Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-14-2011, 09:40 PM
 
48,502 posts, read 96,856,573 times
Reputation: 18304

Advertisements

Stewling is a sin. The probelmj is thsoe who want it will pay nothig towards it themsleves. It was very evicent at the budget hearings during the present healthcare scoring. All democratic special inerest rejected paying any portition of the healthcare bill themselves. It got so bad that Nelson sold his vote for a guarnatee that it was except from the medicaid terms which he said would bankrupty his state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-15-2011, 04:24 AM
 
1,733 posts, read 1,822,399 times
Reputation: 1135
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
I would love for some supporter of a singlepayer. to answer one question..because I would love a singlepayer...just how are you going to pay for it

even if we take the european costs (theirs is about 4k per person, as opposed to our 7k per person(and that is an average (becasue some people need more and some need less))...4k times 320 million (our population) is 1,280,000,000,000 that's 1.2 trillion dollars a year...that we cant afford....our current budget is over 1.8 trillion ON THE HOLE

so just how would you propose paying for it...and let's remember there are less than 110 million WORKING TAXPAYERS in this country.

I would wager a guess that, non of you would even consider the 'fair-tax'...bet most will say 'tax the rich'...guess what the you could tax the rich at 100% and you still couldnt pay for it
The total spent by the US government on health care at the moment -from taxes- is about 1,15 trillion. That is medicare, medicaid, VA, Indian health, etc. So unless you want to keep all those programs running seaparate to single payer, you are talking about finding 0,05 trillion, or about 50 billion.

Presumably the people who at the moment are paying the remaining 1,15 trillion would be happy to exchange that expense for one of 0,05 trillion.

Does that answer your question?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2011, 04:31 AM
 
1,733 posts, read 1,822,399 times
Reputation: 1135
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
what dont you get

life expectancy has NOTHING to due with health care (uhc or private)...it has to due with life style, exersie, type of work you do, etc

its not a health care isse...does health care help..sure...but its not THE FACTOR in the difference
Actually, in Public Health, life expectancy and infant mortalilty are considered the best indicators of how well a countrys health care system is performing. Medicine 101.

There are other indicators of course. DALYs (disability-adjusted life years), amendable mortality, maternal mortality during childbirth, etc. The intersting thing is that the USA end up scoring about the same on all of them.

Infant mortality and number of mothers dying in childbirth for instance. America is at pretty much the same place in the rankings.

Is there a different way of registering "mother dead/mother alive" as well?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2011, 04:37 AM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,752,619 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader View Post
Actually, in Public Health, life expectancy and infant mortalilty are considered the best indicators of how well a countrys health care system is performing. Medicine 101.

There are other indicators of course. DALYs (disability-adjusted life years), amendable mortality, maternal mortality during childbirth, etc. The intersting thing is that the USA end up scoring about the same on all of them.

Infant mortality and number of mothers dying in childbirth for instance. America is at pretty much the same place in the rankings.

Is there a different way of registering "mother dead/mother alive" as well?
Actually infant mortality and life expectancy are bad ways to measure healthcare as there are other factors than healthcare that affect life expectancy and different counties have different ways of calculating infant mortality data.

Don't Fall Prey to Propaganda: Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality are Unreliable Measures for Comparing the U.S. Health Care System to Others
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2011, 04:42 AM
 
1,168 posts, read 1,244,629 times
Reputation: 912
Universal health care is theft, slavery, robbery and even a threat to kill... whether you like it or not it is a sin to God's standards and it's also immoral to most people with different beliefs (except they think that if they let government do their dirty work it's all okay)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2011, 06:28 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,483,709 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader View Post
The total spent by the US government on health care at the moment -from taxes- is about 1,15 trillion. That is medicare, medicaid, VA, Indian health, etc. So unless you want to keep all those programs running seaparate to single payer, you are talking about finding 0,05 trillion, or about 50 billion.

Presumably the people who at the moment are paying the remaining 1,15 trillion would be happy to exchange that expense for one of 0,05 trillion.

Does that answer your question?
yes we ALREADY spend (governemt care) about 1.5 trillion...just to cover about 80-85 million people...dont you think that to cover the REST (about 220 million is going to cost about the same if not more (an yes we all know medicare is the most expensive because of its demographics (no other was to say it , than the elderly are more costly))

so no it would NOT be only 50 bill to cover those 220 million

medicare covers about 40-45 million
midicaid covers about 25-35 million
the va covers (and ONLY the service connected issues) about 2 million
and indian affairs covers less than 1 million

total about 67-85 million....our population is 320 million...you have a difference of more than 220 million there
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2011, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,740,494 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
There would be no such thing as expensive health care if it were universal...It is a win win scenario.

That is quite creative. So because it's universal, all those providers are going to cut their rates? And produce million dollar medical equipment for half price???? And price drugs at cut rates after spending a billion dollars to develop them????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2011, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,740,494 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
FYI, an insurance agent is not an expert on life expectancy

Probably the largest contributors to increased life expectancy were sanitation, antibiotics, and better nutrition.

Nobody said anything about insurance agents. They just make the sale. The home office underwriting staff are the ones who select risks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2011, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,740,494 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
Not mortality during childbirth.



Read more at Suite101: Maternal Mortality Declines Worldwide but Poorest Countries Lag Maternal Mortality Declines Worldwide but Poorest Countries Lag (http://www.suite101.com/content/maternal-mortality-declines-worldwide-but-poorest-countries-lag-a235142#ixzz1DyRVKycW - broken link)

I didn't say anything about infant mortality.

Pregnant women need care. And that's why in the USA any pregnant woman can get care FREE OF CHARGE.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2011, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,740,494 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
I guess you missed this, or just ignored it, so I'll post it again...Accented in red.

Growth in U.S. Life Expectancy Continues to Fall Behind That of Other Countries

Obesity, Smoking, Traffic Fatalities and Homicide Are Not to Blame. Research Points to Defects in Our Healthcare System.

Hmmm.... you take a cheerleader for Obamacare and ask her what the problem is with US health care....then you are surprised at her conclusion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:48 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top