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.
It's unfortunate because the video was abridged so we didn't get to hear the Senator's response to many of his claims. I also didn't think the Senator gave very good detailed responses. It almost sounded as if he was intimidated by Shepherd Smith and allowed Smith to interrupt him. For example, in his inital claim, the Senator should have explained why it is govt. takeover by explaining that a govt. option will lead to a single payer system by eliminating private insurance companies through competition or what I call the Wal-Mart effect. Wal-Mart has unlimited resources and put many Mom and Pop stores out of business because of their pricing which is due to their resources (distribution centers, agreements with corporations to get the lowest price due to their vast array of stores) It's the same concept. The government can set premiums at whatever rate they feel comfortable with because they don't have the same overhead and costs that private companies have.
That being said, I do think we need a public option. We need to find a way to increase access to healthcare and to keep insurance companies honest as Obama put it. However, I think such a public option should have limits placed upon it such as it being limited to people who earn less than 40-50Kso that insurance companies can still compete and be a available to those who want it.
It's unfortunate because the video was abridged so we didn't get to hear the Senator's response to many of his claims. I also didn't think the Senator gave very good detailed responses. It almost sounded as if he was intimidated by Shepherd Smith and allowed Smith to interrupt him. For example, in his inital claim, the Senator should have explained why it is govt. takeover by explaining that a govt. option will lead to a single payer system by eliminating private insurance companies through competition or what I call the Wal-Mart effect. Wal-Mart has unlimited resources and put many Mom and Pop stores out of business because of their pricing which is due to their resources (distribution centers, agreements with corporations to get the lowest price due to their vast array of stores) It's the same concept. The government can set premiums at whatever rate they feel comfortable with because they don't have the same overhead and costs that private companies have.
That being said, I do think we need a public option. We need to find a way to increase access to healthcare and to keep insurance companies honest as Obama put it. However, I think such a public option should have limits placed upon it such as it being limited to people who earn less than 40-50Kso that insurance companies can still compete and be a available to those who want it.
In every Country where there is a public option the insurance companies still exist and are thriving. The only difference is that the insurance companies have to give superior cover to get customers. They have to make sure their premiums are affordable otherwise people will just use a UHC. This makes for better quality private health cover ans stops the monopoly that now exists with health insurance companies where huge profits are the only real criteria that governs them.
In every Country where there is a public option the insurance companies still exist and are thriving. The only difference is that the insurance companies have to give superior cover to get customers. They have to make sure their premiums are affordable otherwise people will just use a UHC. This makes for better quality private health cover ans stops the monopoly that now exists with health insurance companies where huge profits are the only real criteria that governs them.
That is an embellishment. They don't exist in the same number as they do here. Their premiums are extraordinarily high and are only affordable to the wealthy hence the reason there are not many of them in UHC countries. In England for example, they are seen as a luxury item much like buying a luxury car. Those who can afford it will elect to pay for it but for the majority of people they can't afford it.
That is an embellishment. They don't exist in the same number as they do here. Their premiums are extraordinarily high and are only affordable to the wealthy hence the reason there are not many of them in UHC countries. In England for example, they are seen as a luxury item much like buying a luxury car. Those who can afford it will elect to pay for it but for the majority of people they can't afford it.
Private health in UHC countries ARE a luxury item because health needs are fully catered for. No one is stopped from buying health cover but NO ONE absolutely needs to as in America.
Private health cover is NOT expensive in the UK. My wife has private cover. She is American and insisted on it when she came to the UK because that was all she knew...no insurance..no health cover.
We pay £55 ($86 roughly) per month for a top gold plated health insurance with NO co pays or added expenses. We only pay for drugs and that is about £8.
Too much misinformation exists in America about UHC and its affect on private health insurance.
It is in America that only people who can afford it get health cover.
Bill O'Reilly is also an advocate for the Public Option.
Not really, he said he did not mean he supported it. I know it sounded like he did to everyone but he says no and I have to believe the man when he says he doesn't support it.
Private health in UHC countries ARE a luxury item because health needs are fully catered for. No one is stopped from buying health cover but NO ONE absolutely needs to as in America.
Private health cover is NOT expensive in the UK. My wife has private cover. She is American and insisted on it when she came to the UK because that was all she knew...no insurance..no health cover.
We pay £55 ($86 roughly) per month for a top gold plated health insurance with NO co pays or added expenses. We only pay for drugs and that is about £8.
Too much misinformation exists in America about UHC and its affect on private health insurance. It is in America that only people who can afford it get health cover.
Health care is also rationed in the UK. I witnessed this personally when I was a medical student who rotated in London. I have several British colleagues who now practice in the United States who can also attest to this.Too much misinformation exists in this country such as the erroneous 42 million uninsured claimed by Obama. When you subtract illegals, people who can afford heatlhcare and refuse to pay for it and minors who qualify yet whose parents haven't filled out the requisite paperwork (Medicaid) to get health insurance, the number is closer to 10 million people. The vast majority of the people in this country are insured. Furthermore, over 80% of people who are insured are satisfied with their health insurance plan according to nonpartisan gallup poll. I'm not suggesting that reform doesn't need to take place. It certainly does. Health Insurance companies have a monopoly and the price of premiums continues to outpace income potential. I want to increase access to health care but not remove the best aspects of health care in America.
If UHC health care is so wonderful then why is your wife paying for private coverage? Maybe she initially made the mistake of thinking she wouldn't have health coverage without purchasing insurance. But now that she is aware UHC exists then why does she continue to pay for it if UHC is adequate? I find it interesting your own wife refuses to go on UHC. That speaks volumes about the type of heathcare that is afforded to most of the British. Furthermore, I don't know what is entailed in your wife's plan but the private plans I witnessed in the UK were far more expensive.
Lastly, your health insurance in the UK isn't free. You are paying for it in higher taxes. In the UK, they pay 27.1% in income tax alone for a family compared to 11.9% in the United States. Anyone who earns over 36,000 pounds pays 40% in income tax regardless of family or dependents. You pay additional taxes in other areas as well. You pay higher taxes and receive more social services. It's not a secret.
Health care is also rationed in the UK. I witnessed this personally when I was a medical student who rotated in London. I have several British colleagues who now practice in the United States who can also attest to this.Too much misinformation exists in this country such as the erroneous 42 million uninsured claimed by Obama. When you subtract illegals, people who can afford heatlhcare and refuse to pay for it and minors who qualify yet whose parents haven't filled out the requisite paperwork (Medicaid) to get health insurance, the number is closer to 10 million people. The vast majority of the people in this country are insured. Furthermore, over 80% of people who are insured are satisfied with their health insurance plan according to nonpartisan gallup poll. I'm not suggesting that reform doesn't need to take place. It certainly does. Health Insurance companies have a monopoly and the price of premiums continues to outpace income potential. I want to increase access to health care but not remove the best aspects of health care in America.
If UHC health care is so wonderful then why is your wife paying for private coverage? Maybe she initially made the mistake of thinking she wouldn't have health coverage without purchasing insurance. But now that she is aware UHC exists then why does she continue to pay for it if UHC is adequate? I find it interesting your own wife refuses to go on UHC. That speaks volumes about the type of heathcare that is afforded to most of the British. Furthermore, I don't know what is entailed in your wife's plan but the private plans I witnessed in the UK were far more expensive.
Health care is also rationed in the UK. I witnessed this personally when I was a medical student who rotated in London. I have several British colleagues who now practice in the United States who can also attest to this.Too much misinformation exists in this country such as the erroneous 42 million uninsured claimed by Obama. When you subtract illegals, people who can afford heatlhcare and refuse to pay for it and minors who qualify yet whose parents haven't filled out the requisite paperwork (Medicaid) to get health insurance, the number is closer to 10 million people. The vast majority of the people in this country are insured. Furthermore, over 80% of people who are insured are satisfied with their health insurance plan according to nonpartisan gallup poll. I'm not suggesting that reform doesn't need to take place. It certainly does. Health Insurance companies have a monopoly and the price of premiums continues to outpace income potential. I want to increase access to health care but not remove the best aspects of health care in America. Health care is far more rationed in the USA than in the UK. In the USA every single claim is assessed and decided upon by the Insurance Company before being either approved or denied. NON medical insurance execs decide if you will recieve treatment in the USA and for many you have a certain amount of Doctor visits and up to a certain amountof funds available to patients. In the UK the Govt does not get involved with the decision making. It is between the Doctor and patient. There is a Independant organisation called N I C E who have been put in place to make sure that the proper proceedures are put into place to safeguard patients and make sure that the correct treatments are given. Welcome to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Being a student for a short period in the UK does not give you a comprehensive knowledge of the NHS in the UK and it's so called "restrictions". When did you ever get any interference from the Govt when you were treating patients? I trained in medicine in the UK a few years back and we were not restricted or rationed in our treatments etc. My Father is 88 and Was admitted as a emergency to a NHS Hospital a few days ago. He had a massive heart attack and his heart stopped. He was given cpr immediately and defib. He was worked on for ten minutes until his heart restarted. He is now in Intenive Care and recovering. If there really was rationing it would be on someone like him. This rationing B/S does not occur. EVERY patient is given 100% . Whether it is 36 million or 46 million or 10 million without healthcare in the USA it is shameful. Healthcare is the No1 reason for personal bankruptcy in the USA..that is also disgusting. The system in the usa only works for people who can afford the outrageous premiumse, the insurance companies and the Doctors who cash in from the Insurance companies.
If UHC health care is so wonderful then why is your wife paying for private coverage? Maybe she initially made the mistake of thinking she wouldn't have health coverage without purchasing insurance. But now that she is aware UHC exists then why does she continue to pay for it if UHC is adequate? I find it interesting your own wife refuses to go on UHC. That speaks volumes about the type of heathcare that is afforded to most of the British. Furthermore, I don't know what is entailed in your wife's plan but the private plans I witnessed in the UK were far more expensive. My wife continues to keep her private insurance because it is so cheap that she can have best of both worlds. She recently had two lumps appear in her breast and the NHS took care of it in no time at all. We are thinking of canceling her private insurance but it is so cheap we might keep it, who knows. My daughter has just discovered hip dysplacia, my ex wife made a fuss and booked her a private consultation with a consultant. My daughters appt. with the NHS consultant came up before her private consultation, she has been seen and is waiting for a op. without using the private Doctor. My wife's plan is extensive and covers everything from unlimited Doctors visits to even psychiatric care and physio care etc etc. Not sure where or what you witnessed or even why you would contact private insurance companies if you were working here in the NHS as you would be covered for healthcare during your short stay in the UK. So where do you get your facts about private insurance in the UK?
Lastly, your health insurance in the UK isn't free. You are paying for it in higher taxes. In the UK, they pay 27.1% in income tax alone for a family compared to 11.9% in the United States. Anyone who earns over 36,000 pounds pays 40% in income tax regardless of family or dependents. You pay additional taxes in other areas as well. You pay higher taxes and receive more social services. It's not a secret.
Think your taxes are bad? - MSN Money (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp?GT1=8011 - broken link)
You do NOT pay towards your healthcare with income tax in the UK. I have previously published the figures for our National Insurance Tax which covers not only Healthcare but every single aspect of our welfare system from unemployment to housing to sickness benefit to old age pensions to drug rehab and much much more. Not sure where you are getting your "facts" from but they are either extremely out of date or just wrong. Thank god for people like Shep Smith who do not quote false info and tries to give a fair and balanced view.
You do NOT pay towards your healthcare with income tax in the UK. I have previously published the figures for our National Insurance Tax which covers not only Healthcare but every single aspect of our welfare system from unemployment to housing to sickness benefit to old age pensions to drug rehab and much much more. Not sure where you are getting your "facts" from but they are either extremely out of date or just wrong. Thank god for people like Shep Smith who do not quote false info and tries to give a fair and balanced view.
And what do you think funds your "National Insurance Tax", are you really that naive to believe that none of the tax revenue generated from your income tax contributes toward that? So who pays for it then...the Queen?!? My point is you have more social services because your citizens pay more in taxes in general. Even if theoretically none of the revenue generated from income tax funds the NIT, you still pay higher taxes in other areas such as sales tax (VAT) which will eventually fund it. Anyone who earns over 57K in the UK pays 40% income tax regardless if they have children. A U.S. family pays considerably less than that if they have dependents (Children). In addition, the British pay higher sales tax (VAT) that averages 17.5% which is about 10% higher than the average U.S. sales tax. You also pay higher gasoline tax which is about $3 per gallon in the UK, in the U.S. it is about 47 cents per gallon. You also pay a Road Tax which is $24 to $648 per year depending upon CO2 emission levels which is nonexistant in the United States. You also have a $228 television tax just to turn on your television which doesn't exist here. The British also don't have the same number of tax exemptions and write-offs that Americans are afforded. Again, you can deny this all you want but the fact remains the British pay more in taxes hence the increased social services. You might think your health care is free but it isn't. Yes, we can have UHC and other social services but we will certainly pay for it in higher taxes. It's not free and the Congressional Budget Office has confirmed this.
You didn't answer the question. If UHC is satisfactory then why pay money at all for a private plan regardless of how cheap you find it to be. That's still nearly $1000 you could save if you didn't pay for it. You mentioned she can have the "best of both worlds" so essentially you are admitting that private coverage is superior than UHC....interesting
And your claim about healthcare being more rationed in the U.S. compared to the UK is factually incorrect. You claim that procedures must be approved by an insurance company before they can be enacted in the U.S. Then you provided an example of an emergency situation. In the U.S., noninsured(including illegals) and insured people alike are treated for emergent conditions without requiring approval from an insurance company so I fail to see where you came up with that statement. I've treated enough homeless heroin addicts who walked into the E.R. and were admitted to the medicine floor for a week of observation. Furthermore, in the UK, you have a govt bureacracy that comes between a doctor and his patient called N.I.C.E In the UK, they were strict about approving what they referred to as "elective procedures." For example, a patient with biliary colic in the U.S. will receive a cholecystectomy immediately. If the surgeon feels the patient is a surgical candidate, he or she will be put on the OR schedule and get the procedure that night. In the UK, it doesn't work this way. They have to observe certain protocols first. Such a procedure will not be approved immediately in the UK and chronic management with pain medication and "watchful waiting" will be undertaken first. This is an easy example of how medical care is rationed in the UK. I witnessed this first hand as a student in the UK.
"In a January 1999 survey of GPs, conducted by Doctor magazine, one in five said they knew patients who had suffered harm as a result of rationing. More than 5% of the 3,000 surveyed also said they knew of patients who had died as a result of being denied treatment on the NHS."
Great, more lies from the evil people at FauxFixed SnoozeNews. Fox is NEVER to be trusted...
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.
