Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich (Texas has it right)

[웃 910]

Tell us, please. What is it about the US federal government handling of finances, personal information, and managment of programs that has supporters of big government health care so convinced that they will do a great job with your health care? Is it how they've handled Amtrack, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the postal Service, immigration, their oversight of hedge funds like Bernie Madoff's, bank failures, AIG bonuses, the Iraq war, drug cartels, the transparency of campaign contributions, corporate tax loopholes, or the adminstration of Veterans hospitals that stokes your confidence? Or is it the fact that our representative legislators have set up a better health care system for themselves than you will ever see in your lifetime? What is it that provides the definitive model driving the belief that federal management of health care is a panacea that will bring equality to all?

Social security and Katrina

[웃 910]

Tell us, please. What is it about the US federal government handling of finances, personal information, and managment of programs that has supporters of big government health care so convinced that they will do a great job with your health care? Is it how they've handled Amtrack, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the postal Service, immigration, their oversight of hedge funds like Bernie Madoff's, bank failures, AIG bonuses, the Iraq war, drug cartels, the transparency of campaign contributions, corporate tax loopholes, or the adminstration of Veterans hospitals that stokes your confidence? Or is it the fact that our representative legislators have set up a better health care system for themselves than you will ever see in your lifetime? What is it that provides the definitive model driving the belief that federal management of health care is a panacea that will bring equality to all?

Social security and Katrina

I like this post. I might add s.s. and Katrina and make it my new signature.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Tell us, please. What is it about the US federal government handling of finances, personal information, and managment of programs that has supporters of big government health care so convinced that they will do a great job with your health care? Is it how they've handled Amtrack, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the postal Service, immigration, their oversight of hedge funds like Bernie Madoff's, bank failures, AIG bonuses, the Iraq war, drug cartels, the transparency of campaign contributions, corporate tax loopholes, or the adminstration of Veterans hospitals that stokes your confidence? Or is it the fact that our representative legislators have set up a better health care system for themselves than you will ever see in your lifetime? What is it that provides the definitive model driving the belief that federal management of health care is a panacea that will bring equality to all?

Social security and Katrina

Thank you! How could I omit those glowing examples of government efficiency?

Edited May 20, 2009 by Barza Woman

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Add to that massive budget overspending and trade deficits.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Tell us, please. What is it about the US federal government handling of finances, personal information, and managment of programs that has supporters of big government health care so convinced that they will do a great job with your health care? Is it how they've handled Amtrack, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the postal Service, immigration, their oversight of hedge funds like Bernie Madoff's, bank failures, AIG bonuses, the Iraq war, drug cartels, the transparency of campaign contributions, corporate tax loopholes, or the adminstration of Veterans hospitals that stokes your confidence? Or is it the fact that our representative legislators have set up a better health care system for themselves than you will ever see in your lifetime? What is it that provides the definitive model driving the belief that federal management of health care is a panacea that will bring equality to all?

Personally, I'm not inspired by European attempts at equality. They're bogus. A rich European CEO can still get better medical treatment than a cleaning lady coz he can jet off to somewhere else and pay for extravagent care not limited by a board that decides who gets what and when. Did you see the tv documetary recently broadcast about Farrah Fawcett, the actress who is dying of cancer? She has a battery of physicians hovering over her, a private plane to fly her regularly between Germany and LA for expensive European medical treatments she can't get in the US. Do you think federal health care will put a stop to that and prevent the wealthy from doing what the poor and working class can't do?

Both may contribute to society, but, short of nuclear world war, they will never be equal in it. That's an immutable and inescapable fact.

The USA has the best healthcare system in the world? It's not even in the top 2o never mind the best. Way behind countries that currently have nationalised health care as its primary care. Health care is a human right, every person in the USA should be entitled to basic health care but they are not because profit is put before the patient. The story about actress, she went private, I have no problem with that, she had the money, here I'm talking about the majority of people when they get sick only need the basic treatment but it is not available to them.

World Health Organisation Health Care Rankings.

1 France

2 Italy

3 San Marino

4 Andorra

5 Malta

7 Spain

9 Austria

11 Norway

12 Portugal

13 Monaco

14 Greece

15 Iceland

16 Luxembourg

17 Netherlands

18 United Kingdom

19 Ireland

20 Switzerland

37 United States of America

Maybe America can learn a lot from Europe when it comes to Health Care looking at those rankings. We are just talking about health care here btw.

Edited May 20, 2009 by JimandChristy

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Please read the part you boldened again. It does not state that the US has the best health care in the world. It says that our representative legislators have set up a better health care system for themselves than you will ever see in your lifetime. They have the gold standard, on our dime, I remind you. I seriously doubt that any of them will partake in any mass health care initiative designed for the unwashed masses.

Health care is not realistically a human right, and "shoulds" are only wishes. The reason why the rich flee to other places to get superior medical care is because they can, and they must. That indicates that the ideal anywhere is not all that ideal.

Tell us, please. What is it about the US federal government handling of finances, personal information, and managment of programs that has supporters of big government health care so convinced that they will do a great job with your health care? Is it how they've handled Amtrack, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the postal Service, immigration, their oversight of hedge funds like Bernie Madoff's, bank failures, AIG bonuses, the Iraq war, drug cartels, the transparency of campaign contributions, corporate tax loopholes, or the adminstration of Veterans hospitals that stokes your confidence? Or is it the fact that our representative legislators have set up a better health care system for themselves than you will ever see in your lifetime? What is it that provides the definitive model driving the belief that federal management of health care is a panacea that will bring equality to all?

Personally, I'm not inspired by European attempts at equality. They're bogus. A rich European CEO can still get better medical treatment than a cleaning lady coz he can jet off to somewhere else and pay for extravagent care not limited by a board that decides who gets what and when. Did you see the tv documetary recently broadcast about Farrah Fawcett, the actress who is dying of cancer? She has a battery of physicians hovering over her, a private plane to fly her regularly between Germany and LA for expensive European medical treatments she can't get in the US. Do you think federal health care will put a stop to that and prevent the wealthy from doing what the poor and working class can't do?

Both may contribute to society, but, short of nuclear world war, they will never be equal in it. That's an immutable and inescapable fact.

The USA has the best healthcare system in the world? It's not even in the top 2o never mind the best. Way behind countries that currently have nationalised health care as its primary care. Health care is a human right, every person in the USA should be entitled to basic health care but they are not because profit is put before the patient. The story about actress, she went private, I have no problem with that, she had the money, here I'm talking about the majority of people when they get sick only need the basic treatment but it is not available to them.

World Health Organisation Health Care Rankings.

1 France

2 Italy

3 San Marino

4 Andorra

5 Malta

7 Spain

9 Austria

11 Norway

12 Portugal

13 Monaco

14 Greece

15 Iceland

16 Luxembourg

17 Netherlands

18 United Kingdom

19 Ireland

20 Switzerland

37 United States of America

Maybe America can learn a lot from Europe when it comes to Health Care looking at those rankings. We are just talking about health care here btw.

[mawilson 2,133]

That's right because doctors in the UK, Canada and France are vastly underpaid Typical falsehood said by Republicans to scare people in believing Nationalised Healthcare isn't the way to go........is that how the Republican party control other people by frightening them?

Yes, they are vastly underpaid. And no, I'm not a Republican.

Of course, the private health insurance in countries that have Nationalised Health Care are also really struggling aren't they? It wouldn't be the death of them as you like to call it, when you mean "death" I assume you mean they cannot make as much money?? Private Health Insurance will always have a market in developed countries but it shouldn't be the primary way of care. The death of them LOL, scaremongering again.

Indeed, as a result of the wide coverage offered by the public system, private health insurance

is not common in countries with universal healthcare. The overwhelming majority of citizens

in those countries rely on health care provided directly or indirectly by the national health system.

You're certainly not going to find many UK/French/German employers offering private healthcare

benefits as part of their standard employment package.

The man/woman who's job is to clean the toilets has just as equal right to basic healthcare as a CEO of a major company.

Says you.

[mawilson 2,133]

37 United States of America

Maybe America can learn a lot from Europe when it comes to Health Care looking at those rankings. We are just talking about health care here btw.

These rankings are total BS because 40-50 million people in the US (including 10-20 million illegal immigrants) are uninsured.

If you add a lot of zeros to the average, of course you're going to get a low rating.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

37 United States of America

Maybe America can learn a lot from Europe when it comes to Health Care looking at those rankings. We are just talking about health care here btw.

These rankings are total BS because 40-50 million people in the US (including 10-20 million illegal immigrants) are uninsured.

If you add a lot of zeros to the average, of course you're going to get a low rating.

I see you conveniently forgot to mention all the millions of Americans who are "insured" but in fact their insurance policy is so sketchy they get refused treatment anyway or have to pay a high deductible....that is one of the many reasons why it is 37th. Oh and if people want private health care in say the UK, guess what they pay for it if they wish to. At least they have a choice or freedom to choose in that regard whether they want to go private or not. Over there is almost life/death, insurance/no insurance.

[Peikko 1,575]

Not total bullshit, but certainly skewed if that is what was done.

That there are 40/50 million people relying on emergency health is necessarily going to put a strain on the system. Why have a system where millions of people wait until a health issue is acute, and probably much more expensive to treat, just because no one wants to be seen to deliver care to someone who, god forbid, doesn't deserve it?

Essentially, preventative health care is a luxury afforded to a lucky few (not simply those who are uninsured, but those who can afford to write a check for whatever test, procedure and health visit is required to ensure maximum health). Everyone else lurches from crisis to crisis, dependent on their own genetic predisposition to health versus illness. If you are lucky, your health is reasonable, you don't have a major crisis. I'm going to guess that the % of people (WITH INSURANCE) that fit into that category is, what, let's be generous, 15%?

This system is broken, unfair and worst of all serves no body well. If the rich have to continue to pay out of pocket for the best care then what hope anyone else, really?

What I find most sickening, is that there are people here in the US who would rather see everyone go to hell in a handbasket than allow the government the opportunity to try to fix this mess. I have read posts here where someone suggested that even if the government could provide the best health care system since sliced bread they still would appose it, simply because they don't like government. How 'cut off the nose to spite the face' is that?

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Not total bullshit, but certainly skewed if that is what was done.

That there are 40/50 million people relying on emergency health is necessarily going to put a strain on the system. Why have a system where millions of people wait until a health issue is acute, and probably much more expensive to treat, just because no one wants to be seen to deliver care to someone who, god forbid, doesn't deserve it?

Essentially, preventative health care is a luxury afforded to a lucky few (not simply those who are uninsured, but those who can afford to write a check for whatever test, procedure and health visit is required to ensure maximum health). Everyone else lurches from crisis to crisis, dependent on their own genetic predisposition to health versus illness. If you are lucky, your health is reasonable, you don't have a major crisis. I'm going to guess that the % of people (WITH INSURANCE) that fit into that category is, what, let's be generous, 15%?

This system is broken, unfair and worst of all serves no body well. If the rich have to continue to pay out of pocket for the best care then what hope anyone else, really?

What I find most sickening, is that there are people here in the US who would rather see everyone go to hell in a handbasket than allow the government the opportunity to try to fix this mess. I have read posts here where someone suggested that even if the government could provide the best health care system since sliced bread they still would appose it, simply because they don't like government. How 'cut off the nose to spite the face' is that?

I agree Madame Cleo, I don't understand it, there have been times in the UK when I don't trust my government on certain issues but that doesn't blind me from seeing the bigger picture and what it best for my country and my fellow citizens. This whole the government is out to get you is paranoia, are most Americans like this?

Edited May 20, 2009 by JimandChristy

[Peikko 1,575]

Not total bullshit, but certainly skewed if that is what was done.

That there are 40/50 million people relying on emergency health is necessarily going to put a strain on the system. Why have a system where millions of people wait until a health issue is acute, and probably much more expensive to treat, just because no one wants to be seen to deliver care to someone who, god forbid, doesn't deserve it?

Essentially, preventative health care is a luxury afforded to a lucky few (not simply those who are uninsured, but those who can afford to write a check for whatever test, procedure and health visit is required to ensure maximum health). Everyone else lurches from crisis to crisis, dependent on their own genetic predisposition to health versus illness. If you are lucky, your health is reasonable, you don't have a major crisis. I'm going to guess that the % of people (WITH INSURANCE) that fit into that category is, what, let's be generous, 15%?

This system is broken, unfair and worst of all serves no body well. If the rich have to continue to pay out of pocket for the best care then what hope anyone else, really?

What I find most sickening, is that there are people here in the US who would rather see everyone go to hell in a handbasket than allow the government the opportunity to try to fix this mess. I have read posts here where someone suggested that even if the government could provide the best health care system since sliced bread they still would appose it, simply because they don't like government. How 'cut off the nose to spite the face' is that?

I agree Madame Cleo, I don't understand it, there have been times in the UK when I don't trust my government on certain issues but that doesn't blind me from seeing the bigger picture and what it best for my country and my fellow citizens. This whole the government is out to get you is paranoia, are most Americans like this?

I've only come across them online on message boards. It's rather strange

[mawilson 2,133]

Oh and if people want private health care in say the UK, guess what they pay for it if they wish to. At least they have a choice or freedom to choose in that regard whether they want to go private or not. Over there is almost life/death, insurance/no insurance.

I don't want to pay for it. I already have excellent private coverage fully paid for by my employer.

As do hundreds of millions of Americans (62%) who get health insurance through their job.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Oh and if people want private health care in say the UK, guess what they pay for it if they wish to. At least they have a choice or freedom to choose in that regard whether they want to go private or not. Over there is almost life/death, insurance/no insurance.

I don't want to pay for it. I already have excellent private coverage fully paid for by my employer.

As do hundreds of millions of Americans (62%) who get health insurance through their job.

Good for you, however if you lost your job and couldn't get another and fell sick......what then?

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh and if people want private health care in say the UK, guess what they pay for it if they wish to. At least they have a choice or freedom to choose in that regard whether they want to go private or not. Over there is almost life/death, insurance/no insurance.

I don't want to pay for it. I already have excellent private coverage fully paid for by my employer.

As do hundreds of millions of Americans (62%) who get health insurance through their job.

62% of Americans get fully paid insurance through their jobs? Evidence please. I believe the figure should read 62% of Americans have access to insurance through their job which they pay for out of their wages (supplemented by their employer) and which still requires co payments. Still, I could be wrong.

Edited May 20, 2009 by Madame Cleo