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.
and coming from a country with universal healthcare, and visiting many countries with UHC, this never happens..
What IF, someone on this forum began talking about something they knew nothing about. oh too late
If you talk to anyone who owns a doctors office, you'll see that its already happening. Obamas own plan calls for further cuts in funding by the tune of $655 BILLION, and if its tough now to make it, imagine what happens when there are further cuts..
For what it's worth, not a single person in Australia I spoke to had anything bad to say about UHC. In fact, most of them are appalled that the richest country in the world (or poorest, depending on who you ask) doesn't provide a basic service that Australians view as society's commitment.
But you asked the kind of people that voted for the present labor government not others who voted the other way and now are paying much higher taxes for that not so hot care. I talk to conservatives in Australia and most of them think that they should be over here. Of course, they can still afford their own insurance or can pay for what they need so they don't have to leave.
I think that their medical problem is a lot of the reason that the present labor government won't be back in power after the upcoming elections.
The saddest part of all this is that the total population of the better single payer countries is about the same as ours is. Somehow not any of these people have the ability to see what happens when more and more people stop working so as not to have to pay taxes to supply others who don't work with health care. Somehow they sound like they think that money is just there in the GOVERNMENT. It is beyond me what goes on.
If the United States establishes a program that is Government operated / run, thereby putting the companies out of business -
Who has proposed such a thing? By the conditional nature of this statement, you suggest that you understand that UHC proposals DO NOT propose a government-owned and operated health care system, yet you argue as if they did. Boogeyman tactics. Because they are all the anti's have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
...the law would mandate the Government pay them "just and fair compensation" - just the same way the Government has to do when they take property for a road
There are serious weaknesses in your understanding of the Takings Clause. The government may mandate what it wishes. If it requires you to put seat belts and air bags in your cars, you do, you get nothing for it, and you have no case under eminent domain. If the govenrment were to open its own hospital, your private hospital could not compete, lost all its business, and had to close its doors, you would again get nothing and have no case under eminent domain. The latter idea is of course very much evident in current private sector whining over health care reform. The frightened whiners are essentially admitting that they cannot compete in the face of a public system. This despite the supposed "private sector efficiency" that many deluded people believe to exist. Apparently, they don't believe in "creative destruction" when it comes to a failed and disfunctional medical insurance industry that serves to line its own pockets by separating its clients from both cash and care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
Would all private property / business have to be bought by the Government? Depends upon the proposal you look at. Some have suggested that this is the way it should be. Others don't.
What proposed plan does? Which ideas being discussed include the nationalization of anything? You are way off base here and trying to come up with a cover story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
A forum like this is absolutely no place to adequately discuss / debate this issue as it is filled with complexities.
What are you doing here, then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
But, some of the best of the best in Constitutional law have acknowledged this point.
I can give you links that show Americans are going to other countries for surgeries etc........... because the care is high quality and much less expensive.
Yes, someone should tell John Stossel that lasik eye surgery can be had at equal quality abroad for about $750. You can fly to India, have a nice vacation, get a heart valve replacement done in a modern faciltiy by US-trained surgeons, then fly back again for less than $20,000. Here, the procedure alone could cost $200,000. An estimated 1.5 million people went abroad for health care procedures in 2008. The number is projected to rise to 8 million within a decade.
How long has Australia had that kind of insurance?
Since 1974.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
I have a friend there who just paid $8000 out of pocket because the government wouldn't pay on a proceedure for his wife and he didn't trust the government hospitals.
I wouldn't doubt that you have friends who live in isolated cabins in the mountains of Montana. However, the anecdotal reports of far away unreliable people have no implication on the need or best means for reforming health care systems in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
He says they are buildings that look good on the outside and on the inside you find that they are kind of like the falsefronts of the movies. Do you suppose he is one of those conservative liars? I don't think so but you surely woud.
I just think it's rather remarkable that fraud on such a scale being committed by the government of Australia can have come to your friend's attention while escaping that of virtually evey other person in the world.
What proposed plan does? Which ideas being discussed include the nationalization of anything? You are way off base here and trying to come up with a cover story.
If you dont think that the government nationalizes things as they fail, then your totally out in left wing kook ville ignoring the obvious (Could you be from the middle of DC? mmmm) . Lets begin to name things like GM
In the offset, you also did not respond to what happens when doctors and hospitals can not afford to pay their bills because the government deems a ICD-9 procedure is worth X, and the hospitals costs are X + Y?
If you dont think its happening today you have no knowledge on the topic.. Obamas own plan calls for MORE cuts and the ONLY possible outcome is financial hardship on hospitals etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
I wouldn't doubt that you have friends who live in isolated cabins in the mountains of Montana. However, the anecdotal reports of far away unreliable people have no implication on the need or best means for reforming health care systems in the US.
Really? Thats what you've come down to? Do you undertand that the whole argument for a UHC is due to "anecdotal" stories about people who are denied care at hospitals, all of which are lies, and those without insurance, have to file bankruptcy or have their credit ruined? Isnt that the way its supposed to be? If your not responsible, there are consequences, now your claiming that anecdotal reports are unreliable when in reality, its the WHOLE argument for a UHC? Ooh brother, the spinning never stops from you..
Meaning 20% of them are government run, which according to my OP, is one of the consequences.. I know your smart enough to figure out how I got 20% right?
20% = FAIL. The question asked was What UHC country had to buy up all their hospitals, clinics, and insurance companies as part of implementing their plan? You suggested Japan in response, claiming that it has "a lot" of public hospitals, which turns out to be 20%, none of which had to be bought out as part of implementing their UHC system. You paddle again in irrelevant backwaters, knowing that the main current swamps you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
A better question might be how many hospitals are NOT funded by the government? Remember, its illegal for a hospital in the USA to turn away a patient if they receive funding from the government..
The better thing would have been for you to answer what the rate of post-transfusion blood testing is in the US, since you seemed to find it quite scandalous that only 12% of Japanese hospitals are reported to follow the practice. You don't know the answer, so instead seek to take cover from it by raising a new and unrelated question. You only meant to impugn Japanese health care through naked innuendo. You never had an intention to back any of it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Really? Thats the best you can do? Confirm my argument by pointing out how the hospitals in Japan are 20% public, (wonder why), and how the hospitals in the USA are already subsidized by taxpayers.. FAIL, as usual with your postings..
It's all that needed to be done. Your points are empty, your arguments are hollow, your understanding is nil. How much further is one expected to go?
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.
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.
