Why not Universal Healthcare?

[Cloth Ears]

We also run the risk of going broke and ending up wit a poor system like Austrailia's.

Broke! - heh you have a bad recession going on - we don't. Also you're already almost broke - just look at your deficit!

They used to be a private system, but became a gov't run system.No they have one of the worst health care systems in the world.

The worst in the world eh! Now that's a sweeping statement. (It's actually a private/public system that is sadly underfunded but at least it exists).

I won't go into the specifics about the system and its problems.

Gee - I wish you would - at least to support your sweeping statement.

Currently, increasing taxes on the rich or top 1% of the earners (people making over $250,000 per year) will not pay for health care so the money has to come from some where.

See my previous post for a worthwhile suggestion.

Good luck friends - you're going to need it.

CE

[bobsticks]

Broke! - heh you have a bad recession going on - we don't. Also you're already almost broke - just look at your deficit!


The worst in the world eh! Now that's a sweeping statement. (It's actually a private/public system that is sadly underfunded but at least it exists).


Gee - I wish you would - at least to support your sweeping statement.


See my previous post for a worthwhile suggestion.

Good luck friends - you're going to need it.

CE

CE, I love the fact that you are posting...often and voraciously. I've read the description of your country's health plan, I've read Feanor's experience, and I respect both. The problem is we, in America. are facing demographics that are astoundingly different from the candygram and get-well card that y'all have embraced.

I'm glad that you all had the prescience to define the problem and find workable solutions within your existing systems. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that under the current set of circumstances we can accomplish the same feats...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

CE, I love the fact that you are posting...often and voraciously. I've read the description of your country's health plan, I've read Feanor's experience, and I respect both. The problem is we, in America. are facing demographics that are astoundingly different from the candygram and get-well card that y'all have embraced.

I'm glad that you all had the prescience to define the problem and find workable solutions within your existing systems. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that under the current set of circumstances we can accomplish the same feats...

This is what I was thinking, and I could not have said this better. While CE makes some good points, I think their perspective is a little pie in the sky for my taste. Just throwing away a few nukes, and transferring the money to health care just ain't going to cut it. We have a far larger population than both Canada and Australia put together times six. We are not concentrated in a few areas of our country, but spread out all over it. Our health care started as an employee based one, theirs on a universal based one. Our health care system basically worked well until most of our larger companies went multi-national, and the insurance companies went public and became more beholden to their stockholders than to the premium payers. Our health system has gotten sick, but when it was created, it fit the situation well. It just needs a major overhaul because what worked back in the Nixon days does not work now.

This issue is far more complex than that simple transfer of capital. Universal health care, while being the ultimate goal, cannot just be carved out of the present system. Many changes in perspective of the consumer side, structural changes on the employer/employee side, and many system wide structural and resource changes have to occur before universal health care can be put in place. This is a long term goal, but what I am interested in more is the short term goals implemented until we get there.

[bobsticks]

This is what I was thinking, and I could not have said this better. While CE makes some good points, I think their perspective is a little pie in the sky for my taste. Just throwing away a few nukes, and transferring the money to health care just ain't going to cut it. We have a far larger population than both Canada and Australia put together times six. We are not concentrated in a few areas of our country, but spread out all over it. Our health care started as an employee based one, theirs on a universal based one. Our health care system basically worked well until most of our larger companies went multi-national, and the insurance companies went public and became more beholden to their stockholders than to the premium payers. Our health system has gotten sick, but when it was created, it fit the situation well. It just needs a major overhaul because what worked back in the Nixon days does not work now.

This issue is far more complex than that simple transfer of capital. Universal health care, while being the ultimate goal, cannot just be carved out of the present system. Many changes in perspective of the consumer side, structural changes on the employer/employee side, and many system wide structural and resource changes have to occur before universal health care can be put in place. This is a long term goal, but what I am interested in more is the short term goals implemented until we get there.

Big Daddy, this is what I've always respected about you...we can come from a completely different perspective, a different viewpoint but a respectable dialogue can be had...I know that your opinions, thoughts and instincts differ from mine greatly but, ultimately, the solution will be found through moderate and thoughtful discussion....and not polemics...

...as always, thank you...

[bobsticks]

This is what I was thinking, and I could not have said this better. While CE makes some good points, I think their perspective is a little pie in the sky for my taste. Just throwing away a few nukes, and transferring the money to health care just ain't going to cut it. We have a far larger population than both Canada and Australia put together times six. We are not concentrated in a few areas of our country, but spread out all over it. Our health care started as an employee based one, theirs on a universal based one. Our health care system basically worked well until most of our larger companies went multi-national, and the insurance companies went public and became more beholden to their stockholders than to the premium payers. Our health system has gotten sick, but when it was created, it fit the situation well. It just needs a major overhaul because what worked back in the Nixon days does not work now.

This issue is far more complex than that simple transfer of capital. Universal health care, while being the ultimate goal, cannot just be carved out of the present system. Many changes in perspective of the consumer side, structural changes on the employer/employee side, and many system wide structural and resource changes have to occur before universal health care can be put in place. This is a long term goal, but what I am interested in more is the short term goals implemented until we get there.

As always, elegant...and succinct. The point that I was trying to make...and did so rather inelegantly and inefficiently to Kex was just this...and the fact that, in reality, there are two pies...one that represents taxation and one that represents revenue. Whether everyone becomes elligible for "Medicaid" the bills will still come. Ultimately the solution will involve many of the suggestions posited here:

...legal reform, taxation, cost-cutting and accomodation on many, many sides...