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.
To the contrary, there is quite a movement across our borders from other countries to take advantage of our system, and none in the opposite direction. Does not support your theory very well, does it?
OOH.. I would be careful making statements like that ... because now you are just spewing utter NONSENSE.. and BS rhetoric..
Sorry I'm a little snarky.. I've just posted this on another thread about the issue when met with the same nonsense about how Canadians come running to America for healthcare..
(Guffaw). I don't need a link to the Constitution. I have read it, while you apparently haven't. Cannot find the "universal health care clause" still!
maybe because healthcare in the sense it exists today didn't exist over 200 years ago
You paid a Doctor in eggs.. you got some mystery "elixir" and maybe a leech or two. Healthcare certainly wasn't on their mind and their life expectancy was like to the age of 35
I'm not going to get into the actual numbers yet, but let me begin by asking, what kind of healthcare insurance do you have?
BTW, healthcare issue goes beyond number of people who are uninsured.
I have employer based health insurance (HMO) that I pay $210.00 a paycheck for. that is 5460 a year in premiums.
Yes, the healthcare issue goes beyond those insured. But to think that the gov't can fix it when they are part of the problem (Medicare) is assinine.
What amazes me is that 10 million children still don't have healthcare even though they spend billions on gov't healthcare for children. Car insurance is mandatory, so should children's health insurance.
maybe because healthcare in the sense it exists today didn't exist over 200 years ago
You paid a Doctor in eggs.. you got some mystery "elixir" and maybe a leech or two. Healthcare certainly wasn't on their mind and their life expectancy was like to the age of 35
Well, the life expectancy stat can be a little misleading. If you survived to age, 12, your life expectancy was closer to 65.
And I think that just because a technology becomes available, it does not become a constitutional entitlement.
When the government has a person that makes health decisions ( need surgery or not) then what will be the critera, age, weight, height, smoker or how about heart disease do we treat this person for 5 more years or do we spend the money on a child.
(Guffaw). I don't need a link to the Constitution. I have read it, while you apparently haven't. Cannot find the "universal health care clause" still!
Jesus Christ...
You made the claim! I did not. Re-read your post. You have the obligiation to back up your meaningless statements, I do not. You Read the consitution? Your quite comical, because your intial post was epitome of the sheer ignorance for the supreme law of this thrid rate country.
I have employer based health insurance (HMO) that I pay $210.00 a paycheck for. that is 5460 a year in premiums.
Yes, the healthcare issue goes beyond those insured. But to think that the gov't can fix it when they are part of the problem (Medicare) is assinine.
What amazes me is that 10 million children still don't have healthcare even though they spend billions on gov't healthcare for children. Car insurance is mandatory, so should children's health insurance.
SCHIP was just signed by Obama.. that should help with the children unemployed issue.
as far as government is concerned.. there are several models to which the U.S can pull from.. including I believe it was Switzerland? (or was that Sweden) I can't remember.. and then the UK that uses both NHS and private working alongside each other that for the most part functions quite well.
The Swiss one, however, is probably the best compromise that could be reached between those for a UHI and those against. REason.. it is privately run.. in otherwords you buy insurance privately. Insurance is mandatory . There is basic, and then there is compulsory insurance you can purchase (the first can base your premium on any conditions..compulsory can't). Government guarantees your premium will not exceed 10% of your income by subsidizing the difference (that would help people like me who would pay much higher premiums due to a pre-existing condition).
Howver, they are only 2nd to the U.S on GDP spending on healthcare and only slightly below ours.
UK type system is my first choice.. but I could be happy with a Swiss like system as a compromise..
You made the claim! I did not. Re-read your post. You have the obligiation to back up your meaningless statements, I do not. You Read the consitution? Your quite comical, because your intial post was epitome of the sheer ignorance for the supreme law of this thrid rate country.
Third-rate country? You mean California? You are still failing to reveal the "universal health care clause" in the document and exposing your Constitutional ignorance.
First of all.. that means that 80% of the people uninsured are citizens. BTW.. the NON CITIZEN group of people are NOT all illegals.. some are here on Visa's and /or are Green Card holders that get lumped into that 20% category.
Thirdly.. are you aware that an average families cost of healthcare is approx $12,700 for a family of four a year. At the average American's salary of $56K a year (which IS over $50K) that is 21% of their income.. pretty much equal to a second mortgage or rent on a second home.
Quotes below from that report reflect that the higher the income, the lower the percentage of uninsured. The bracket, however, of above $50K goes up to 75K. I wonder if you broke that down even more.. what the difference would be. Considering, again, that on a HOUSEHOLD income of 56K a year it cost on average $12,700 to insure a family of 4. and BTW.. these are HOUSEHOLDs NOT individual incomes that are recorded in this study.
ARe you going to have some idiots "choose" not to be insured.. of course you are. But it's an alarming trend when those that are "middle class" can not afford health insurance. You have NO PROOF whatsoever that they "choose" to not have health insurance and COULD afford it. As a matter of fact the FACT that health insurance cost have RISEN 4x's faster than earnings in this country makes the data.. actually make sense. That insurance is now PRICED above what an AVERAGE American family can afford to pay!! Again.. it's like having a second mortgage !!!
I'd be curios to see what the new numbers will be for 2008 and then 2009 with many Americans loosing their jobs and employers scaling back costs in a tight economy.
[SIZE=1][SIZE=1][SIZE=1][LEFT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] [/LEFT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][SIZE=1][SIZE=1][SIZE=1][LEFT][/SIZE] [SIZE=1][/SIZE] [SIZE=1][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE] [/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
who says that over 20% of your income will not go into the UHS system to pay for everyone? Sorry, if you are making over $50,000 you can squeeze healthcare coverage into your budget. Cut the cable, the cell phones, and the Mcmansion down to size.
You look at it as 80% of the people are citizens. Fine, but a lot of those can afford healthcare and choose not to have it.
How much do you think UHS will cost?
Wisconsin's state plan had an estimated cost of 15 billion the first year. That is to insure 5 million people. multiply that for 300 million and what do you get? considering 300,000 per person, you get the picture. http://www.qando.net/ - Let Wisconsin prove socialized health care works (updated)
They are going to have to tax every wisconsin tax payer an extra 500 dollars a month (more than I pay for my premiums) and double the payroll tax to 29% on businesses. Say good bye to your business owners on that one.
I have all along asked for a price tag for UHS. Nobody has any estimates.
The US spent 440 billion dollars for Medicare in 2007. You are talking about trillions of dollars for this. Where is that money going to come from? And don't tell me the "rich".
Well, the life expectancy stat can be a little misleading. If you survived to age, 12, your life expectancy was closer to 65.
And I think that just because a technology becomes available, it does not become a constitutional entitlement.
Excuse me. but medicine consists of MORE than just "technology".. give me a break!! Medicine wasn't even a real thing then..
they had no supermarkets and had to hunt their own food..
We live in a moden society.. we don't live back 200 years ago!! You can't possibly say that the founding fathers wouldn't have included something in the constitution about healthcare being a right (although since access to healthcare is vital to "life" I woudl say that the principle of LIFE , liberty etc.. .would apply here) anymore than I can say they would.
Instead.. we need to LOOK AT LIFE TODAY and go from there.. they were smart enough to make a constitution that is flexible enough to change with the times and grow as we grow.. We don't live the bible word for word ..because DUH... we are more advanced now then back then and it would be ..well absurd (unless you want to live like the Amish do)
Nonsense about "it's not in the constitution" is just silly..
The constitution didn't say that WOMAN couldn't vote, yet we hd to add an amendment that said they could!! etc etc.
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.
Yeah.. they are running over the border in droves!! LOL
