No money to take care of our wounded "heroes" either when they return from nation building misadventures.
Bingo !
You mean the Democrats who started proxy wars in Syria, and Libya?
hat's not what the studies show, in fact it is commonly understood that the US has pretty much for any condition a monopoly on the best therapies out there. That is a fact
hese things have to be addressed but you don't want to end up in Canada, UK or any other country with inferior healthcare with a legitimate condition that would be easily addressed in the US and reimbursed by insurance
Also, there are some benefits in giving access to basic healthcare to everybody in preventing the worst outcomes for easily treatable conditions that a patient without healthcare in the US may not seek because they cannot afford it. Easy wins in terms of statistics (child mortality or other acute conditions). None of that makes their systems better for the individual
most experience similar inflation and of course the questions remains: if you give the same excellent healthcare (better than most if not all other countries) that the US currently provides for those employed: who is going to pay for this?
It's 50% cheaper!! We're already paying for it twice over. Why do people think we can't afford it?I believe objections are related to the belief that taxes will go up, and be disproportionately paid according to earnings. An examination of taxes related to socialized medicine in other countries might help the discussion along. However, it is true that the cost of drugs in such countries is are cheaper than in the USA. Hence importation from Canada.
I believe objections are related to the belief that taxes will go up, and be disproportionately paid according to earnings. An examination of taxes related to socialized medicine in other countries might help the discussion along. However, it is true that the cost of drugs in such countries is are cheaper than in the USA. Hence importation from Canada.
It's 50% cheaper!! We're already paying for it twice over. Why do people think we can't afford it?
Why not? The outcomes of such conditions is BETTER. If the goal is to keep living, studies show you'd be better off in either of those countries.
LeonDurham saysIt's 50% cheaper!! We're already paying for it twice over. Why do people think we can't afford it?
How is it 50% "cheaper"? How can it be cheaper if like mell pointed out, the tax burden is increased? Nothing in the world comes for free, even making something "cheaper".
Easy wins in terms of statistics (child mortality or other acute conditions).
If the total amount paid is less, then it's a positive.
Does it really matter if you pay less total? Who cares if you pay it in taxes vs. deductions out of your paycheck? If the total amount paid is less, then it's a positive.I think the debate is whether folks would be paying more overall. Let's say you are reasonably healthy, exercise, don't smoke, and eat well. And your employer covers a good chunk of your medical insurance, for example.
I guess it's cheaper for those who expect to pay less into the system than they expect to extract from it.
How is it 50% "cheaper"? How can it be cheaper if like mell pointed out, the tax burden is increased? Nothing in the world comes for free, even making something "cheaper".
Because you'd be paying ZERO to your employer and your employer would be paying ZERO towards your healthcare. So, you'll get a raise too!
This isn't hard. Come on.
Goran_K saysHow is it 50% "cheaper"? How can it be cheaper if like mell pointed out, the tax burden is increased? Nothing in the world comes for free, even making something "cheaper".
Because you'd be paying ZERO to your employer and your employer would be paying ZERO towards your healthcare. So, you'll get a raise too!
This isn't hard. Come on.
California's estimate for "universal healthcare" came at 15% of additional tax on top of existing SIT being necessary to pay for it. This is waaaaaaay more than I pay for my employer-provided health plan, co-pays, deductibles and all that jazz.
Source, or you made this up.
Exactly, that's why I asked "cheaper for who", and I've only gotten crickets.
I think the debate is whether folks would be paying more overall. Let's say you are reasonably healthy, exercise, don't smoke, and eat well. And your employer covers a good chunk of your medical insurance, for example.
Yes, but if tax burden is increased, how can you prove that that burden is LESS for me than what I'd pay an insurance company? Can you prove it?
And your employer doesn't pay for anything. They are taking money that they would have paid you in salary and instead pay it as "benefits" on your health care. It's all YOUR money.
But, I'd suspect that we could offer services you could buy that would allow access to Drs. with much shorter wait times if that's really important to you along with the new system.
Hmm. So you're admitting that rationing is inherent to socialized healthcare, and to get around it, you would need another system to correct for that?
CBOEtrader saysSource, or you made this up.
Is this a joke? Just google health outcome by country.
Here's one:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror
US rations based on a person's wealth.
Your comment was about longevity. Arbitrary rankings aren't even data, much less facts. It's basically some pundits top 10 list.
ry using facts to make your case.
Ask yourself why New Hampshire has an equivalent IMR to europe whereas in Alabama the IMR is more than double Europe's.
Ask yourself why the white IMR in US is marginally higher than EU, where black IMR is 2.2 times the white IMR. Keep in mind ALL the poorest mothers have medicaid.
Access to prenatal care isn't a problem for the despondent in the US (though it may be a problem for the working middle class).
« First « Previous Comments 31 - 70 of 129 Next » Last » Search these comments
Television audiences get bleeped version and wonder what they missed
DeNiro walked out and said 'I’m just going to say one thing, and that's f*** Trump'
The audience leapt to it's feet, and cheered the statement while the actor, 74, pumped his fists
THEN he said 'its no longer 'down with Trump', its 'f*** Trump' and the audience cheered again
Robert DeNiro yelled 'f*** Trump' during a foul-mouthed rant at the Tony Awards and got a standing ovation.
The audience went wild, some rising to their feet. DeNiro pumped his fists triumphantly.
The outburst was bleeped, so Broadway fans watching at home didn't hear the expletive.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5828513/Robert-DeNiro-yells-F-Trump-stage-Tonys-TWICE-gets-standing-ovation.html