Myth busting universal healthcare

[DiamondDave]

The last Democratic president gave us eight years of peace and prosperity.

Try endangerment from not battling back against terrorism and a false boom economy that was based on internet speculation and shady venture capital schemes

Clinton was one of the 3 worst presidents in the 2nd 1/2 of the 20th century

 

[Chris]

Try endangerment from not battling back against terrorism and a false boom economy that was based on internet speculation and shady venture capital schemes

Clinton was one of the 3 worst presidents in the 2nd 1/2 of the 20th century

Bwha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,hhaaaahahahahhahaaaaaa!!!

Thanks, I needed a good laugh this early in the morning.

 

[Chris]

I wonder how much the founding fathers set aside in their budgets for welfare, entitlement programs and other social programs for the general welfare of the US?

The "founding fathers" had a social program.

They called it, "slavery."

 

[busara]

Try endangerment from not battling back against terrorism and a false boom economy that was based on internet speculation and shady venture capital schemes

Clinton was one of the 3 worst presidents in the 2nd 1/2 of the 20th century

not battling back? yeah, i guess august 20 of 1998 our military did nothing.

and those attacks against us in the middle east, we really should have fought back hard. under bush and his response we havent had a single attack against us in the middle east .......

 

[DiamondDave]

not battling back? yeah, i guess august 20 of 1998 our military did nothing.

and those attacks against us in the middle east, we really should have fought back hard. under bush and his response we havent had a single attack against us in the middle east .......

Yeah... not going after terrorists... trying terrorists in local courts... not taking attacks seriously...

He was horrid in dealing with the growing threat of terror during his terms

The only worse presidents during the 2nd 1/2 of the 20th century were Carter and GHWB

 

[Chris]

Yeah... not going after terrorists... trying terrorists in local courts... not taking attacks seriously...

He was horrid in dealing with the growing threat of terror during his terms

The only worse presidents during the 2nd 1/2 of the 20th century were Carter and GHWB

4,100 Americans dead, 30,000 wounded, and $700 billion dollars wasted.

Thanks, GOP.

 

[editec]

I didn't say you couldn't amend the Constitution. The repeal of slavery is the XIII amendment. So it clearly is ok'd in the Constitution.

Naturally I can agree with that. Adherents to a stricter interpretation of the Constitution (states righters, in many cases) might disagree, of course.

There is plenty of wiggle room in the Constitution as it was written to have a very reasonable government fully capable of doing all the modern things we expect our government to do. There are a few places where the genie has got out of the bottle and it shouldn't have.

Ah yes, there's the rub, isn't it? That wriggle room is entirely a question of where you come down on each particular wriggle the courts take.

Hmmm...where do I draw the line. Let's say I'm pretty good with decisions up to about 1938 or so. I'm a big opponent of Darby v. US and its progeny. I think it was a stretch to say that because a local restaurant got its paper products from another state that it was "engaged in Interstate Commerce" and therefore should be directly regulated by the Federal Government.

Is that how you read it?

I read it that a Georgia Lumber corporation, one which is clearly engaged in interstate business is subject to Federal workplace safety laws.

By handing down that finding the court prevented states from having a race to the bottom (regards workplace safety) by trying to seduce large corporations from moving to those states to take advantage of shoddy state's workplace safety laws. (sort of a civil rights for workers law, ya know?)

What have I missed?

I think that goes too far. I think using the Supreme Court to cure social ills, while it was great at the time is about to come back and bite us in the ass big time.

You don't think so? Imagine 9, 40 year old Antonin Scalias on the court. You think you want 50 years of his absolute no recourse except amendment decisions?

I'm not really versed in legal philosophy to have a coherent argument, be honest, tech esp. I question lifetime appointments generally.

I think the law is so idiotically self referential, that it often verges on incestuous thinking, and the outcome of that propensity is that justice that the average person can understand and sign onto is the forgotten stepchild of the legal mindset, generally.

Of course, I have to agree with your opinion about abuse of this Interstate commerce clause in some that cases that are near and dear to my own heart, too.

For example, when the Feds use interstate commerce laws to negate the will of the people of a state as it regards medical marijuana, I'm all about stricter interpretations, just as you are.

So to be honest I can say I've got a consistent view on that issue. I am partisan and know it.

I'm more interested in social justice and a viable society generally, than I am in theoretical legal arguments. (probably because I don't have the training to fully appreciate them, and partically because I am a pragmatist)

Nope, we gave the court too much power and now we're going to reap what we've sown.

Seems to me the courts gave the courts too much power and "WE the people" have very little to do with it.

And depending on which power they gave themselves to decide issues, and how it shakes out for us, I suspect people on all sides of the wire will completely agree or disagree with you, but its usually not based on the law, but case dependent on how it affects them.

I think the law, as much as I understand that we need to be a land of laws, is often an ass, TE.

It's breathtaking complete reversals in intepretations about the Constitution, are, I suspect, evidence that my view of it isn't all that far off the mark, either.

 

[editec]

I could not agree more. The power of the courts has grown well beyond what was intended by the Framers of the constitution, and just as Imparticality is the Media is now Dead, so is non-partisanship in the courts.

This should worry us all.

The Constitution of the United States is NOT a suicide pact, Charles.

Going beyond this particular issue, if a strict adherence to the consitution is going to wrech our nation, I'm all for blowing it off.

I've got reservations about fixing the health care problem, but fix it WE MUST.

HOW??!?? is the question.

 

[editec]

the "founding Fathers" Had A Social Program.

They Called It, "slavery."

ouch!!!!​

 

[Care4all]

Sigh...

The federal government is facing difficult decisions about its finances, with a growing national debt and long-term fiscal problems that could seriously undercut the nation's prosperity.

The federal deficit has declined in the last several years, but national debt has surged, topping $9 trillion. The nation's long-term obligations are staggering, as the baby boom generation retires and begins to strain the Social Security and Medicare systems. Former U.S Comptroller General David Walker, the federal government's auditor, calls the baby boomers' retirement a "demographic tsunami" that will overwhelm the federal budget. By 2040, there will be little money for anything else other than Social Security, Medicare and interest on the debt -- unless something is done.

The Federal Budget | Public Agenda

Tell me again how social spending isn't a problem??

stop being soooo obtuse reeves!!!

It was not social security payouts that was the problem but the FACT that this administration and this congress has OVERSPENT THEIR BUDGET and used all of the SS SURPLUS funds that were meant for the boomers when they do retire, for what Income taxes should be paying.

OVER 1 TRILLION in SS surplus funds for the Boomers has been USED AND SPENT on OTHER THINGS in the last 8 years that has bankrupted the SS program.....MAINLY BECAUSE they will not have the money to pay the SS surplus funds BORROWED from SS.

TALK ABOUT STEALING from the poor to pay for what the rich want.....

What percentage of SS funds taken in each year in taxes do the WEALTHIEST pay....do you know?

Funny how everyone includes SS in our general fund expenditures BUT THEY DON'T INCLUDE what they collect from us peons in SS taxes and always tout that the top 1% pay for nearly ALL TAXES which is an outright lie....

SS only needed MINOR TWEEKING to make it sound.....IF you include what they OVER COLLECTED in SS taxes to pay for the upcoming boomers.

Medicare is another story, it will bankrupt us if we do not come to a sollution and reforms to stop the double digit rise in cost each and every year for the past 10 years....

abolishing medicare for Seniors WILL NOT HAPPEN my dear....it will NEVER happen....

the insurance companies many years ago refused to cover the elderly and dropped them when they were old and after they had paid for insurance their entire lives, WHEN THEY WERE HEALTHY.....yep, the insurance companies dropped them when they were older and more prone to being sick......THUS THE CREATION of Medicare by our gvt, INSTEAD of FORCING the insurance companies to cover the healthcare of seniors...

it was GIFTHORSE FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES BECAUSE THEY GOT TO INSURE US AND MAKE MONEY OFF OF US WHEN WE WERE YOUNG AND MORE THAN LIKELY HEALTHY, but when old...the gvt got to foot the bills.....the insurance companies made out like a bandit.

But let me ask you, do you think out government should HAVE FORCED insurance companies to cover the elderly via regulation of some sort?

Care

 

[editec]

It was not social security payouts that was the problem but the FACT that this administration and this congress has OVERSPENT THEIR BUDGET and used all of the SS SURPLUS funds that were meant for the boomers when they do retire, for what Income taxes should be paying.

OVER 1 TRILLION in SS surplus funds for the Boomers has been USED AND SPENT on OTHER THINGS in the last 8 years that has bankrupted the SS program.....MAINLY BECAUSE they will not have the money to pay the SS surplus funds BORROWED from SS.

TALK ABOUT STEALING from the poor to pay for what the rich want.....

What percentage of SS funds taken in each year in taxes do the WEALTHIEST pay....do you know?

Funny how everyone includes SS in our general fund expenditures BUT THEY DON'T INCLUDE what they collect from us peons in SS taxes and always tout that the top 1% pay for nearly ALL TAXES which is an outright lie....

SS only needed MINOR TWEEKING to make it sound.....IF you include what they OVER COLLECTED in SS taxes to pay for the upcoming boomers.

Medicare is another story, it will bankrupt us if we do not come to a sollution and reforms to stop the double digit rise in cost each and every year for the past 10 years....

abolishing medicare for Seniors WILL NOT HAPPEN my dear....it will NEVER happen....

the insurance companies many years ago refused to cover the elderly and dropped them when they were old and after they had paid for insurance their entire lives, WHEN THEY WERE HEALTHY.....yep, the insurance companies dropped them when they were older and more prone to being sick......THUS THE CREATION of Medicare by our gvt, INSTEAD of FORCING the insurance companies to cover the healthcare of seniors...

it was GIFTHORSE FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES BECAUSE THEY GOT TO INSURE US AND MAKE MONEY OFF OF US WHEN WE WERE YOUNG AND MORE THAN LIKELY HEALTHY, but when old...the gvt got to foot the bills.....the insurance companies made out like a bandit.

But let me ask you, do you think out government should HAVE FORCED insurance companies to cover the elderly via regulation of some sort?

Care

Spot on.

 

[jreeves]

stop being soooo obtuse reeves!!!

It was not social security payouts that was the problem but the FACT that this administration and this congress has OVERSPENT THEIR BUDGET and used all of the SS SURPLUS funds that were meant for the boomers when they do retire, for what Income taxes should be paying.

OVER 1 TRILLION in SS surplus funds for the Boomers has been USED AND SPENT on OTHER THINGS in the last 8 years that has bankrupted the SS program.....MAINLY BECAUSE they will not have the money to pay the SS surplus funds BORROWED from SS.

TALK ABOUT STEALING from the poor to pay for what the rich want.....

What percentage of SS funds taken in each year in taxes do the WEALTHIEST pay....do you know?

Funny how everyone includes SS in our general fund expenditures BUT THEY DON'T INCLUDE what they collect from us peons in SS taxes and always tout that the top 1% pay for nearly ALL TAXES which is an outright lie....

SS only needed MINOR TWEEKING to make it sound.....IF you include what they OVER COLLECTED in SS taxes to pay for the upcoming boomers.

Medicare is another story, it will bankrupt us if we do not come to a sollution and reforms to stop the double digit rise in cost each and every year for the past 10 years....

abolishing medicare for Seniors WILL NOT HAPPEN my dear....it will NEVER happen....

the insurance companies many years ago refused to cover the elderly and dropped them when they were old and after they had paid for insurance their entire lives, WHEN THEY WERE HEALTHY.....yep, the insurance companies dropped them when they were older and more prone to being sick......THUS THE CREATION of Medicare by our gvt, INSTEAD of FORCING the insurance companies to cover the healthcare of seniors...

it was GIFTHORSE FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES BECAUSE THEY GOT TO INSURE US AND MAKE MONEY OFF OF US WHEN WE WERE YOUNG AND MORE THAN LIKELY HEALTHY, but when old...the gvt got to foot the bills.....the insurance companies made out like a bandit.

But let me ask you, do you think out government should HAVE FORCED insurance companies to cover the elderly via regulation of some sort?

Care

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8877/12-13-LTBO.pdf
For decades, spending on Medicare and Medicaid—the
federal government’s major health care programs—has
been growing faster than the economy, as has health
spending in the private sector. The rate at which health
care costs grow relative to national income—rather than
the aging of the population—will be the most important
determinant of future federal spending. The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) projects that under current
law, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid measured
as a share of GDP will rise from 4 percent today to
12 percent in 2050 and 19 percent in 2082—which, as a
share of the economy, is roughly equivalent to the total
amount that the federal government spends today.

Under both scenarios, total primary spending (all spending
except interest payments on federal debt) would grow
sharply in coming decades, CBO estimates, rising from
its current level of 18 percent of GDP to more than
30 percent by 2082, the end of the 75-year period that
CBO’s long-term projections span (see Figure 1-1). If
spending policy did not change and outlays did indeed
grow to such levels relative to the economy, maintaining a
sustainable budget path would require that federal taxation
rise similarly. In the past half-century, total federal
revenues have averaged 18 percent of GDP and peaked at
nearly 21 percent, well below projected levels of future
spending.
For much of its history, the United States devoted only a
small fraction of its resources to the activities of the federal
government. But the second half of the 20th century
marked a period of sustained higher peacetime spending
by the federal government. For the past 50 years, federal
outlays have averaged about 20 percent of GDP. In fiscal
year 2007, those outlays totaled $2.7 trillion.
Not only has the amount of such spending grown, but its
composition has changed dramatically. Spending for
mandatory programs has increased from less than onethird
of total federal outlays in the early 1960s to more
than one-half in recent years. Most of that growth has
been concentrated in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social
Security. Together, gross outlays for those programs now
account for about 45 percent of federal outlays, compared
with 2 percent in 1950 (before the health programs
were created) and 25 percent in 1975.

I'm not trying to be mean or anything but you seem to be in denial. These programs will bankrupt this country on their current spending outlays. It's a huge problem, not something that we can only do minor tweaks to. Actually high income workers pay just as much taxes as someone making $98,000. They pay in their fair share considering what they would get from the program, do you suggest they should be penalized for the government's ineptitude to run the program. Actually, the top 50% of wage earners do in fact pay 97% of federal income taxes.

 

[Chris]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8877/12-13-LTBO.pdf
For decades, spending on Medicare and Medicaid—the
federal government’s major health care programs—has
been growing faster than the economy, as has health
spending in the private sector. The rate at which health
care costs grow relative to national income—rather than
the aging of the population—will be the most important
determinant of future federal spending. The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) projects that under current
law, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid measured
as a share of GDP will rise from 4 percent today to
12 percent in 2050 and 19 percent in 2082—which, as a
share of the economy, is roughly equivalent to the total
amount that the federal government spends today.

Under both scenarios, total primary spending (all spending
except interest payments on federal debt) would grow
sharply in coming decades, CBO estimates, rising from
its current level of 18 percent of GDP to more than
30 percent by 2082, the end of the 75-year period that
CBO’s long-term projections span (see Figure 1-1). If
spending policy did not change and outlays did indeed
grow to such levels relative to the economy, maintaining a
sustainable budget path would require that federal taxation
rise similarly. In the past half-century, total federal
revenues have averaged 18 percent of GDP and peaked at
nearly 21 percent, well below projected levels of future
spending.
For much of its history, the United States devoted only a
small fraction of its resources to the activities of the federal
government. But the second half of the 20th century
marked a period of sustained higher peacetime spending
by the federal government. For the past 50 years, federal
outlays have averaged about 20 percent of GDP. In fiscal
year 2007, those outlays totaled $2.7 trillion.
Not only has the amount of such spending grown, but its
composition has changed dramatically. Spending for
mandatory programs has increased from less than onethird
of total federal outlays in the early 1960s to more
than one-half in recent years. Most of that growth has
been concentrated in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social
Security. Together, gross outlays for those programs now
account for about 45 percent of federal outlays, compared
with 2 percent in 1950 (before the health programs
were created) and 25 percent in 1975.

I'm not trying to be mean or anything but you seem to be in denial. These programs will bankrupt this country on their current spending outlays. It's a huge problem, not something that we can only do minor tweaks to. Actually high income workers pay just as much taxes as someone making $98,000. They pay in their fair share considering what they would get from the program, do you suggest they should be penalized for the government's ineptitude to run the program. Actually, the top 50% of wage earners do in fact pay 97% of federal income taxes.

This is why we need universal healthcare. It has inherent cost savings that will save America.

 

[jreeves]

This is why we need universal healthcare. It has inherent cost savings that will save America.

BalancedPolitics.org - Universal Health Care (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)
There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in a long line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system?


"Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?


Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.


Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.


Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.


Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant.


Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.


Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?


A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.


Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency.


Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits. When you're dealing with any business, for example a privately-funded hospital, if an employee negligently causes an injury, the employer is ultimately liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that would mean the U.S. government, an organization with enormous amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible for the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for frivolous lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep pockets. Even if the health care quality is the same as in a government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to increase simply because attorneys know the government has the money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine potential punitive damages alone. When the government has the ability to spend several trillion dollars per year, how much will a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble, disfigured, or dying?


Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms. With government-paid health care, any risky or healthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. Thus, politicians will be in a strong position to pass more "sin" taxes on things like alcohol, high-fat food, smoking, etc. They could ban trans fat, limit msg, eliminate high-fructose corn syrup, and so on. For some health nuts, this may sound like a good thing. But pretty soon, people will find they no longer have the option to enjoy their favorite foods, even in moderation, or alternatively, the cost of the items will be sky high. Also, it just gives the government yet another method of controlling our lives, further eroding the very definition of America, Land of the Free.


Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramactically shorter. Now that people are regular living into their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush's intention to "take away your social security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program, especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost.

BalancedPolitics.org - Universal Health Care (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)

Sure it would save us money...

 

[Chris]

Every other Western democracy has universal healthcare, and they pay half what we pay for healthcare and cover everyone.

 

[jreeves]

Every other Western democracy has universal healthcare, and they pay half what we pay for healthcare and cover everyone.

God you are braindead aren't you, the US's GDP, adminstrative cost(labor costs, compliance cost...etc...) and Medical R&D account for the differences in costs.

 

[Chris]

God you are braindead aren't you, the US's GDP, adminstrative cost(labor costs, compliance cost...etc...) and Medical R&D account for the differences in costs.

I'm not brain dead.

Our system is bloated, patchwork, and doomed to failure. All the other democracies in the Western world have universal healthcare and they like it. We will switch eventually, but as usual the Republican Party is standing in the way of progress.

 

[jreeves]

I'm not brain dead.

Our system is bloated, patchwork, and doomed to failure. All the other democracies in the Western world have universal healthcare and they like it. We will switch eventually, but as usual the Republican Party is standing in the way of progress.

Universal healthcare won't pass, Americans enjoy their freedoms too much. They enjoy being able to see the doctor when they need to without waiting in lines. They enjoy having access to medical imaging equipment. Americans don't want to be saddled with high taxes. As usual the democrats want to steal money from the real drivers of the economy small businesses and middle income Americans.

 

[Chris]

Universal healthcare won't pass, Americans enjoy their freedoms too much. They enjoy being able to see the doctor when they need to without waiting in lines. They enjoy having access to medical imaging equipment. Americans don't want to be saddled with high taxes. As usual the democrats want to steal money from the real drivers of the economy small businesses and middle income Americans.

Our healthcare system is currently consuming 15% of our GDP. If costs keep going up, it will consume all of our yearly increases in GDP. They system has failed. It will be replaced.

 

[Chris]

Poll Shows Majority Back Health Care for All

By ROBIN TONER and JANET ELDER
Published: March 1, 2007
A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Majority Back Health Care for All

How the Poll Was Conducted (March 2, 2007)
Complete Poll ResultsWhile the war in Iraq remains the overarching issue in the early stages of the 2008 campaign, access to affordable health care is at the top of the public’s domestic agenda, ranked as far more important than immigration, cutting taxes or promoting traditional values. Only 24 percent said they were satisfied with President Bush’s handling of the issue, despite his recent initiatives, and 62 percent said the Democrats — not the Republicans — were more likely to improve the health care system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html