we have a poor health care system for such a rich country. period. thats the issue here folks. and i am persoanlly happy someone in the political arena has the balls to say it.
What the hell does "poor health care system" have to do with "rich country"?
people dont have a problem funding $1 trillion a year for the military, but when it comes to UHC they see it as a hassle, unfair, or fundamentally wrong.
I see both as wrong.
the thing that few conservatives can understand is that it will ACTUALLY BE CHEAPER, even with government involvement.
Actually I liked Clinton as a leader. Sure he was devious but all leaders are andat least he had the good sense to pretty much not get caught.
But on the healthcare he blew it. If it really was this big moral issue for him he would have staked his 2nd term presidency on it. He didn't. He loved the power more than the issue.
He staked the first half of his first term on it, and many think it helped him lose Congress (along with the gun issue). He faced an even more hostile Congress in his second term - one that impeached him for lying about gettin' a little sumpin' sumpin' on the side; something every leader has done, only in his case he didn't have good enough sense to not get caught. The odds of him convincing someone to write up and put his plan through Congress were less than zero, and likely would have completely hamstrung his last few years. Ever heard the term "spitting in the wind"?
This defense brought to you by someone who never even voted for the guy.
Meh...RainDog is pretty much right here. There was no way UHC was getting passed in the second term. He had a shot at it in the first term, but couldn't get Congressional Dems to come to a consensus on the competing plans that were out there.
Clinton could have upped the ante during the election by staking his presidency on UHC but he didn't. Had he done this and been elected there would have been a whole lot more pressure on Congress to act. Also his first term act of putting his wife in charge of this imperative moral issues speaks volumes.
I'm not sure how it works where you work but when we are working on politically senstive issues we generally don't ask our wives to do the work for us.
All that said, Clinton should have taken what he could have gotten and hoped for it to be built on from there.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Clinton could have upped the ante during the election by staking his presidency on UHC but he didn't. Had he done this and been elected there would have been a whole lot more pressure on Congress to act. Also his first term act of putting his wife in charge of this imperative moral issues speaks volumes.
This is kind of silly. Clinton's presidency was severely hampered after the failure of the HillaryCare, so in that sense he did largely "stake his presidency" on it.
I'm not sure how it works where you work but when we are working on politically senstive issues we generally don't ask our wives to do the work for us.
All that said, Clinton should have taken what he could have gotten and hoped for it to be built on from there.
Any president who is going to try to get a plan like this going is going to have a presidential task force put together proposals. Someone is going to head up that force and this time it just happened to be the president's wife. It's a bit slimy and ridiculous, but not unheard of. Other first ladies have done this as well, albeit on less sensitive topics.
I think Clinton was prepared to take what he could get. He would have signed any of the Congressional proposals at that time. None just ever got through.
Clinton could have upped the ante during the election by staking his presidency on UHC but he didn't. Had he done this and been elected there would have been a whole lot more pressure on Congress to act. Also his first term act of putting his wife in charge of this imperative moral issues speaks volumes.
I'm not sure how it works where you work but when we are working on politically senstive issues we generally don't ask our wives to do the work for us.
All that said, Clinton should have taken what he could have gotten and hoped for it to be built on from there.
You make it sound like he was married to June Cleaver. Hillary had a long and impressive career behind her as an attorney and as an advocate dealing with health care issues, amongst other things. Any president could have chosen her to work on this.
I didn't like her plan, but don't paint this like he passed the whole thing off to someone who'd been baking cookies and changing diapers up until that point. She was very well qualified.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Income tax in the UK (income after deduction of allowances)
0 - £2,230 - 10%
£2,231 - 34,600 - 22% (your average worker)
Over £34,600 - 40%
(note that if you earn £60,000, the 40% is applied the income over the £34.600 and not to the whole income as some countries do).
So not as bad as the 50%+. Personally, I think it is worth it. The NHS (as it is called here) certainly has flaws and not enough funding but.. as an example, I was hospitalized a few years back as an emergency with chest pains. It was pulmonary embolism... I was in the critical care unit (more expensive obviously than normal wards), scans, etc. and under constant care for days... What did it cost me? Nothing!!!!!(well not directly... paid through my taxes obviously) Did I even have to think about going to the emergency room (after all, chest pains could have just 'passed') because I may not have been able to pay? No... How does this compare to:
If it costs $10.000 to remove a nail from a big toe, I would hate to think what the medical bill would have been for me. As said, as flawed as one may find the NHS, knowing that I can be treated without concern is a big relief.
Your little island up there doesn't count as Europe....lol. My figures are from people I know that live in France and Belgium. Bad of me to generalize, I know.
one foot in the door
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
Your little island up there doesn't count as Europe....lol. My figures are from people I know that live in France and Belgium. Bad of me to generalize, I know.
redrock still has to add in sales taxes, government user fees, tolls for using public roads, etc... I'm sure the actual tax rate for someone earning a decent income is easily 50%+.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
You make it sound like he was married to June Cleaver. Hillary had a long and impressive career behind her as an attorney and as an advocate dealing with health care issues, amongst other things. Any president could have chosen her to work on this.
No matter how well qualified she may have been in the end she got the job for one reason and one reason only, she was the president's wife. 20/20 hindsight says she wasn't well qualified enough as she didn't get the job done.
Clinton tried and it was stupid and short sighted that it failed. But fail it did and it did on Clinton's watch. Now for Clinton to make this a moral issue is a joke and pure politics. Ex-president's should be above playing politics on issues they didn't take care of during their own 8 year watch.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Health Care System Broken, Clinton Says
By Janine DeFao
The San Francisco Chronicle
Saturday 14 April 2007
San Francisco - The dire state of the nation's health care system is threatening the country's well-being, former President Bill Clinton told a receptive crowd in San Francisco on Saturday.
"Our health care system is immoral because it doesn't provide health care to everybody," said Clinton, the keynote speaker at KCBS Health Etc., a daylong symposium at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium. "It's wildly uneconomical. We pay more than everybody else in the world for less."
"It is sowing the seeds of its own destruction," said Clinton, who said health care is one of the top three problems the country faces, along with economic inequality and energy dependence.
Clinton was warmly received by the crowd, which leapt to its feet in the first of three standing ovations before he began speaking.
"I jump at any chance to come back to San Francisco. You've been very good to me," he said.
Like a patient professor trying to break down a complex issue for his students, Clinton used a plethora of statistics, and a touch of humor, in his indictment of the current state of American health care.
He said the United States spends 16 percent its national income on health care, compared with 11 percent in Canada and Switzerland, the countries with the next highest spending. That gap represents $800 billion a year, he said.
Yet the United States ranks only 37th in the world in overall health care, insures fewer of its citizens and pays more for its drugs, Clinton said.
Nearly a third of U.S. health care spending goes to administrative costs, the highest in the world, he said.
"We're letting the health insurance financing tail wag the health-care dog," he said.
Clinton, who has spent much of his post-presidential years working to address the worldwide AIDS epidemic, said American taxpayers spend $10,000 a year for AIDS treatments that cost $3,500 in other countries.
He mentioned the pharmaceutical industry's opposition to importing cheaper, generic drugs from Canada.
He said the industry wants people to believe that "if you take it when it crosses the border, you will immediately drop dead. It's the same medicine. (Canadians) don't drop dead," he said to laughter. "They've developed generic immunity, an immunity to cheap drugs."
Clinton does not deny that some Americans have access to excellent health care, saying the success of his 2004 emergency quadruple heart bypass surgery makes him "a walking miracle."
But he said his case is also an example that not enough is being done on the prevention side.
"We are great about treating sickness, but we are lousy at keeping people well," said Clinton, who also is working on the issue of childhood obesity. "We are running the risk of raising the first generation of children to live shorter lives than their parents."
Clinton said he hasn't totally sworn off McDonalds but has been only twice in the past six years, on what he jokingly referred to as "childhood obesity field trips." Worried about his cholesterol, he now avoids hamburgers but likes "those little fried pies."
Clinton - whose wife, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, is seeking the Democratic nomination for president - didn't advocate a solution to the health-care crisis but said there are several options.
While health care was the topic of the day, Clinton couldn't resist a lengthy answer when asked about Iraq by KCBS reporter Mike Sugerman, refusing to wrap up when Sugerman tried to cut him off.
"You asked me about this. You're going to get an answer," Clinton said testily.
He said the United States shouldn't withdraw immediately but should cease combat operations and implement a "substantial drawdown of American troops" this year.
Following his speech, Clinton stepped down from the stage and spent more than an hour signing autographs and taking pictures with people while others stood on their chairs, craning for a glimpse.
"He's always amazing because he has such a depth of knowledge on every issue he's asked," said Santa Cruz resident Helen Isherwood, who paid $75 for her second-row seat. "We so need a political hero, and he's it for the Bay Area."
Your little island up there doesn't count as Europe....lol. My figures are from people I know that live in France and Belgium. Bad of me to generalize, I know.
You're French mates cant live in France and Belgium is pretty much like you say but it doesnt count as the whole of Europe.
redrock still has to add in sales taxes, government user fees, tolls for using public roads, etc... I'm sure the actual tax rate for someone earning a decent income is easily 50%+.
Government user fees? tolls for public roads?
You been doing way too much early morning national anthem practice
Do you have to pay to get a passport? If so this must be counted as a tax. The only reason you need a passport is to meet government regulations. Do you have any tollroads or highways. London has tolls to drive downtown, that is a tax. Do you have to pay for a driver's license, that is a form of a tax. Any time you are paying money to a government agency to comply with any sort of government rule you are paying a tax.
Not sure about the national anthem thing but I did have maple syrup with my pancakes today.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
No matter how well qualified she may have been in the end she got the job for one reason and one reason only, she was the president's wife. 20/20 hindsight says she wasn't well qualified enough as she didn't get the job done.
Clinton tried and it was stupid and short sighted that it failed. But fail it did and it did on Clinton's watch. Now for Clinton to make this a moral issue is a joke and pure politics. Ex-president's should be above playing politics on issues they didn't take care of during their own 8 year watch.
:rolleyes: Damn shame a president can't implement a policy as big as UHC by simply saying "make it so," but that's the way our country works. Not enough votes = no universal health care. I know in this day and age people are warming up to the idea of a president that can do whatever the hell he wants; but at one time legislatures were an important part of the process.
I ask you, say Clinton did stake his re-election on this issue - and let's say he still won. Do you really think, I mean really think that the Republican controlled Congress would have passed something for him to sign? You do realize that's how a bill becomes a law, right? Or do you need to watch Schoolhouse Rock again?
Do you have to pay to get a passport? If so this must be counted as a tax. The only reason you need a passport is to meet government regulations. Do you have any tollroads or highways. London has tolls to drive downtown, that is a tax. Do you have to pay for a driver's license, that is a form of a tax. Any time you are paying money to a government agency to comply with any sort of government rule you are paying a tax.
Not sure about the national anthem thing but I did have maple syrup with my pancakes today.
We're not the only ones who pay fees for those seems you do too.
London doesnt have a downtown but if you want to drive into central London you pay a congestion charge. The idea behind which is supposedly in the name.
Apart from this theres a few miles of motorway on the M6 and about 3/4 bridges/tunnels that you have to pay for.
If you happen to use these and the fee gives you some sort of panic attack or worse you can call into you're local doctors/hospital and get better for free.
We are already paying for emergency and catastrophic care for the uninsured through our tax dollars. We are paying for those who go bankrupt or who simply can't pay their medical bills through our insurance premiums, or through our own medical costs when we pay them directly, since they are inflated to cover those losses. That's where the $5 band-aids and cotton balls come from. Under a universal system we wouldn't be paying the hundreds of dollars per month that most of us are spending on insurance premiums. I'm not at all convinced that UHC would cost any more money than what we're spending now ... in fact, if we could phase out the insurance industry, we'd be saving billions each year in unnecessary administrative costs and would actually SAVE money.
Yes we would phase out the administrative cost that come with a private insurance provider but we would only replace it with the administrative causes that the federal government would tack on to it. At least a private insurance provider does have to regulate and control cost, to a certain extent, because of compition. With the federal government there would be no control on cost so in the end we could end up paying more than we do now.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Your little island up there doesn't count as Europe....lol. My figures are from people I know that live in France and Belgium. Bad of me to generalize, I know.
France and Belgium don't have 'free' health care..... and no.. in neither of those countries, does your average salary earner pay 50-55% of their salary in taxes... believe me.. I speak from experience.... lived and worked both in France and Belgium.. and LOADS of family and friends in both countries.
Surferdude.. we are talking income tax.. the tax that would be used to fund health care..
I can't take much more of this logic....it's permeating this board lately worse than usual.
It's easy to say that health care fulfills a basic desire (the desire to live), and that is partly true. But that doesn't mean it isn't a luxury item. Caviar fulfills basic desires too.
These two statements really show the rift between how you approach this and I approach this. You are simply looking at this from a 'selfish' perspective. I see this as a humanitarian issue. Is this the logic to which you refer? Because my logic here is pretty simply, I feel empathy for my fellow man and I find the lack of something like health care as immoral, period.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
These two statements really show the rift between how you approach this and I approach this. You are simply looking at this from a 'selfish' perspective. I see this as a humanitarian issue. Is this the logic to which you refer? Because my logic here is pretty simply, I feel empathy for my fellow man and I find the lack of something like health care as immoral, period.
Baraka, if your position was one born only of "feeling empathy for my fellow man", you'd be talking about charity, not an enforced singular health care system.
I also feel empathy for the same person you do -- the person who has no access to health care. But I feel empathy for others still such that I will not attempt to force an obligation on them that they may not wish to serve, regardless of their reasoning.
All political issues are "humanitarian". That's a meaningless statement. And if being "selfish" invalidates a position, what do you say to everyone demanding health care for themselves?
All political issues are "humanitarian". That's a meaningless statement. And if being "selfish" invalidates a position, what do you say to everyone demanding health care for themselves?
What about people like me who have healthcare - and actually work for a healthcare organization - and demand healthcare for everyone else, even if it causes me to lose my job?
What about people like me who have healthcare - and actually work for a healthcare organization - and demand healthcare for everyone else, even if it causes me to lose my job?
Then I'd say your desire for health care is greater than your desire for a job. But I'd also say you probably know very well that you won't lose your job. But I don't know your situation, so I'm only guessing.
I'm not saying altruism doesn't exist. I'm saying that both arguments require self-interest, and that self-interest doesn't invalidate an argument.
Then I'd say your desire for health care is greater than your desire for a job. But I'd also say you probably know very well that you won't lose your job. But I don't know your situation, so I'm only guessing.
I'm not saying altruism doesn't exist. I'm saying that both arguments require self-interest, and that self-interest doesn't invalidate an argument.
Just wondering. As for the job, it depends on what kind of UHC we get - but there's always more mindless corporate work out there for a guy like me.
I'll also say that, while you may argue that it's simple semantics, I believe there's a difference between self-interest and selfishness, much like the difference between child-like and childishness.
Just wondering. As for the job, it depends on what kind of UHC we get - but there's always more mindless corporate work out there for a guy like me.
I'll also say that, while you may argue that it's simple semantics, I believe there's a difference between self-interest and selfishness, much like the difference between child-like and childishness.
If you want to differentiate between self-interest and selfishness, I can get on board with that depending on your definitions. But you can't erase my self-interest by calling it "selfish", anymore than I could erase the self-interest of someone who wants healthcare by calling them "selfish".
Look, nothing is preventing you from becoming a doctor and giving away your services for free. Nothing is preventing you from inventing medicines and handing them out at cost. I won't question your right to do that, nor would your motivations matter to me. That would be altruism. Simply demanding that one sector of society provide healthcare to another while being willing to enforce your demands with violence doesn't seem terribly altruistic.
Look, nothing is preventing you from becoming a doctor and giving away your services for free.
That's the second time you say that ref UHC... UHC doesn't mean a doctor giving away services for free..... why do you keep on going with this kind of example/arguement?
If you want to differentiate between self-interest and selfishness, I can get on board with that depending on your definitions. But you can't erase my self-interest by calling it "selfish", anymore than I could erase the self-interest of someone who wants healthcare by calling them "selfish".
Look, nothing is preventing you from becoming a doctor and giving away your services for free. Nothing is preventing you from inventing medicines and handing them out at cost. I won't question your right to do that, nor would your motivations matter to me. That would be altruism. Simply demanding that one sector of society provide healthcare to another while being willing to enforce your demands with violence doesn't seem terribly altruistic.
Meh, we're already being taxed. I'd just rather we spent it on healthcare rather than some of the wasteful things we dump it on now. And it wouldn't be demanding that one sector provide healthcare to another (though it is heartening to see you use the word "society"). It would be demanding that most of the population provide healthcare to the entire population.
Look, there's plenty preventing me from becoming a doctor. Funds, for one. There's no way I could afford to give away my services for free - at least not completely. Besides, I don't have a medical mind. And funds would be a hinderence toward starting a pharmaceutical company as well - that and I'm not a chemist.
On top of it all, I wouldn't describe myself as altruistic - or a pacifist.
Simply demanding that one sector of society provide healthcare to another while being willing to enforce your demands with violence
:eek: I don't know why I'm always amazed when you think everying is enforced with violence. I think you just like messing with us....
I bet your friend who paid (and is still paying) $10.000 that he didn't have to get a nail out of his toe would have been grateful for a bit of UHC!!!! I bet he could be satisfying some other basic desires with that kind of money instead of spending it on medical bills.
1.do you think our current health care system should be improved?
Improved implies a goal or goals. And, yes, I think there is much room for improvement in our current health care system. Lowering costs would be a great start towards the topic of this thread.
2. if so, how would you like to see this achieved (nothing too fancy, just big picure please)
Lower costs are accomplished by increasing supply, decreasing demand and ensuring competition. That can be achieved by doing the following things:
- The United States government and state/local governments should make any corporation or individual serving in any health care related function completely tax-exempt.
- State government control of the insurance industry should be completely repealed. In many states, basic insurance rates would drop 50-60% if they were not forced to cover by the states services like IVF and other high-cost, low-used, services.
- Silly medical malpractice suits should be effectively outlawed by establishing precedent around willful negligence, barring patients from suing doctors and hospitals who simply make accidental mistakes.
- American consumers need to reconsider their involvements in the market as well. Employer-sponsered insurance plans have contributed to a "free healthcare" psychology, and as such consumer demand for healthcare has skyrocketed, thereby increasing prices. Consumers need to recognize that health care costs are increasing in large part becaose of their increased demands.
- American workers should continue to demand healthcare from their employers, and treat guaranteed insurance packages just like they treat their wages; refuse to work for an employer who will not provide some form of health insurance in exchange for labor. Consumers should also refuse to exchange with corporations that do not provide health insurance to their workers.
- Americans in general need to live healthier lives. The better we eat, exercise and live, the less of these services we'll need in the first place. Government's job is to protect us from the bad choices of others, not to erase the consequences of our bad choices on ourselves.
- Corporate strangleholds in certain sectors of the health care market need to be removed. Consumers need to reward providers focused on providing quality services as opposed to those focused on empire-building, profit maximization, or legal monopoly holdings. The recognition that competition will produce lower costs and further advances is paramount.
These are some broad stroke approaches here. Feel free to shoot holes or ask questions.
:eek: I don't know why I'm always amazed when you think everying is enforced with violence. I think you just like messing with us....
I do like messing with you. But that doesn't change the fact that it is enforced with violence. If people were willing to pay for their neighbor's healthcare, you wouldn't need UHC. The fact that they are unwilling is why you need to pass laws about it and force them to do it. And you force them via physical punishments. It's not complicated.
I bet your friend who paid (and is still paying) $10.000 that he didn't have to get a nail out of his toe would have been grateful for a bit of UHC!!!! I bet he could be satisfying some other basic desires with that kind of money instead of spending it on medical bills.
Um, that wasn't my friend. Someone simply used my name in their quote.
That's the second time you say that ref UHC... UHC doesn't mean a doctor giving away services for free..... why do you keep on going with this kind of example/arguement?
I didn't say UHC means doctors giving away their services for free. Doing so would simply be truly altruistic. In many nations, however, doctors give portions of their labor away at their own cost, since prices and therefore wages end up being fixed by the states.
Meh, we're already being taxed. I'd just rather we spent it on healthcare rather than some of the wasteful things we dump it on now.
Well, me too. If you want to tie UHC to a gaurantee to strip away equal expenditures from other services, I'd vote for it so long as there is no price fixing.
And it wouldn't be demanding that one sector provide healthcare to another (though it is heartening to see you use the word "society"). It would be demanding that most of the population provide healthcare to the entire population.
:rolleyes:
Half the population pays no general tax. The top 5% pay most of the tax. The actual providers of the services is a tiny percentage, while the consumer base is a huge majority. So this doesn't really make much sense.
Look, there's plenty preventing me from becoming a doctor. Funds, for one. There's no way I could afford to give away my services for free - at least not completely. Besides, I don't have a medical mind. And funds would be a hinderence toward starting a pharmaceutical company as well - that and I'm not a chemist.
On top of it all, I wouldn't describe myself as altruistic - or a pacifist.
Fair enough. I didn't mean to imply, by the way, that you could just magically become a doctor or whip up some Prozac in your kitchen. I was referring to the fact that nothing prevents you from entering the process of learning how and acting in such a way to do those things.
Comments
What the hell does "poor health care system" have to do with "rich country"?
I see both as wrong.
Cheaper for you, yes.
This defense brought to you by someone who never even voted for the guy.
I'm not sure how it works where you work but when we are working on politically senstive issues we generally don't ask our wives to do the work for us.
All that said, Clinton should have taken what he could have gotten and hoped for it to be built on from there.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
This is kind of silly. Clinton's presidency was severely hampered after the failure of the HillaryCare, so in that sense he did largely "stake his presidency" on it.
Any president who is going to try to get a plan like this going is going to have a presidential task force put together proposals. Someone is going to head up that force and this time it just happened to be the president's wife. It's a bit slimy and ridiculous, but not unheard of. Other first ladies have done this as well, albeit on less sensitive topics.
I think Clinton was prepared to take what he could get. He would have signed any of the Congressional proposals at that time. None just ever got through.
I didn't like her plan, but don't paint this like he passed the whole thing off to someone who'd been baking cookies and changing diapers up until that point. She was very well qualified.
Your little island up there doesn't count as Europe....lol. My figures are from people I know that live in France and Belgium. Bad of me to generalize, I know.
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Clinton tried and it was stupid and short sighted that it failed. But fail it did and it did on Clinton's watch. Now for Clinton to make this a moral issue is a joke and pure politics. Ex-president's should be above playing politics on issues they didn't take care of during their own 8 year watch.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
it's a good thing he corrected that when he was in office and had the power to do something about it.
You're French mates cant live in France and Belgium is pretty much like you say but it doesnt count as the whole of Europe.
http://www.frenchentree.com/france-tax-advice/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=2254
http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/germantaxes.html
http://www.thinkspain.com/hottopics/residencytax/income.asp
http://www.justlanded.com/english/italy/tools/just_landed_guide/money/income_tax_rates
Its so easy you could have done it yourself tax free in just 5 minutes!!;)
Government user fees? tolls for public roads?
You been doing way too much early morning national anthem practice
Not sure about the national anthem thing but I did have maple syrup with my pancakes today.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I ask you, say Clinton did stake his re-election on this issue - and let's say he still won. Do you really think, I mean really think that the Republican controlled Congress would have passed something for him to sign? You do realize that's how a bill becomes a law, right? Or do you need to watch Schoolhouse Rock again?
http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/fees/fees_837.html
http://www.dds.ga.gov/drivers/DLdata.aspx?con=1746395936&ty=dl
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/NeedANewOrUpdatedLicence/DG_4022089
http://www.passport.gov.uk/fees.asp
We're not the only ones who pay fees for those seems you do too.
London doesnt have a downtown but if you want to drive into central London you pay a congestion charge. The idea behind which is supposedly in the name.
Apart from this theres a few miles of motorway on the M6 and about 3/4 bridges/tunnels that you have to pay for.
If you happen to use these and the fee gives you some sort of panic attack or worse you can call into you're local doctors/hospital and get better for free.
Yes we would phase out the administrative cost that come with a private insurance provider but we would only replace it with the administrative causes that the federal government would tack on to it. At least a private insurance provider does have to regulate and control cost, to a certain extent, because of compition. With the federal government there would be no control on cost so in the end we could end up paying more than we do now.
Surferdude.. we are talking income tax.. the tax that would be used to fund health care..
These two statements really show the rift between how you approach this and I approach this. You are simply looking at this from a 'selfish' perspective. I see this as a humanitarian issue. Is this the logic to which you refer? Because my logic here is pretty simply, I feel empathy for my fellow man and I find the lack of something like health care as immoral, period.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Baraka, if your position was one born only of "feeling empathy for my fellow man", you'd be talking about charity, not an enforced singular health care system.
I also feel empathy for the same person you do -- the person who has no access to health care. But I feel empathy for others still such that I will not attempt to force an obligation on them that they may not wish to serve, regardless of their reasoning.
All political issues are "humanitarian". That's a meaningless statement. And if being "selfish" invalidates a position, what do you say to everyone demanding health care for themselves?
Then I'd say your desire for health care is greater than your desire for a job. But I'd also say you probably know very well that you won't lose your job. But I don't know your situation, so I'm only guessing.
I'm not saying altruism doesn't exist. I'm saying that both arguments require self-interest, and that self-interest doesn't invalidate an argument.
I'll also say that, while you may argue that it's simple semantics, I believe there's a difference between self-interest and selfishness, much like the difference between child-like and childishness.
If you want to differentiate between self-interest and selfishness, I can get on board with that depending on your definitions. But you can't erase my self-interest by calling it "selfish", anymore than I could erase the self-interest of someone who wants healthcare by calling them "selfish".
Look, nothing is preventing you from becoming a doctor and giving away your services for free. Nothing is preventing you from inventing medicines and handing them out at cost. I won't question your right to do that, nor would your motivations matter to me. That would be altruism. Simply demanding that one sector of society provide healthcare to another while being willing to enforce your demands with violence doesn't seem terribly altruistic.
1.do you think our current health care system should be improved?
2. if so, how would you like to see this achieved (nothing too fancy, just big picure please)
Look, there's plenty preventing me from becoming a doctor. Funds, for one. There's no way I could afford to give away my services for free - at least not completely. Besides, I don't have a medical mind. And funds would be a hinderence toward starting a pharmaceutical company as well - that and I'm not a chemist.
On top of it all, I wouldn't describe myself as altruistic - or a pacifist.
I bet your friend who paid (and is still paying) $10.000 that he didn't have to get a nail out of his toe would have been grateful for a bit of UHC!!!! I bet he could be satisfying some other basic desires with that kind of money instead of spending it on medical bills.
Improved implies a goal or goals. And, yes, I think there is much room for improvement in our current health care system. Lowering costs would be a great start towards the topic of this thread.
Lower costs are accomplished by increasing supply, decreasing demand and ensuring competition. That can be achieved by doing the following things:
- The United States government and state/local governments should make any corporation or individual serving in any health care related function completely tax-exempt.
- State government control of the insurance industry should be completely repealed. In many states, basic insurance rates would drop 50-60% if they were not forced to cover by the states services like IVF and other high-cost, low-used, services.
- Silly medical malpractice suits should be effectively outlawed by establishing precedent around willful negligence, barring patients from suing doctors and hospitals who simply make accidental mistakes.
- American consumers need to reconsider their involvements in the market as well. Employer-sponsered insurance plans have contributed to a "free healthcare" psychology, and as such consumer demand for healthcare has skyrocketed, thereby increasing prices. Consumers need to recognize that health care costs are increasing in large part becaose of their increased demands.
- American workers should continue to demand healthcare from their employers, and treat guaranteed insurance packages just like they treat their wages; refuse to work for an employer who will not provide some form of health insurance in exchange for labor. Consumers should also refuse to exchange with corporations that do not provide health insurance to their workers.
- Americans in general need to live healthier lives. The better we eat, exercise and live, the less of these services we'll need in the first place. Government's job is to protect us from the bad choices of others, not to erase the consequences of our bad choices on ourselves.
- Corporate strangleholds in certain sectors of the health care market need to be removed. Consumers need to reward providers focused on providing quality services as opposed to those focused on empire-building, profit maximization, or legal monopoly holdings. The recognition that competition will produce lower costs and further advances is paramount.
These are some broad stroke approaches here. Feel free to shoot holes or ask questions.
I do like messing with you. But that doesn't change the fact that it is enforced with violence. If people were willing to pay for their neighbor's healthcare, you wouldn't need UHC. The fact that they are unwilling is why you need to pass laws about it and force them to do it. And you force them via physical punishments. It's not complicated.
Um, that wasn't my friend. Someone simply used my name in their quote.
I didn't say UHC means doctors giving away their services for free. Doing so would simply be truly altruistic. In many nations, however, doctors give portions of their labor away at their own cost, since prices and therefore wages end up being fixed by the states.
Well, me too. If you want to tie UHC to a gaurantee to strip away equal expenditures from other services, I'd vote for it so long as there is no price fixing.
:rolleyes:
Half the population pays no general tax. The top 5% pay most of the tax. The actual providers of the services is a tiny percentage, while the consumer base is a huge majority. So this doesn't really make much sense.
Fair enough. I didn't mean to imply, by the way, that you could just magically become a doctor or whip up some Prozac in your kitchen. I was referring to the fact that nothing prevents you from entering the process of learning how and acting in such a way to do those things.