Idaho Will Sue

[KitemanSA]

...Also, people can always leave. They can move into another country.

Sorry Skipjack, this statement is the result of a preconditioned slave mentality. What do you mean "I can always leave"? Its my f'ing land, noone elses. Anything that forces me to leave MY land or work for something I don't want is slavery.

If I, thru threat of force, cause you to work for twenty hours to repair my driveway, and "compenstate" you at $1000/hr, Confederate States of America dollars, I have indeed "compensated" you but I am sure you would NOT feel "compenstaed". That is the current working definition of slavery. "Confederate States Dollars; unwanted medical insurance, its all the same. So it is either theft or slavery. Same dealio.

Most Europeans innately think that all the land in "their" country belongs to the king and the king's annointed, and they have (or don't have) the "Right of Departure". As I said, serf (slave) mentality. It is so bred into the culture, I doubt most Euros even see it.

[Skipjack]

Anything that forces me to leave MY land or work for something I don't want is slavery.

Actually one point of slavery is the fact that you can NOT leave.

Most Europeans innately think that all the land in "their" country belongs to the king and the king's annointed, and they have (or don't have) the "Right of Departure".

We dont have a king in Austria. We had an emperor more than 90 years ago. Most of the land here belongs to the fracking catholic church, actually...

[MSimon]

I would say that if you take all that into consideration, Austria is doing pretty well. Dont you think so?

America is a richer country. So spending more money on health care for a marginal improvement might be what people want.

Think of it: Around 1900 Americans were spending 30% of their income on food. Now it is less than 10%. Does that mean Americans don't eat enough?

Conversely does spending 15% on health care vs. 10% mean we spend too much?

I think people should spend what they want and government should stay out.

[Skipjack]

America is a richer country. So spending more money on health care for a marginal improvement might be what people want.

Marginally richer. Yet you are spending A LOT more on healthcare. Not just in percentages but also in absolute numbers.
Here is a new study that shows the result of the lack of preventive care among poorer US citizens:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162947.htm

Here everybody has access to preventive care and cardiac rehabilitation programmes.
Of course you can get better treatments even, if you are richer (also here), but past a certain point you get diminishing returns.

[choff]

I was looking at the statistics at this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
and noticed that in the U.S. a higher percentage of government revenue is spent on health care than the other countries listed, even though in the U.S.
government provides a lower percentage of coverage per person. From this I conclude lower overall tax rates. While Canadians don't believe our system is perfect or without room for improvement, we're generally satisfied.

My impression of new system in the U.S. is, rather than having either a private or public system, you're trying to do both.

[MSimon]

Skipjack,

Americans spend 7% of their income on food. Maybe that is why we have money for such huge expenditures in health care.

Around 1900 it used to be 30% or more. So if we are spending less than 23% on health care we are ahead.

[IntLibber]

I was looking at the statistics at this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
and noticed that in the U.S. a higher percentage of government revenue is spent on health care than the other countries listed, even though in the U.S.
government provides a lower percentage of coverage per person. From this I conclude lower overall tax rates. While Canadians don't believe our system is perfect or without room for improvement, we're generally satisfied.

My impression of new system in the U.S. is, rather than having either a private or public system, you're trying to do both.

Whats going on is the socialists, aka Democrats, have for decades been trying to drive private health care out of business by creating various public markets to no avail. They finally figured out that the two things they need to eliminate private health care is require citizens have a policy and then offer a public option. People will naturally migrate into the public option and vote themselves more benefits than they are paying for, thus increasing demand for health care but because doctors will be paid less, there will be less supply of health care, so thus prices for free market health care will skyrocket OR doctors will simply refuse to do business with patients on public funded plans, UNTIL the Democrats figure this part out and order doctors to take any patient that comes in the door, whereupon doctors will quit medicine en mass.

[choff]

I know that in my country the public option covers the basic medical and most people purchase private extended medical insurance, so the insurance industry isn't elimated. It sounds like your new plan has private and public going head to head on what would be basic and extended here.

If a polical compromise or clear cut victory for either Dems or Repubs is not forthcoming, perhaps your government and the insurance industry should get together and try to agree on a division of labour(and cost) to eliminate redundant payment for the same services. Otherwise the percentage GDP spent on healthcare will really go through the roof, impinging on the performance of the non healthcare related portion of the economy.

The OECD countries with public health care all have much smaller populations that the U.S. Perhaps the larger population makes agreement more difficult, (10's of millions of more opinions).

[choff]

Another stat that stuck out, the percent health care paid for by government. In Canada, approx. 69% and the US approx. 45%. So Americans do pay a substantial amount of tax into healthcare, not as much as Canadians and Europeans, but still a substantial amount.

For that amount of public spending, given the economics of scale that could be applied, you could have a universal public system that, while not as generous as European and Canadian systems, should cover most essentials. The private health insurance companies could then concentrate on everything else. It wouldn't require additional spending or taxation, just better organization and cooperation.

[MSimon]

Another stat that stuck out, the percent health care paid for by government. In Canada, approx. 69% and the US approx. 45%. So Americans do pay a substantial amount of tax into healthcare, not as much as Canadians and Europeans, but still a substantial amount.

For that amount of public spending, given the economics of scale that could be applied, you could have a universal public system that, while not as generous as European and Canadian systems, should cover most essentials. The private health insurance companies could then concentrate on everything else. It wouldn't require additional spending or taxation, just better organization and cooperation.

If a system is operating pretty well base on 100 million decisions how will reducing that to 10,000 decisions help?

[choff]

Right now you're spending enough taxes on health to be dissatisfied with public spending but not enough to get anything for it.

[MSimon]

Right now you're spending enough taxes on health to be dissatisfied with public spending but not enough to get anything for it.

The only cure for our malaise is to bring market forces to bear.

An MRI at a free standing clinic costs $500. At a hospital $2,000. Why the difference? People at the clinic are spending their own money.

[choff]

The most any OECD country spends on health is 82%, so you're country is over half way there already. Its a question of to what degree your country is a socialist state, not if. If you prefer an all private system, in theory you could eliminate the tax collected for health, and go 100% private. The other option is take the public money already allotted and bring in a minimalistic public system, with private on top, or just say we're half way there already, and spend more on a system like Europe or Canada. You have definite options either way.

[Skipjack]

They finally figured out that the two things they need to eliminate private health care is require citizens have a policy and then offer a public option. People will naturally migrate into the public option and vote themselves more benefits than they are paying for, thus increasing demand for health care but because doctors will be paid less, there will be less supply of health care, so thus prices for free market health care will skyrocket OR doctors will simply refuse to do business with patients on public funded plans, UNTIL the Democrats figure this part out and order doctors to take any patient that comes in the door, whereupon doctors will quit medicine en mass.

This assumption is based on what? It is not what has happened in Austria, or Germany.
So why do you assume that this would happen in the US. You are assuming this because your ideology tells you to.

I know that in my country the public option covers the basic medical and most people purchase private extended medical insurance, so the insurance industry isn't elimated.

They do the same here. People get additional private insurance, so they get nicer rooms in hospitals and a bigger TV, or a private sanatorium. They also get coverage for some alternative medicine treatments and stuff like that. Nothing anybody really needs.
As a trial, some professions had the ability to do an "opting out". Which means that they are able to go private completely. The private option is usually slightly cheaper than the public one and does provide better services. They have to, if they want people to switch. Anyway, the private insurance has its quirks. They sometimes refuse to pay and stuff like that. So people prefer sticking with the public option and just take a private "upgrade". Either way, both options are good business for the private insurance companies. My mother is working at one and they do make good money that way. So I can not see how this would hurt insurance companies.

Americans spend 7% of their income on food. Maybe that is why we have money for such huge expenditures in health care.

Do you really think that we are spending that much more on food? We are not a 3rd world country you know. People may spend more money on food here, but then our food has higher quality standards (whether they make sense or not is another question all together, but it makes it more expensive). No hormones, or genetically engineered food is allowed. There is no factory farming for eggs, etc. The name of every farmer involved is on the label of most agricultural products. You can, in theory go there and check how he treats his cows or chicken.
Still, with all that, we still dont pay THAT more much for food here.
Also, people in Austria generally spend their money on healthier food than people in the US do. McDonalds is out. That of course costs more money (we do have much less overweight people here though).
Maybe I should twist your question arround and throw the ball back at you:
Maybe the people in the US could afford spending more money on eating healthier, if they had to spend less for healthcare?

[MSimon]

Maybe the people in the US could afford spending more money on eating healthier, if they had to spend less for healthcare?

Who is going to force them?