Healthcare Reform.

This chart explains it pretty well:
http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/media_13nov2008_fig2_e.html

 

see with this kinda system the rich still get better care than the commoner..

i think if they are going to socialize medicine it should be the same for everyone. no one should be allowed special or preferential treatment because they can pay for it out of pocket. either we are all in this together or we aint..

thats why congress refusing to sign up for this plan irritates me so much..

 

lol!

 

There will always be places in the world where there is private healthcare.
Even if every medical treatment was available on the NHS..."The Rich" (or more likely the middle classes) would decide that they don't want to be on the waiting list...they don't like the particular hospitals in their area...plus a whole host of other reason they don't want to go through the NHS. Just like deciding between private and state education.
You're a man for choices, right?

Private healthcare isn't "special or preferential treatment"...Imo, it is just alternative treatment.

I think it is a littler unfair to say :"cost of procedures outweigh the productivity of the person receiving them...".
It isn't like that.
But there is a cost of the treatment and the benefit to the patient to consider.
Other considerations also have to be taken into account, such as should a drunk have a transplant?
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Alcoholic-22-Dies-After-Being-Refused-Life-Saving-Liver-Transplant/Article/200907315342299?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15342299_Alcoholic%2C_22%2C_Dies_After_Being_Refused_Life-Saving_Liver_Transplant

 

im all about choices as long as everyone has the same options.

 

They do to a certain degree. But everything needs to be payed for.
You allow all treatment to be available then taxes go up...the poor lose out...you'd probaly moan. You want something that just can not be.

 

The problem is that for the past (I'd say fifty) years americans have been taught that taxes are bad


republicans have been campaigning that you can keep your money, it's okay, we'll just run at a deficit (thanks nixon, what a guy)

because taxes are so fucking evil here, everyone evades them, cries about them, moans about them, and bitches when they get raised to pay for essential shit

and because there is so much deficit money, there is MASSIVE government bloat, and corruption.

there is no way that the government we have can construct a respectable state healthcare system.

 

if congress has a completely different healthcare plan than what americans are allowed to have then its not the same choices. and if there is a group of experts deciding treatment options for the average american on top of that there are even less choices..

to me i dont see where this is reforming anything.

oh yes, i know i want something that just cant be. i was born 500 years too late..

 

Taxes haven't been around for hundreds of years here either

I believe this country was founded by folks pissed about taxes *laughs*

 

Dave_techie:


Do the Republicans share this phylosophy:

The Conservative Party under David Cameron has redirected its stance on taxation, still committed to the general principle of reducing direct taxation whilst arguing that the country needs a "dynamic and competitive economy", with the proceeds of any growth shared between both "tax reduction and extra public investment".
In the wake of the 2008-9 recession, the Conservatives have not ruled out raising taxes, and have said it will be difficult to scrap the 50% top rate of income tax. They have said how they would prefer to cut a recent rise in national insurance. Furthermore, they have stated that government spending will need to be reduced, and have only ringfenced international aid and the NHS


You may notice, regardless of their stance on taxation they do still support the NHS.

I'm starting to think no US government can.

 

Firstly, you guys are not going to get the same healthcare system as we have.
So there is going to be disparities straight away.

It does seem everybody will have a choice between public or private healthcare plans.
The "controversy" seems to be how the increase in choice and wider coverage of the public insurance plan will effect the private insurance plans.

I'm not quite sure how much better federal employees health care plans are to public healthcare plans.
So won't comment on if that argument has any merit (not the same choices.)

Within the the private and public plans there is choice, it seems.
Perhaps choices are less in public health care plans, but that seems to be because most people have private health care plans (so less money available for public healthcare.)
Seemingly the favoured choice is some form of private plan.

I do think it is fair that within the public health care plan, choices have to be made about the care available.
As it is impossible to pay for limitless choice with a set budget.

You seem to want equality but also choice - how is that possible with varying degrees of money available for both the public insurance plans and the private ones?

 

It seems in one form or another thay have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States#History
I'm not sure i'm up for a debate on US Tax history, though *cough*.

 

Tariffs were the largest source of federal revenue from the 1790s to the eve of World War I, until they were surpassed by income taxes.

A tariff is a duty imposed on goods when they are moved across a political boundary. They are usually associated with protectionism, the economic policy of restraining trade between nations. For political reasons, tariffs are usually imposed on imported goods, although they may also be imposed on exported goods.

I'm not sure you are either given the delay of your response and the failure to attend to the details of the articles you are linking

 

I'm at work. I do have things to do other than post here (coupled with the fact I was "dealing" with the other posts aimed my way.)

I did mean to say: The link seems to suggest a convoluted and complex "tax" history" - i'm not upto that right now.

I didn't "attend" to your point about taxes not being around because I DID read the part about tarrifs being "the largest source of federal revenue" rather than "the only source of revenue."
Neither am I sure the US was founded on people pissed off about taxes per se.
Just taxes imposed by the British.

Even though we have had Income tax a little longer than you guys...we still had to decide on socialised healthcare only 60 years ago.
(Income taxes are still not the largest source of revenue for the UK even now.)
You guys have had income tax for longer than that, so imo, the historical disputes about taxation are not the same as they were 200 years ago.
If you guys are still having a 250 plus year discussion about taxation - get over it, imo.

I will apologise for not putting a hell of a lot of effort in that previous post.

 

I am at work too

I just do not quite share in your ethic *laughs*

I wasn't looking for a fight. I just thought your last comment was derogatory and admittedly took offense

 

Usually I don't either *laugh* Just a little bit of a busy night.

Sorry.

 

It's good

Even though you're still poking fun at my internet lingo *laughs*

 

I'm not poking fun at your internet laughs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirroring_(psychology)
"When meeting people, if you display the same expression as they have, or mirror their expression, they will generally be much more friendly."
Obviously this isn't working.

 

I did not mean to seem hostile

I thought that was funny

 

Ok...sorted.

Got nothing to say to my longer post?