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.
No it doesn't, the NHS is very popular amongst the British public and actually offer better value for money than the over priced profit driven US System.
"Four out of 10 people believe the NHS is "getting worse", and the same figure would prefer to go private if they could, a Gallup survey for The Daily Telegraph found.
And the number of people who think the NHS has been a failure has doubled since 1997, the results revealed.
When Gallup asked voters four years ago whether "taking everything into account has the health service been a success or failure", 10% said it had failed.
But today's poll, which is one of the largest on the subject in recent years, found the number had doubled to 20%.
Nearly two thirds of those surveyed said they reckoned the NHS was "in somewhat failing health" or "very poorly indeed"."
Perhaps, but why would I be required to buy a policy that covers services I will never use. Maternity services for example? Why compel me to buy insurance before I engage in the process. For example, why not force a person to buy car insurance prior to getting a car?
Because if you are not driving a car, then you have no need for car insurance.
You plan on not utilizing certain healthcare needs, but accidents happen that often land people in emergency situations where they need to seek healthcare that they didn't plan for. You can never been too sure of what healthcare services you will need, where as you can definitely be sure of whether or not you will be driving a car. That is the difference between those situations.
Because if you are not driving a car, then you have no need for car insurance.
You plan on not utilizing certain healthcare needs, but accidents happen that often land people in emergency situations where they need to seek healthcare that they didn't plan for. You can never been too sure of what healthcare services you will need, where as you can definitely be sure of whether or not you will be driving a car. That is the difference between those situations.
Yes, but they are forcing you to buy insurance that covers well more then the medically necessary instances. And the federal government, under the constitution, does not have the authority to make you buy anything.
Now, they could have set up a single payer system to pay for the accidents that you mention, and allow private insurers to cover everything else, but they didn't go that route. I'm hoping that the Supreme court overturns this, so they have to go that route. Otherwise healthcare will continue to spiral out of control on its costs.
Its not the insurance mandate I'm worried about, its the next 10 mandates after that, that scare the hell out of me.
"Four out of 10 people believe the NHS is "getting worse", and the same figure would prefer to go private if they could, a Gallup survey for The Daily Telegraph found.
And the number of people who think the NHS has been a failure has doubled since 1997, the results revealed.
When Gallup asked voters four years ago whether "taking everything into account has the health service been a success or failure", 10% said it had failed.
But today's poll, which is one of the largest on the subject in recent years, found the number had doubled to 20%.
Nearly two thirds of those surveyed said they reckoned the NHS was "in somewhat failing health" or "very poorly indeed"."
Because if you are not driving a car, then you have no need for car insurance.
You plan on not utilizing certain healthcare needs, but accidents happen that often land people in emergency situations where they need to seek healthcare that they didn't plan for. You can never been too sure of what healthcare services you will need, where as you can definitely be sure of whether or not you will be driving a car. That is the difference between those situations.
If you are not sick, you have no need for health insurance.
The way things used to work was, most people had catastrophic health coverage for instances like you describe. It is a relatively recent phenomenon where vurtually erverything is covered. As I described earlier, this is why healthcare costs have skyrocketed. I think most people would be comfortable with requireing people to have catastrophic insurance, or they would not be treated.
Yikes you didn't even read the next qualifying statement! You really need to give it up. Five minutes ago you didn't even know there were different calculations for infant mortality.
I really have no problem with you continuing to make yourself look foolish.
Translation: "Now that my own source was used to make me eat my words, I must quickly deflect away from my shortcomings in a transpatent attempt to cover my ass."
Translation: "Now that my own source was used to make me eat my words, I must quickly deflect away from my shortcomings in a transpatent attempt to cover my ass."
Huh? Another poster with comprehension issues. Of course the very next sentence explains why using infant mortality rates is unreliable.
All I can say is if these euroweenies are baffled then it's a pretty good sign the founding fathers were correct in their approach.
"Europe is scratching its head over possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down President Obama's signature legislative achievement. As the judiciary and the Obama administration trade legal barbs over the high court's authority, the idea that health care coverage, largely considered a universal right in Europe, could be deemed an affront to liberty is baffling. "
Why should Europeans care about anything? This is America, land of the free. It is not a socialist society, nor will it ever become one. That's what those folks over there need to understand.
The point is that nobody in any country seems to understand America, not Europeans only. From Africa to Australia, From Argentina to Taiwan people are quite amazed.
The Obama health care law may not be so good. Personally, I am not that convinced (my opinion is that every reform should lead to lowering the cost of health care, while this one doesn't seem to address that urgent need). However, when some folks claim it takes away their freedoms, its sounds bizarre to any ear.
But when a justice in the supreme court is concerned that it may be a slippery slope and next day our government may force its citizens to... buy broccoli, not even the lost tribes in the Amazonian forest seem to understand.
Health care is (almost) above anything a human may need. It is unlike anything else and there is no good analogy which can be used. However, if one insists on using metaphors, social security may be the closest. It effects every citizen, it has budgets in the trillions, it may be inefficient, even insolvent. People are "forced" to buy it, even if they don't "need this insurance" and with the SS number, government can keep track of our moves.
But broccoli??? C'mon guys...
Last edited by oberon_1; 04-06-2012 at 05:28 PM..
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.