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.
I hate it when people (on both sides of the spectrum) use blatantly biased sources to bolster the credibility of their arguments.....I'd actually respect you more if you just voiced your own opinion.
"Pajamas Media, briefly known as Open Source Media, is a company consisting of a network of conservative blogs and blog advertising"
First off - there is no UHC program on any radar screen - and will not be
That said - the Pro UHC folks, like Geeoro, who claim it will be much cheaper, CANNOT, in any shape, fashion or form, put actually realistic numbers to it as there are no realistic studies of any ACTUAL real world costs that would be associated with a UHC.
One factor the Pro UHC folks avoid - and avoid like the plaque is, if a UHC scheme were to be enacted, it would, for all purposes, put the private insurance companies out of business. Oh, they will say that you can buy "supplemental" polices - but, that is not the same business model these companies now have. As a result, these companies would close - and in law, inasmuch as the actions of the government caused the closures - it is known as a "taking" and falls under the laws of Eminent Domain. These laws would require, that the Federal Government COMPENSATE the companies for their lost business. The Government would probably have to purchase, at FMV, the assets of the Companies - including possibly their real estate holdings - they would have to compensate the stock holders (many of them relying on dividends for their retirement income) and so on. The cost(s) associated with this is staggering! It would probably far exceed the recent "bailouts" - TRILLIONS of dollars.
The Pro UHC people don't want you to know about this - or, they deny it would be required. But, it WOULD be required IF a UK style UHC type scheme would be adopted.
Greatday, I am a realist and I realize that an NHS-style system simply will not happen in the United States, but you shouldn't dismiss Geeoro's arguments, because they are clearly based on having lived in both countries and having experienced both healthcare systems first hand. Remember, the British (and other European nations) have a relatively different perspective on issues such as government and taxes and the fact that most consider healthcare to be a right.
First off - there is no UHC program on any radar screen - and will not be
That said - the Pro UHC folks, like Geeoro, who claim it will be much cheaper, CANNOT, in any shape, fashion or form, put actually realistic numbers to it as there are no realistic studies of any ACTUAL real world costs that would be associated with a UHC.
One factor the Pro UHC folks avoid - and avoid like the plaque is, if a UHC scheme were to be enacted, it would, for all purposes, put the private insurance companies out of business. Oh, they will say that you can buy "supplemental" polices - but, that is not the same business model these companies now have. As a result, these companies would close - and in law, inasmuch as the actions of the government caused the closures - it is known as a "taking" and falls under the laws of Eminent Domain. These laws would require, that the Federal Government COMPENSATE the companies for their lost business. The Government would probably have to purchase, at FMV, the assets of the Companies - including possibly their real estate holdings - they would have to compensate the stock holders (many of them relying on dividends for their retirement income) and so on. The cost(s) associated with this is staggering! It would probably far exceed the recent "bailouts" - TRILLIONS of dollars.
The Pro UHC people don't want you to know about this - or, they deny it would be required. But, it WOULD be required IF a UK style UHC type scheme would be adopted.
First off, I doubt any court would uphold that kind of liberal interpretation of eminent domain I am fairly certain Lucas V South Carolina Coastal Council doesn't go that far. Secondly UHC only gets rid of private health insurance if you use the Beverage model. If the Bismark model is used (as is employed in France, Switzerland and Japan private health insurance will remain in business...it will just have to change its model to non profit.
Finally, UHC will save money even if use of medical care increases. This is because with a standardized system administrative costs will be much lower i.e. no more massive billing offices and no more massive health care for profit schemes. In Japan for example where there are 3,000 payers far more use of medical resources per person, but a standardized UHC system and not for profit health insurance the % of GDP costs are half what they are comparatively to the US.
I hate it when people (on both sides of the spectrum) use blatantly biased sources to bolster the credibility of their arguments.....I'd actually respect you more if you just voiced your own opinion.
"Pajamas Media, briefly known as Open Source Media, is a company consisting of a network of conservative blogs and blog advertising"
So what refute the data not the source. If you can't you don't have an argument. What is incorrect? How do they calculate infant mortality in Europe? Do they include low birth weight babies?
You know what they say about opinions. I like data. If you have data to dispute this data I would love to see it otherwise don't respond at all.
By the way I am sure your credentials are much better than hers.
Dr. Linda Halderman was a Breast Cancer Surgeon in rural central California until unsustainable Medicaid payment practices contributed to her practice's closure. She now serves as a policy advisor in the California State Senate.
Greatday, I am a realist and I realize that an NHS-style system simply will not happen in the United States, but you shouldn't dismiss Geeoro's arguments, because they are clearly based on having lived in both countries and having experienced both healthcare systems first hand. Remember, the British (and other European nations) have a relatively different perspective on issues such as government and taxes and the fact that most consider healthcare to be a right.
Believe it or not - I don't "dismiss" his comments. The problem I have with his comments is his attempts to try to FORCE his ideas - the UK system (UHC) on the United States. And I object to him not listening to the issues of cost factors here - he refusing for instance to accept the Eminent Domain issue and being .... an "issue". He fails to acknowledge that the LAWS in the UK and the US are TOTALLY different.
I recognize that the UHC/NHS scheme in the UK works fairly well. It is not perfect. BUT, the US is LARGER Geographically, population wise we are a WHOLE lot bigger and so on. Logistically, a NHS style system would be next to IMPOSSIBLE to implement in the United States of America! I have spent over 2 years of my life, at the request of Members of the Congress of the United States, studying these various issues and schemes from all over the world. I DO have some knowledge of the NHS - and I am NOT dismissive of its effectiveness.
Unfortunately, EnjoyTheSilence, the only source of information that many Americans have regarding the Health Debate is from extrmely biased sources with huge agendas. They know that if they use scare tactics then they will brain wash minds. The Insurance Companies have done this for many years. It's called "Disturbing the client". I was in Insurance and we used it a lot. It works well. You make the outcome of not having insurance so disturbing and frightening that they bite your hand off to get your product. As we can see from the media lies and the resulting conflict at Town Hall meetings, with people screaming about their fears that have been put in their heads by the media and self interest groups, that it works and works well. Look at the Elections now for POTUS. Just full of hate speach and fear mongering. Pity that debate and common sense no longer applies.
Unfortunately, EnjoyTheSilence, the only source of information that many Americans have regarding the Health Debate is from extrmely biased sources with huge agendas. They know that if they use scare tactics then they will brain wash minds. The Insurance Companies have done this for many years. It's called "Disturbing the client". I was in Insurance and we used it a lot. It works well. You make the outcome of not having insurance so disturbing and frightening that they bite your hand off to get your product. As we can see from the media lies and the resulting conflict at Town Hall meetings, with people screaming about their fears that have been put in their heads by the media and self interest groups, that it works and works well. Look at the Elections now for POTUS. Just full of hate speach and fear mongering. Pity that debate and common sense no longer applies.
Any time you would like to dispute the data feel free.
First off, I doubt any court would uphold that kind of liberal interpretation of eminent domain. Secondly UHC only gets rid of private health insurance if you use the Beverage model. If the Bismark model is used (as is employed in France, Switzerland and Japan private health insurance will remain in business...it will just have to change its model to non profit.
Finally, UHC will save money even if use of medical care increases. This is because with a standardized system administrative costs will be much lower i.e. no more massive billing offices and no more massive health care for profit schemes. In Japan for example where there are 3,000 payers far more use of medical resources per person, but a standardized UHC system and not for profit health insurance the % of GDP costs are half what they are comparatively to the US.
I agree that it would depend largely on the model used. However, please note that Geeoro has been pushing the UK model exclusively
As for the Eminent Domain issue: IF the UK style were used, it is believed that the courts WOULD enforce the liberal interpretation(s).
Believe it or not - I don't "dismiss" his comments. The problem I have with his comments is his attempts to try to FORCE his ideas - the UK system (UHC) on the United States. And I object to him not listening to the issues of cost factors here - he refusing for instance to accept the Eminent Domain issue and being .... an "issue". He fails to acknowledge that the LAWS in the UK and the US are TOTALLY different.
I recognize that the UHC/NHS scheme in the UK works fairly well. It is not perfect. BUT, the US is LARGER Geographically, population wise we are a WHOLE lot bigger and so on. Logistically, a NHS style system would be next to IMPOSSIBLE to implement in the United States of America! I have spent over 2 years of my life, at the request of Members of the Congress of the United States, studying these various issues and schemes from all over the world. I DO have some knowledge of the NHS - and I am NOT dismissive of its effectiveness.
Perhaps this would be something best left to individual states, do you agree? It seems that there's a mass distrust of the Federal Government (some of which is justified), but less distrust of state governments. Perhaps if states themselves were to implement UHC (where the electorate chose to do so), that might just work too?
Perhaps this would be something best left to individual states, do you agree?
We currently have 3 states that have implemented similar plans, Massachusetts, California and Florida.
All three are going broke! All 3 states are going to have to look for bailouts or, promulgate MASSIVE tax increases upon their citizens for the programs to survive.
So, based on precedent, no, I would not even consider leaving it up to the states.
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.
