AWA, seriously, what problem do you have with someone from the UK commenting on the healthcare debate? Good grief we in this country have made plenty of comments regarding their helathcare system. I know you are being a little tounge in cheek but an opinion is an opinion.
If we are going to discuss might as well get it out in the open instead of posting random links.
#1: Access to Coverage for All Americans
* The Empowering Patients First Act makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all Americans, covers pre-existing conditions, protects employer-sponsored insurance, and shines light on existing health care plans.
Ok, some stuff we can agree on. Pre-existing condition is something that we are all onboard for. Now the financially feasible what does that really mean? Those who can afford it on your own which is damn impossible at it stands thus the whole problem we have now. Also, what if your company doesn't offer benefits or has that damn card in a book that is basically worthless. It really doesn't solve any problems that are in place. So, minus Pre-existing conditions, I am more confused.
#2: Coverage is Truly Owned by the Patient
* This legislation grants greater choice and portability to the patient, and also gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered. It also expands the individual market by creating several pooling mechanisms.
Ok, I am good with this. Yet, I ask what is the pooling mechanicism is it the same one that Obama talking about last night and where does the money come?
#3: Improve the Health Care Delivery Structure Taken from AWA's link.
* Physicians know the best care for their patient. That's why this legislation establishes doctor-led quality measures, ensuring that you get the quality care you need. It also reimburses physicians to ensure the stability of your care, and encourages healthier lifestyles by allowing employers to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs.
Ok, getting doctors involved is good. Yet, what if you want a second opinion? Still, something that is already mention by Obama and more then likely be in the final bill.
#4: Rein in Out-of-Control Costs
* A key concern in positive reform is reining in out-of control costs. This legislation does this by reforming the medical liability system. Also, the cost of the plan is completely offset through decreasing defensive medicine, savings from health care efficiencies, sifting out waste, fraud and abuse, plus an annual one-percent non defense discretionary spending step down.
Ok. Obama basically said Tort reform is on the table. While I think this is a cop out and $100 for a doctor's visit has more to do with their student loans, big houses and fast cars then malpractice insurance. Its on the table. I still don't know what the price taking a human life is due to incompetence, but if we get tort reform it will probably go down about $10,000.
The more you look at the GOP, the more it does somethings that the Democrats want to do as well. I still shutter at the financially feasible comment since it seems to me it is shouting to the top of their lungs, "Only rich bastards like us should be healed." A pretty poor choice of words or just underlining the message, who can say. The reality is at this point, we don't pass health care, its going to look bad for the GOP then Obama. He has three years to recover while GOP's face will be of Wilson's "Liar" comment which will sink them in the fall.
Originally posted by AWArulzMy main concern is cost. Our taxes are about 28% of gdp while countries like the UK (39%), Canada (33%), Sweden (48%) that have government health care are taxed at a much higher rate. Amos said he didn't miss the 80 or so a month he pays for Health insurance. I wouldn't either. I pay much more. But The UK also has a 17% sales tax in addition to a large income tax. I am willing to have a sales tax that high if we do not have income tax. One or the other.
Our taxes are 28% of GDP, yet our healthcare costs are another 20% of GDP. Decoupling the two has seemingly led only to us spending as much or more than other countries, only with the side benefit of allowing a very large private insurance industry to make a lot of money on the side.
Originally posted by AWArulzOur taxes are about 28% of gdp while countries like the UK (39%), Canada (33%), Sweden (48%) that have government health care are taxed at a much higher rate.
In Sweden, the employer pays a tax on the employees salary in additional the the employee's withholdings. So yeah, taxes are a large part of the GDP, but the income tax paid by employee is comparable, if not slightly higher, than the United States. (Yeah, there is a VAT and other taxes...)
While that probably just as bad (maybe even worse) in the eyes of the right, the fact that they have one of the best education systems in the world, they've all but eliminated poverty, the have a nationwide campaign to eliminate fossil fuels by 2025, and they have excellent retirement benefits (just to names a few of their successful social programs) means their dollars go a lot further than ours. And they still have successful private enterprises - so it's not like everything is run by the government.
Plus, the Swedes are super nice and, our good friend Micke, makes the best flavored vodka schnapps I've ever had. So, I'm a bit biased when it comes to the Swedes.
Originally posted by DrDirtAWA, seriously, what problem do you have with someone from the UK commenting on the healthcare debate? Good grief we in this country have made plenty of comments regarding their helathcare system. I know you are being a little tounge in cheek but an opinion is an opinion.
My feelings exactly. CRZ, my apologies if my initial post came across aa overly confrontational or baitlike. This is an issue that's close to my heart, given the outright lies that have been spread regarding our NHS. The "death panel" thing, the Hawking quote, the nonsense that Daniel Hannan was spouting on his US media tour, the various prominent Republicans who have referred to such a system as "downright evil". The real reason for such vehement opposition is, it appears to be, the concern about cost. Kudos to AWA for acknowledging that, and for being honest about the questionable nature of the "death panels" talking point.
Ultimately, I find it hard to talk about this without emotions coming into play. The NHS is a big part of my life, of everyone's life here. It's saved the lives of numerous family asnd friends, provided topnotch care for my children and my family, it's even outfitted my father's home with walking and moving aids now that he suffers from mobility issues. Are there problems with the system? There's beauracracy that could be trimmed, but that's kinda it. Isolated horror stories of infections on wards and month-long waiting lists are just that- exceptions rather than the rule. And the waiting lists are always for non-urgent surgeries, AND during said waiting period the NHS will provide care to help you cope. And it's not like private insurance doesn't exist here - if you have the cash, you're perfectly welcome to go private.
I just can't fathom a nationalised healthcare system being the issue that ultimately splits America, that has people brings guns to town hall debates, that has cries of "fascist!" being thrown at those that support it. I know these are the crazies, but Glenn Beck's audience ain't getting any smaller, ya know? I've heard the argument that healthcare isn't a right enshrined in the Constitution - well, neither is road maintenance, the police force, the fire service, and so on and so on.
Also, sales tax over here currently stands at 15% for the forseeable future.
When Saddam was initially captured, I saw a few stories that Kurdish forces had captured him and alerted the US Military, who then drugged him and staged the whole "spider-hole" thing. Never saw anybody follow up on those stories, though.