I'm supposed to believe

[dalegg 143]

Canada has had national healthcare for years, successfully. it may not be perfect but it beats the hell out of the US system.

d'ya think that might have something to do with the high taxes in canada?

I pay $370 a month in health insurance premiums, plus $10 co-pay per visit/ $20 per prescription multiplied by the number of people in my household. I'd rather pay that in taxes if it means that all Americans have healthcare because I know not everyone can afford to pay that much.

Your healthcare is covered by the fact that you and others are paying that $370 (or more). If your taxes were paying for for everyone else who could not afford to pay that much it's a good bet your taxes would be a lot more than that. By the way, is that the full cost of the coverage or do you have an employer paying another part of it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Compared to the UK I think there is a generally lower standard of health in the US. Just my opinion - but when you meet people who would apparently rather take their chances than get a mystery lump checked out, and then see scores of older people (some still in their 50's) dragging oxygen cylinders behind them or staggering on crutches it certainly makes you think.

The private system has advantages - but (as it is currently) only for the very rich. Putting profit before patient care would after all represent a major conflict of interest in any other industry or profession...

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Canada has had national healthcare for years, successfully. it may not be perfect but it beats the hell out of the US system.

d'ya think that might have something to do with the high taxes in canada?

Would you rather pay taxes and know you are covered or pay less tax and go bankrupt over hospital bills? Seems a real no brainer to me.

as i have medical thru the military from being retired army, i'm covered whether i'm paying taxes or not

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's clearly a problem when two people can go to a pharmacy and pay wildly differing prices for the same drug.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Canada has had national healthcare for years, successfully. it may not be perfect but it beats the hell out of the US system.

d'ya think that might have something to do with the high taxes in canada?

I pay $370 a month in health insurance premiums, plus $10 co-pay per visit/ $20 per prescription multiplied by the number of people in my household. I'd rather pay that in taxes if it means that all Americans have healthcare because I know not everyone can afford to pay that much.

Your healthcare is covered by the fact that you and others are paying that $370 (or more). If your taxes were paying for for everyone else who could not afford to pay that much it's a good bet your taxes would be a lot more than that. By the way, is that the full cost of the coverage or do you have an employer paying another part of it?

In early 1997, the Massachusetts Medical Society, retained the services of two consulting teams to independently analyze the relative costs of a Canadian-style single-payer system, and the current multi-payer health care system in Massachusetts.

While Lewin and SFP/BUSPH reports differed in their orientations and methodologies, they reached similar conclusions. First, a single-payer system would achieve significant administrative savings [between $1 .8 and $3.6 billion] over the current multi-payer system. Secondly, these savings are of such a magnitude that the available funds would be sufficient to insure universal coverage in the state and provide comprehensive benefits including outpatient medications and long-term care and eliminate all out-of-pocket payments (co-payments, deductibles).

[A] national health program could reap tens of billions of dollars in administrative savings in the initial years, enough to fund generous increases in health care service not only for the uninsured, but for the underinsured as well .... We suggest a funding package that would augment existing government health spending with earmarked health care taxes. Because these new taxes would replace employer-employee insurance premiums and substantial portions of cur

rent out-of-pocket expenditures, they would not increase health costs for the average American." ("Liberal Benefits, Conservative Spending," Grumbach, Bodenheimer, Himmelstein, and Woolhandler, JAMA, May 15, 1991).

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/HowMuchSPCost.html

[dalegg 143]

a single-payer system would achieve significant administrative savings [between $1 .8 and $3.6 billion] over the current multi-payer system.

Why?

[A] national health program could reap tens of billions of dollars in administrative savings in the initial years, enough to fund generous increases in health care service not only for the uninsured, but for the underinsured as well ....

How?

[Fuzzness 2]

Canada has had national healthcare for years, successfully. it may not be perfect but it beats the hell out of the US system.

d'ya think that might have something to do with the high taxes in canada?

Oh please, charles if you had a 10% tax rate you would survive just fine. In NS we had a 14% tax rate and I still had a lot of money when I was working.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Canada has had national healthcare for years, successfully. it may not be perfect but it beats the hell out of the US system.

d'ya think that might have something to do with the high taxes in canada?

Oh please, charles if you had a 10% tax rate you would survive just fine. In NS we had a 14% tax rate and I still had a lot of money when I was working.

10% tax rate as in an increase of or what? if you mean a flat 10% tax on my federal taxes i'd make more money

[one...two...tree 2,762]

a single-payer system would achieve significant administrative savings [between $1 .8 and $3.6 billion] over the current multi-payer system.

Why?

[A] national health program could reap tens of billions of dollars in administrative savings in the initial years, enough to fund generous increases in health care service not only for the uninsured, but for the underinsured as well ....

How?

Check out the link. It was two independent consulting firms that came up with those results for the state of Massachusetts. National Healthcare will happen in this country sooner or later.

[iceyspots 0]

oprah 2008

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[A] national health program could reap tens of billions of dollars in administrative savings in the initial years, enough to fund generous increases in health care service not only for the uninsured, but for the underinsured as well ....

How?

By cutting much of the red-tape and bureaucratic waste and overhead that the private health care system has produced. Seriously, I've never seen so much bureaucracy around clinics and hospitals as I have here in the US.

[Fuzzness 2]

Canada has had national healthcare for years, successfully. it may not be perfect but it beats the hell out of the US system.

d'ya think that might have something to do with the high taxes in canada?

Oh please, charles if you had a 10% tax rate you would survive just fine. In NS we had a 14% tax rate and I still had a lot of money when I was working.

10% tax rate as in an increase of or what? if you mean a flat 10% tax on my federal taxes i'd make more money

sales tax. and increase taxes on rich people.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Canada has had national healthcare for years, successfully. it may not be perfect but it beats the hell out of the US system.

d'ya think that might have something to do with the high taxes in canada?

Oh please, charles if you had a 10% tax rate you would survive just fine. In NS we had a 14% tax rate and I still had a lot of money when I was working.

10% tax rate as in an increase of or what? if you mean a flat 10% tax on my federal taxes i'd make more money

sales tax. and increase taxes on rich people.

sales tax is fine, but what do you define as "rich" as our definitions might clash.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Its infinitely tedious whenever you criticise the current administration, that rather than address the substance of the criticism someone prefers instead to turn around and makes the apparent assumption that you must therefore support the other side - as though any issue can only be understood by first filtering it through two apparently divergent political parties. Though I hasten to add I don't think the Reps and Dems are really all that different at the end of the day.

People have to learn to give the president a break instead of using him as a scapegoat for all their problems. He could cure cancer and certain people would still focus on the war..

Coming from Australia, the US is a fantastic country with some extraordinary people but I tell you what, it has a lot of faults… The thing is these are not 'end-of-the-world' faults but faults in attitudes, laws, responsibility and concepts. These are areas that politicians here need to get their act together to keep up with the rest of the world. These are the areas which groups like the ACLU, KKK, NAACP need to dramatically develop in.. The country needs a nationwide session with dr phil to teach everybody to stop whining and complaining about everything. Its almost as if the country is in a bad marriage..

When I listen to people who oppose Bush rant and rave on about this and that I think, what do you guys want.. Hey, I want a utopian world were everyone can do what they want and live happily and not have to worry in a world but the reality is this can never be the case.. So while people here ###### and whine, countries like Iran are clearly gearing up for a major battle..

I want republicans to lose. It will be interesting to see what the other side of the fence will do if the US has another terrorist attack or N.Korea, Iran and Venezuela decide to go for it..

why the US, with it's large population can't make sure everyone can go to the Dr. and not have to pay. I told him I did not know. He said it seemed wrong that all that money was going to the war

Totally agree.. Are Americans ready to pay an extra 2.5% tax to cover this? I'm all for it..

Health insurance for only 2.5% higher taxes? Sure, I pay a lot more than that out of my income right now.

[Fuzzness 2]

Canada has had national healthcare for years, successfully. it may not be perfect but it beats the hell out of the US system.

d'ya think that might have something to do with the high taxes in canada?

Oh please, charles if you had a 10% tax rate you would survive just fine. In NS we had a 14% tax rate and I still had a lot of money when I was working.

10% tax rate as in an increase of or what? if you mean a flat 10% tax on my federal taxes i'd make more money

sales tax. and increase taxes on rich people.

sales tax is fine, but what do you define as "rich" as our definitions might clash.

anyone worth over 1 million