Myth busting universal healthcare

Kirk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope, it will be reformed.
 
Kirk said:
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
Click to expand...

Here you go with your highly reliable polls....look at the 2000 presidential exit polls...
 
Kirk said:
You know that when the doctors are for it, that it will come about. Hillary's plan was the worst of both worlds. She wanted all of us to support the insurance companies.
Click to expand...

It's a survey....
Nope when it is properly debated Americans will reject it...
 
Kirk said:
Gore got more votes than Bush. Look it up.

Now even American doctors favor universal healthcare...


Doctors support universal health care: survey | Health | Reuters
Click to expand...

Yet, Bush won:

Online NewsHour: Media Recount: Bush Won

An Online NewsHour Report

More than three months after Democrat Al Gore conceded the hotly contested 2000 election, an independent hand recount of Florida's ballots released today says he would have lost anyway, even if officials would have allowed the hand count he requested.

NewsHour Links

Online Special: Covering Election 2000

Online Special: Election Night Timeline

Online Special
Media Watch

Feb. 13, 2001:
The three network news anchors discuss election night.

Dec. 21, 2000:
Members of the media take another look at the disputed Florida ballots.

Dec. 12, 2000:
Four editorial page editors on the Supreme Court recount decision.

Dec. 5, 2000:
Columnists discuss the election.

Nov. 21, 2000:
Five editorial writers on the protracted presidential election.

Nov. 8, 2000:
A look at election night's bad media calls.

Browse the NewsHour coverage of Politics & Campaigns and Law




Outside Links

The Miami Herald

USA Today




In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

The study, conducted by the accounting firm of BDO Seidman, counted over 60,000 votes in Florida's 67 counties, tabulating separate vote totals in several standards categories.

While the USA Today report focused on what would have happened had the Florida Supreme Court-ordered recount not been halted by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Herald pointed to one scenario under which Gore could have scored a narrow victory -- a fresh recount in all counties using the most generous standards.

In their reports, the newspapers assumed counts already completed when the court-ordered recount was stopped would have been included in any official count. Thus, they allowed numbers from seven counties -- Palm Beach, Volusia, Broward, Hamilton, Manatee, Escambia and Madison -- to stand, but applied the most inclusive standards to votes in the rest of the state. If those numbers did not stand, the Herald reported, a more generous hypothetical revisited recount would have scored the White House for Gore -- but with only a 393-vote margin.

Under most other scenarios, the papers reported, Bush would have retained his lead....
Click to expand...
 
a fresh recount in ALL counties of florida would have given Gore the win, your article states kathianne? And isn't this what the Supreme court of florida ordered but then it was cut short? Not certain on that, though....i believe so?

so, essentially, the citizens of florida DID elect and pick VP gore, NOT Gov bush, according to your article, and that would have been using the same standards in ALL counties that were used in their counts of the initial recount counties....so i don't see how Bush definitively won according to the consortium's recount of the State in Full?

in addition to this, we know that over 10,000 votes for gore in palm beach county were not given to him, due to the butterfly ballot messup....even pat bucannon states he never even campaigned in palm beach county, he did not run one ad in palm beach county while he ran several in broward county and only received 3000 or so votes in Broward, with broward being much more populated than palm beach! I think he got something like 17000 votes, i'm attributing 10,000 of those wrongly cast butterfly votes as gores, it could be even more...?

so, what we can acknowledge as truth imho, is that the citizens, all the voting citizens in the 2000 election in florida CHOSE VP Gore as their choice for president....thus, the USA chose Gore for president, with the electoral votes of florida truely meant for Gore....bringing him in as the Electoral victor.

Now, with the formalities, regulations, disqualification of the thousands of Butterfly ballots for him, and judicial rulings may not have resulted in the true will of the people, and thru those decisions... Gov Bush won the election in Florida and thus the presidency.

It is what it is, there is no turning back or twinkling of the nose or any kind of "do over" or "easy button" to press and make things go back to the beginning and come out the way they were "meant to be", I realize such and am not trying to say gwb is an illigitimate president, because i do not believe such...i think one has to take the cards they are dealt and deal with them, in this case it was the SC ruling that cut things short and put Bush in power....but as said in so many words, it is, what it is....

Care
 
Care4all said:
a fresh recount in ALL counties of florida would have given Gore the win, your article states kathianne? And isn't this what the Supreme court of florida ordered but then it was cut short? Not certain on that, though....i believe so?

so, essentially, the citizens of florida DID elect and pick VP gore, NOT Gov bush, according to your article, and that would have been using the same standards in ALL counties that were used in their counts of the initial recount counties....so i don't see how Bush definitively won according to the consortium's recount of the State in Full?

in addition to this, we know that over 10,000 votes for gore in palm beach county were not given to him, due to the butterfly ballot messup....even pat bucannon states he never even campaigned in palm beach county, he did not run one ad in palm beach county while he ran several in broward county and only received 3000 or so votes in Broward, with broward being much more populated than palm beach! I think he got something like 17000 votes, i'm attributing 10,000 of those wrongly cast butterfly votes as gores, it could be even more...?

so, what we can acknowledge as truth imho, is that the citizens, all the voting citizens in the 2000 election in florida CHOSE VP Gore as their choice for president....thus, the USA chose Gore for president, with the electoral votes of florida truely meant for Gore....bringing him in as the Electoral victor.

Now, with the formalities, regulations, disqualification of the thousands of Butterfly ballots for him, and judicial rulings may not have resulted in the true will of the people, and thru those decisions... Gov Bush won the election in Florida and thus the presidency.

It is what it is, there is no turning back or twinkling of the nose or any kind of "do over" or "easy button" to press and make things go back to the beginning and come out the way they were "meant to be", I realize such and am not trying to say gwb is an illigitimate president, because i do not believe such...i think one has to take the cards they are dealt and deal with them, in this case it was the SC ruling that cut things short and put Bush in power....but as said in so many words, it is, what it is....

Care
Click to expand...

That's not what the article states, it says if the recounts were done according to the Florida Supreme Court, Bush still would have won. Only under a scenario in which Gore would have received votes for all improperly punched ballots would he have won.
 
Charles_Main said:
What is funny is Kirk provided a link earlier that showed home many Socialized Medicine nations systems are consuming 15% of their GDP's as well.
Click to expand...

Why do you lie?

Total health spending accounted for 15.3% of GDP in the United States in 2006, the highest share in the
OECD, and more than six percentage points higher than the average of 8.9% in OECD countries.
Following the United States were Switzerland, France and Germany, which allocated respectively 11.3%,
11.1% and 10.6% of their GDP to health.
The United States also ranks far ahead of other OECD countries in terms of total health spending per
capita, with spending of 6,714 USD (adjusted for purchasing power parity), more than twice the OECD
average of 2,824 USD in 2006. Norway follows, with spending of 4,520 USD per capita, then Switzerland
and Luxembourg with spending of over 4,300 USD per capita.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf
 
Last edited:
Kirk said:
Why do you lie?

Total health spending accounted for 15.3% of GDP in the United States in 2006, the highest share in the
OECD, and more than six percentage points higher than the average of 8.9% in OECD countries.
Following the United States were Switzerland, France and Germany, which allocated respectively 11.3%,
11.1% and 10.6% of their GDP to health.
The United States also ranks far ahead of other OECD countries in terms of total health spending per
capita, with spending of 6,714 USD (adjusted for purchasing power parity), more than twice the OECD
average of 2,824 USD in 2006. Norway follows, with spending of 4,520 USD per capita, then Switzerland
and Luxembourg with spending of over 4,300 USD per capita.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf
Click to expand...

Wasn't a lie bud you once argued with me that Most Socialized Nations only spend about 15% of GDP on health care. At the time you claimed we spent 25% of ours on Health care. Deny it all you want now I don't care. It is you who have been inconsistent on your facts and figures.

besides your numbers do nothing to address the fast rising costs in Socialized Nations as their populations grow older, and the costs rise.
 
Charles_Main said:
Wasn't a lie bud you once argued with me that Most Socialized Nations only spend about 15% of GDP on health care. At the time you claimed we spent 25% of ours on Health care. Deny it all you want now I don't care. It is you who have been inconsistent on your facts and figures.

besides your numbers do nothing to address the fast rising costs in Socialized Nations as their populations grow older, and the costs rise.
Click to expand...

You are confusing me with someone else. I just posted the link I used again.
 
I had an interesting conversation with a 20 year old yesterday. I gave him a ride home from South bend Indiana to Grand Rapids Michigan.

During the ride, he Kept saying how can you be against "Free" Health care. It lead me to wonder how many people share his misguided view that Universal Health care is Free to the user.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Look at the Nations who have it, and look at their taxes. Nothing is free man. Universal health care comes at many costs, and 2 of them are HIGH taxes and Growing Debt.

The only people who get "free" health care under universal health care, are those who do not pay taxes, and are some how not effected by the rising debt and other issues it leads to.
 
Last edited:
Charles_Main said:
I had an interesting conversation with a 20 year old yesterday. I gave him a ride home from South bend Indiana to Grand Rapids Michigan.

During the ride, he Kept saying how can you be against "Free" Health care. It lead me to wonder how many people share his misguided view that Universal Health care is Free to the user.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Look at the Nations who have it, and look at their taxes. Nothing is free man. Universal health care comes at many costs, and 2 of them are HIGH taxes and Growing Debt.

The only people who get "free" health care under universal health care, are those who do not pay taxes, and are some how not effected by the rising debt and other issues it leads to.
Click to expand...

The point is that a single payer system has inherent cost savings. It is more efficient than having 150 different insurance companies. All it means is that the government acts as the insurance company. That's it. Doctors still own there practices, and you can go to any doctor you chose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

California Is First State to Ban Trans Fats

< Previous Thread

Government ran Healthcare at its best...

Next Thread >

Similar threads

shockedcanadian
Canada could lose $93.8B from Trump’s tariffs — here’s what that means for your job, bills, and local economy
Replies
13
Views
158
Zincwarrior
Zincwarrior
shockedcanadian
Pro boxer Georgia O'Connor dies at 25 after doctors dismissed cancer concerns
Replies
1
Views
141
Polishprince
P
shockedcanadian
Can Mark Carney defeat Canadian populism?
Replies
1
Views
96
jwoodie
J
DGS49
Trump's Joke about Canada as 51st State
Replies
6
Views
300
Concerned American
Concerned American
shockedcanadian
'We're seeing a Hunger Games' across Ontario: Hundreds in this town line up for a chance at a family doctor
Replies
11
Views
563
Harry Dresden
Harry Dresden

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom