US presidential election...

[-silencer-]

I have to say, out of all the Republican candidates, I am sooo pleased it's McCain that's running the show. I dunno why ^^

I'd definitely have to agree with that. But I know exactly why I agree. :P The other two that had a real chance at it were super religious types that would set forth ridiculous policies because "god told me to." The founders of this country clearly believed that religion had no place in politics, and for good reason. It is always unfortunate when politicians feel that they don't need to honor that.

I also have a great deal of respect for McCain's military service, even if I'm not sure I would always agree with his policies. I feel that he would always give very serious consideration to the consequences of military action, rather than thinking "we'll be greeted as liberators".

I've got to disagree with you about one guy.. Mitt Romney. Although he is personally religious, he never let his personal beliefs affect the will of the majority of the people he represented. I can only hope McCain picks him for VP. Unfortunately again, he's a part of the two problems in this country - the Democrat and Republican parties.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

And it's not just down to the population being healthier and more able to work. It frees up disposable income that would otherwise be tied up in personal savings, encouraging consumer spending and thus further promotes growth. Or for those already in debt, it offers the chance to climb the employment market without having to worry about excessive costs to themselves or their families until they are able to pay etc.

I'm really sorry but I don't understand this general dislike of a publicly funded health care system. Is it purely monetarily disliked? but if only the richest people carry the cost, surely everyone else would love it.. no? or is there something else I haven't heard of, as I'm way over the other side of the Atlantic.

Show me an example of a government nationalizing health care and the result being faster, better, cheaper healthcare.

Also, you are correct that only the richest people would carry the system. This is evil incarnate. Why should people be allowed to own BMWs when I'm stuck with an old beater? I mean, shouldn't we all get the same privileges as the upper crust? What about people who can't afford air conditioning/heating in adverse climate regions? Shouldn't the rich people with central air have to give something up so poor folks can have cooling and heating, too? Oh, and how about gas prices? Shouldn't they jack up the price of super unleaded to like $20/gallon so the poor people who can only afford regular unleaded are subsidized by the mean old rich people who drive cars that require super? My point, as vaguely as I could possibly make it, is that once you start down this path, where does it end? When people feel entitled to freely usurp the earnings of people who work harder/smarter/longer than them and are backed up by a government that will jail/fine/assault/kill people who do not want to give up their hard-earned cash, what incentive would they have to do for themselves?

[-silencer-]

I actually believe the exact opposite of that statement. In my opinion, there is a lot of people out there who have had enoughh of the bad economics that the current presidential staff has so kindly created for us over the last 8 years. Personally I say put Bill C back in charge. He had the economy going strong and I believe that the American populace is ready for democratic party in the white house again. That being said, I know jack about politics and its all just my 2c

Were you alive and watching the news in the 90's? Bill C isn't any better than what's gone on the last 8 years. The *economy* may have looked good on outside numbers (GDP, surplus, unemployment), but ask the millions of Americans working manufacturing jobs in the Midwest/Northeast how well NAFTA and outsourcing has worked for them. Policies enforced by Clinton have only continued to screw a large portion of people in this country during Bush's terms. Clinton pushed for permanent trade privileges with China in 2000 that severely had an adverse affect on American workers and further pushed the trade deficit in China's favor. Chinese goods are subject to a 2.5% tariff entering the USA. Our goods are subject to a 25% tariff going to China. Do the math. Bill C's policies is what caused the worry over inflation enough for Greenspan to lower interest rates to all-time lows around 2001. (Remember the Fed always reacts to the economy later than usual, so Bill's last years is what led to 1% interest rates.) These insanely low interest rates is what led to the housing boom, and subsequent greed among lenders, followed by the bust, which is now the primary cause of our bad economy. In 2000, the US Census Bureau reported that the income gap between rich and poor widened during Clinton's years, and every household income below $80,000 lost ground during the Clinton years. The median income relative to inflation (where half the people make more, and half make less), was lower when Clinton left office in 2000 than 10 years prior in 1990. I don't agree with many of the decisions of the Bush administration over last 8 years, but the primary issue in our economy was caused directly by the 1% interest rates from the end of the Clinton administration and the continued disregard for supporting the middle class economy. It's only the very wealthy end of the economy that has continued to improve. Both Clinton and Bush administrations were bad for this country if you're making under $200k a year, which is around 97% of the nation.

[-silencer-]

Show me an example of a government nationalizing health care and the result being faster, better, cheaper healthcare.

Case in point: Canada.
There are thousands of women in Canada who have to come to the USA to have a baby due to hospital overcrowding. All universal healthcare does is amplify the problems the country currently has.

We must FIX the problem with legislation of healthcare reform, not throw another burden on an inefficient government. Look what happened to public schools ever since the government got involved. Did you know that if you have an injury and go to a hospital, they'll charge you a certain rate to treat you if you pay up front with cash or a credit card. Did you know that they charge many insurance companies, especially Medicare, MORE? Did you know that if you have insurance, hospitals are more likely to perform unnecessary tests since they know the bill isn't on the patient? Did you also know that a hospital is more likely to prescribe drugs to someone covered by insurance, even when they may not be necessary? Again, ripping off health insurance. Health insurance companies pass these charges to the businesses that purchase plans, and the cost finally gets passed to the citizen. There's not enough money for the government to audit the $575-590 billion spent on Medicare each year, and a lot of that cost has been unnecessary.

Healthcare costs have directly increased due to malpractice insurance doctors must have, and that cost is passed to the citizen & health insurance company. All to pay off the patient who accidentally had a clamp left in them after surgery and it had to be removed. So that's a $40 million lawsuit, which is ultimately paid for in the end by the other patients as malpractice insurance increases. It's unfortunate that a doctor screwed up and caused a patient to go through another unnecessary surgery to fix the problem, but excessive lawsuits are just one of many major problems.

Legislation to fix these problems is all that is needed to make health coverage in this country affordable for everyone, including employers. We don't need a universal healthcare plan that will only get a return of 20 cents on the dollar due to inefficiency when there are better alternatives, but lobbyists in Washington are looking out for their interests. Drug, health insurance, and medical companies are the primary lobbyists in Washington, and they're all being very "nice" to politicians to make sure they continue to make money off the current system. They don't mind the idea of government run health insurance. It's easier to rip off a government program than a heavily-audited private company anyway. That's more taxpayer money wasted, and that's not ok with me.

[-silencer-]

One thing that confused me when I was reading up on this in Wikipedia - The Democrats currently hold a mjority in congress, both in the senate, and the house of reps. Yet the president is a Republican, and has the power to veto any bills that come through congress.

How does any legislation get passed like this? I mean since the president is from the opposing party, wouldn't he just veto any bills the Democrats pass up trhough congress?

If the president vetos a bill, Congress can override it with a 2:1 vote or more. This has happened a couple times lately. It's a part of the balance-of-power in Washington. Too bad the balance on all sides favors the wealthy and corporate businesses. Democrats and Republicans both fight for their primary constituents - Democrats for labor unions, minorities, and 'liberal' people, Republicans for religious and 'conservative' people. The problem is that they're two brothers of the same bad family. They both preach to their "people" yet they both enact laws to benefit their friends in big business. When they're in office, they'll enact a 'token' law or two to make it look like they're making progress with regards to their voting group, but it doesn't have much effect in the long term.
Take the new strict bankruptcy laws for example. Most people who declare bankruptcy, even in spite of the foreclosures and economy now, are due to unexpected health issues that go beyond what insurance will cover. However, lending agencies heavily pushed and gave favors to congressmen to pass the new laws. This has come to light with the problems of "Friends of Angelo" and Countrywide home loans that is going on in Washington right now. Countrywide is a home lending company that pushed for this new legislation, and to "bribe" congressmen to back the new law, they gave benefits to these congressment - called Friends of Angelo, the CEO of Countrywide. Don't buy for one minute that these men didn't know they were getting a bribe - they're smart and wealthy for a reason. Both Democrats and Republicans were caught in this, including the recently-relieved-of-duty, Jim Johnson, who was to head Obama's VP search. By the way, Jim Johnson was also the CEO of Fannie Mae - a federally-backed mortgage lender. It's not hard to figure out what's going on.

[-silencer-]

When did the word "Social" become a bad thing? I see countless selfless acts on some of your TV channels about people helping each other, simply because they have no money or no home or whatnot. But yet somehow, when it comes to politics, these same people vote for those that most damage the ones they are trying to help. I dunno maybe it's just my point of view but you guys could benefit from some left-ish policies.
Minimum wage (at an acceptable level), Free health care, free schooling/university (altho here in England they are moving away from that :S ) etc

Social is a wonderful thing when people go out of their way to help people. Social is a bad thing when government (at least our government) walks into your life, takes a big chunk of your paycheck, wastes 80% of that chunk to cover inefficiency, and does what it wants with the little that remains - with the end result in the hands of health/drug companies bank accounts.

All social issues should be left up to states to decide. Our country was founded for the government to protect the people (military), and provide legislation for laws to govern the country. Social issues should be handled where they are - by local and state governments. There's no need for the government to get involved in local/state affairs. Flawed plans, such a social security (which if you really read into it, is a form of pyramid payment plan, which just happens to be *illegal* in the country), Medicare, Medicaid, No Child Left Behind for education (which sounds wonderful, but is horribly flawed), are further proof that the government can't efficiently handle the problems it tries to tackle. If proper laws, with no loopholes for wealthy people/businesses to bypass, were enacted, we wouldn't need these 'social' programs since there would be plenty of well-paying jobs like there were in the 40's/50's/60's.

[-silencer-]

I don't see how the introduction of a healthcare system for everyone is a bad thing. Sure it may cost a lot of money, but in the long term, the economy will be generally more stable and grow at a much faster rate.

Look at it this way..
Is a kid more likely to overspend on an item when he's footing the bill, or his parents are footing the bill?

The kid walks into Best Buy, sees the $6000 80" LCD TV, but knows he can't afford it. The sales assistant realizes he's worked hard for months at $10/hr to be able to afford it, and helps him with a more reasonable selection. So, he buys a nice 40" LCD TV for $1800, and skips on the extended warranty, overpriced cables, universal remote, fancy TV stand, etc. He arrives at home with his $2000 TV after taxes and enjoys a fantastic HD picture and feels good about the money he's spent. It's 1080p, fully functional, and does exactly what it's supposed to do - display HD TV in all its glory.

Another kid walks into Best Buy with his parents' credit card, sees the $6000 80" LCD TV, and likes it as well. The sales assistant sees the parents' plastic and pushes for $500 extended warranty, $100 HDMI cables, $400 TV stand, $100 universal remote, etc. The kid makes the purchase, comes home with his $7500 TV after taxes and enjoys a fantastic HD picture. It's 1080p, fully functional, and does exactly what it's supposed to do - display HD TV in all its glory.

That's how health insurance works from hospitals right now. With socialized healthcare, the government will collect $X from every working person every year, lose Y% of it due to inefficiency, then pay much more than an uninsured would at a hospital visit due to unnecessary procedures/tests/drugs. Don't be fooled - running a hospital is a business, and although there are a lot of honorable doctors out there, there are bottom lines to be made, and government-provided money is a easy target for extortion. The solution isn't socialized healthcare. It's legislation to fix the many problems invovled with healthcare. Legislation is an inexpensive fix, and previous government programs have proven they don't work very well in this country.

[Anozireth]

I think it's important to make a clear distinction between private health insurance and government run health insurance here. Hospitals do not charge private insurance more than an uninsured person, they charge them less. Private insurance companies will not pay for useless tests or unneeded procedures. The insurance companies bargain with the hospitals to get discounts. How else could private insurance ever hope to turn a profit?

You're certainly correct about government insurance though. It's amazing how inefficient things can become when there is no need to worry about making money.

[-silencer-]

You're certainly correct about government insurance though. It's amazing how inefficient things can become when there is no need to worry about making money.

Medicare/Medicaid is the government health insurance I was referring to, then generalizing about health insurance after "universal healthcare" would be enacted. If universal healthcare were brought into play, why should my employer continue to provide health insurance? Exactly - that's what'll happen in the long run.. everyone will fall under the inefficient umbrella of government health insurance.

As for VA hospitals... don't get me started. They use the cheapest crap possible and cut so many corners, without regard to the quality of the devices used. When they're offered the choice of a quality stent with a 4% failure rate over 5 years for $1200 (well under non-government hospital price), or a cheap stent with an 38% failure rate over a 5 year period for $900, they go cheap. That's a drastic difference in quality for a 33% markup. Some things in healthcare should NOT be done at the expense of the patient's health, especially over a $300 difference when the cost of the procedure is around $5,000-$20,000. How much is the surgery going to cost when that stent breaks and they need to be in the O.R. again? That's right, Medicare will pay for it... more government waste and needless agony for the patient.

[Ðeceased]

People complain about the financial cost of the Iraq War, but our *entire* defense budget (the war, paying soldiers, paying benefits to retired soldiers, running military bases all over the world, building new and maintaining vehicles, ships, and aircraft, and paying contractors for military training simulations) is less than the cost of a failing Medicare program by $20-40 billion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7304300.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financi...f_the_Iraq_War

“The financial cost of the war..[ ].. over $845 billion to the U.S., with the total cost to the U.S. economy estimated at $3 trillion.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

Show me an example of a government nationalizing health care and the result being faster, better, cheaper healthcare.

Also, you are correct that only the richest people would carry the system. This is evil incarnate. Why should people be allowed to own BMWs when I'm stuck with an old beater? I mean, shouldn't we all get the same privileges as the upper crust? What about people who can't afford air conditioning/heating in adverse climate regions? Shouldn't the rich people with central air have to give something up so poor folks can have cooling and heating, too? Oh, and how about gas prices? Shouldn't they jack up the price of super unleaded to like $20/gallon so the poor people who can only afford regular unleaded are subsidized by the mean old rich people who drive cars that require super? My point, as vaguely as I could possibly make it, is that once you start down this path, where does it end? When people feel entitled to freely usurp the earnings of people who work harder/smarter/longer than them and are backed up by a government that will jail/fine/assault/kill people who do not want to give up their hard-earned cash, what incentive would they have to do for themselves?

Evil incarnate? Wow. Way to take things way out of proportion. We aren’t talking about full blown communism here dude. In principle I agree with you, communism is incredibly detrimental to society, both financially and socially.
But we are talking about providing a service, paramount to people’s health, which should be provided, to ALL, no matter of ability to pay, or previous health problems, because it is the basis, in a society as rich as yours or my own, for human rights, which your country values highly I believe.
If the fire service in your country were run like the health service what is the incentive to put out a fire in someone’s house who isn’t insured?
I could not for one second imagine firemen going up to a burning building and go.. “Right well we’ve got everyone out.. Do they have insurance? No, you say?! Hmm, can they pay? .. Well that’s a shame. Good luck”
Same deal with the police.

Why can't I imagine something like that happening?

Because It isn't run for a financial benefit! It's run out of the moral obligation to help those in need, and guess how it's financed? taxes. Yes the ones that rich ppl contribute a lot too (one hopes).
You could argue that people wouldn't allow something like that to happen.. right? Well it happens in health care..

I apologise if I sound somewhat peeved. But I don’t take kindly to someone calling my own personal beliefs ie the belief that everyone should be given an equal opportunity to life itself, to be evil incarnate.
Please understand, I am not trying to belittle the healthcare system in the US, as many of you said it needs reforms, especially the Medicare program. But this isn’t because it’s government run. It’s because the people in charge are idiots that should have been fired a long time ago.

Show me an example of a government nationalizing health care and the result being faster, better, cheaper healthcare.

Germany.. France..
See this is where matter of opinion comes into play.
On the one hand the US system: Those with adequate insurance, and of certain respectability will get the red carpet treatment. The US might have very good results to speak of when looking at the treatment of those with insurance. But what about the uninsured?

Now I'm not going to say that the UK has a good system, because to be perfectly honest it's a load of crap. Would we change it for a system currently adopted in the US? That would be a no. And again please don’t see this as some anti-American viewpoint because it truly isn’t. It is just that the UK populous would never allow the NHS to be taken away from them. The protection of those most vulnerable in our society is what many strive for.
I would like to point something out here btw.

The UK and US are nearly polar opposites when it comes to health care, and tbh perfect examples of how fudged up it can get.
The reason I mention France and Germany is twofold. Firstly because they are examples of better Healthcare systems then both the US and the UK, but adopt two different methods.

In France it’s almost exclusively government run. It has, according to the World health organisation (WHO) the BEST healthcare system in the World! Why is it so good? Well I make fun of the French some times, that they complain and strike about pretty much everything. But that is the beauty of it. If the general population is the governing body over how well something is doing, there is little room for inefficiency and corruption. It does still happen, but ppl are nearly lynched for it.

EDIT: soz got carried away there. The entire population must pay compulsory health insurance. The insurers are non-profit independent agencies not linked to the State. A premium is deducted from all employees' pay automatically. An employee pays 0.75% of salary to this insurance, and the employer pays an amount to the value of 12.8% of the employee's salary. Those earning less than 6,600 euros per year do not make health insurance payments. (which essentially is tax, but the money is handled independently )

Germany on the other hand is at a 65%-35% split in govt-private health care. How does it work there? Well the national health coverage is universal, however if ppl (usually richer people) were to prefer private treatment and health insurance they are welcome to do so. However they will always have that fundamental universal coverage provided to them by law.

Case in point: Canada.
There are thousands of women in Canada who have to come to the USA to have a baby due to hospital overcrowding. All universal healthcare does is amplify the problems the country currently has.

I hate to throw something else up in the air :P but If those 40-45million people in the US who don’t have health insurance were treated properly (as they deserve), there might be some more overcrowding. These are after all the people that are likely to need it most, and yet they are left behind.