Liberal free for all coming to an end

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by Tread

I don’t know and doubt that Canada and England are looking to replace their whole health system, but they are still significant cheaper than the old US health system.

If you have knowledge about it you possible can explain me [B]rational[\B] how it gets more expensive with a system that is cheaper in every other country. I have no interest what you think of single persons, only about what is financial wrong about the health reform? What is different to other countries where a social health care with comparable quality works?

http://www.burtonreport.com/infhealt...healthserv.htm

Not the page I was looking for but it will do.

The cost is not in the price tag, it is in the budget. If a government can not find the funds to pay for something, ( and they are of the mind of the liberal left here in the USA, ) then the cost does not matter. If you have a piece tag of $20 but only have $5 on hand then it simply is not affordable.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

http://www.burtonreport.com/infhealt...healthserv.htm

Not the page I was looking for but it will do.

I assume the above was a reply to my first paragraph and not my question.

The Link doesn?t do it for me. It names flaws of mostly the British system. I could also say that a republic doesn?t work good, look at Egypt who are formal a republic (maybe a bit extreme as an example).
If I get it right the article is written by one doctor, Charles V. Burton, and all further Links go to the same site, and there are no references. Mr. Burton seems to me somewhat biased in that area:

Originally Posted by www.burtonreport.com

There are some indications (however slight) that the seemingly inexorable rise of the socialistic mentality (along with its more virulent cousins, fascism and communism) may have reached their "high tide."

There is not the perfect health system, and no one says you have to adopt the English system.
As example take Italy who have developed a system close to the British, and they are doing pretty well. Or take France as a different example. There are also systems with a basic health care and an extra private care for everyone who wants more.

Originally Posted by Rainrider

The cost is not in the price tag, it is in the budget. If a government can not find the funds to pay for something, ( and they are of the mind of the liberal left here in the USA, ) then the cost does not matter. If you have a piece tag of $20 but only have $5 on hand then it simply is not affordable.

That is a very bad analogy with the price tag. You totally forget the ongoing costs.
If you assume the USA exists more than 20 years, you could take a ?credit? and save/spent less money over the time.
Simplified you pay twice as much as countries with comparable health care, relative few people get health service or too late, and a lot of people get bankrupt to afford health care in your country.

But I want an answer to:
What did they wrong with the Obama care that it wouldn?t get closer to other countries in price? Why so many say you can not afford it, when your ongoing health costs eat a bigger hole in your budget over time.

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by Tread

I assume the above was a reply to my first paragraph and not my question.

The Link doesn?t do it for me. It names flaws of mostly the British system. I could also say that a republic doesn?t work good, look at Egypt who are formal a republic (maybe a bit extreme as an example).
If I get it right the article is written by one doctor, Charles V. Burton, and all further Links go to the same site, and there are no references. Mr. Burton seems to me somewhat biased in that area:



There is not the perfect health system, and no one says you have to adopt the English system.
As example take Italy who have developed a system close to the British, and they are doing pretty well. Or take France as a different example. There are also systems with a basic health care and an extra private care for everyone who wants more.



That is a very bad analogy with the price tag. You totally forget the ongoing costs.
If you assume the USA exists more than 20 years, you could take a ?credit? and save/spent less money over the time.
Simplified you pay twice as much as countries with comparable health care, relative few people get health service or too late, and a lot of people get bankrupt to afford health care in your country.

But I want an answer to:
What did they wrong with the Obama care that it wouldn?t get closer to other countries in price? Why so many say you can not afford it, when your ongoing health costs eat a bigger hole in your budget over time.

If we are to bring down health cost in this nation, I feel it be best to start by stopping all the silly lawsuits that cost doctors and or hospitals well over 2 million a year to ether fight or just pay the person off. To bring this to an end, I would say if a person does sue another, and they loss. What ever they sued for they should have to pay out. Also we need more people with commonsense to sit on the jury. There simply is no way I would have said that McDonald's should have had to pay out any thing over some one spilling coffee on them self. Or that any one other than one doing the smoking is respectable for their getting COPD from the cigarettes. This nation needs to face the fact that people are responsible for their own actions. Not look for the fast buck by saying McDonald's made me fat. If they push away the fries, and don't eat food that is know to be fating, or just stooped eating at fast food, would they loss wight?
Now get me wrong, ( seems most every one want on here wants to make any one that does see things there way as the bad guy) I do not think a doctor should be allowed to make a blatant mistake and not pay for it. How ever to sue them for simply thinking you had a cold and it turned out to be allegories, now that going to fare. And yes that did happen right in my little town. The doctor rather than fight it, simply paid them off, and went on about his rat killing. I think he should have fought it my self. Then if you look at the pay out it was less than the cost to fight. So in a way it does add up. That would just be a first step. Next I would want to know why it is that in Mexico, you can get the same drug made by Johnson and Johnson, for less that 1/2 the price.
I could go on and on about the things I see wrong. And even if there is a legit reason for any of it, there has to be a way to fix it. Like killing some of the regulations faced by business in this nation. Lower taxes and fight hard to bring jobs back into this nation that have been shipped over sea's. Trust me I can on for days and even years about what is wrong in this nation. Every bit of would lead back to the government. Ether in taxes, NAFTA, the EPA, and so on.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

If we are to bring down health cost in this nation, ...
...
I could go on and on about the things I see wrong. And even if there is a legit reason for any of it, there has to be a way to fix it. Like killing some of the regulations faced by business in this nation. Lower taxes and fight hard to bring jobs back into this nation that have been shipped over sea's. Trust me I can on for days and even years about what is wrong in this nation. Every bit of would lead back to the government. Ether in taxes, NAFTA, the EPA, and so on.

Even if you cut taxes to zero and pay premiums for producing in USA you can?t compete with the low wages of some countries. It?s an illusion to think that alone would solve the problem.

Except for your distend sue everything and your peculiar jury decisions, Europe has similar problems with evil pharmacy concerns, dubious price arrangements, or ?inventing? new product that do the same for double price, and so on.

But my question, you try to evade from, is about your former social health care plans. The idea all pay in, so that a single one, and in summation everyone, has to pay less.
Why they say it would get even more expensive? Why can every other country do it cheaper with a flood of different realizations?

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by Tread

Even if you cut taxes to zero and pay premiums for producing in USA you can’t compete with the low wages of some countries. It’s an illusion to think that alone would solve the problem.

Except for your distend sue everything and your peculiar jury decisions, Europe has similar problems with evil pharmacy concerns, dubious price arrangements, or “inventing” new product that do the same for double price, and so on.

But my question, you try to evade from, is about your former social health care plans. The idea all pay in, so that a single one, and in summation everyone, has to pay less.



Why they say it would get even more expensive? Why can every other country do it cheaper with a flood of different realizations?

I never said that alone cutting taxes would bring jobs back to the USA. I know full well that we would have to pull out of NAFTA, there would have to be some kind of import tax, ( on home based companies as well as an export tax.) It would take me some time to put anything together that would have a chance of working. Though give some time I bet I can. The place to start would be looking back to see just what got them moving over sea's in the first place. Though I know it had to with the drop of both import and export tax, I also know there was a lot more to it than that. This is not something we can just put a bandage on.

Not sure what you are asking on the next part. If you can make it bit more clear I will try to answer it.

Like I stated before, the cost would have to go up to pay all the new taxes that will be imposed. Also it will end up costing more for the tax payer do to the large # of folks that will be placed on government insurances.
Let try to show what I mean.
I will work with a made up company here. Let call it X Inc. They now have lets say 1000 people working for them. They are paying out 100,000 a year to help the employees with health coverage. Now under Obama care, they can keep paying out the 100,000 or drop alll coverage and pay out only 10,000 a year to cover the fines. What would you do? So given that almost all will drop any coverage they now keep, you have another 1000 people that will be forced to except Obama care. Add to that the some, (lets make the math easy here, ) 1000 others like X Inc that will do the same, and the cost keeps going up. I am not talking the cost of care, I am talking the cost to the tax payer. The Obama administration has already shown the world it can not run a used car lot, so what makes any one think they can run a national health care system?

[Tread]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

I never said that alone cutting taxes would bring jobs back to the USA. I know full well that we would have to pull out of NAFTA, there would have to be some kind of import tax, ( on home based companies as well as an export tax.) ?

I got the impression that some of you US Americans think tax changes make companies produce more in the USA. But the profit made out of low wages in overseas is multiple higher for the companies. (btw not the topic I want to talk about.)

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Not sure what you are asking on the next part. If you can make it bit more clear I will try to answer it.

There was no question. Only want to say that your pharmacy problems are no excuse for your high costs, (and a little backbite to your judiciary). Ignore it.

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Like I stated before, the cost would have to go up to pay all the new taxes that will be imposed. Also it will end up costing more for the tax payer do to the large # of folks that will be placed on government insurances.

But why? I know nearly nothing about Obama care.
There are also more people who pay the taxes, that would make it cheaper. More people would mean lower bills, too. Less people would get bankrupt, who cause losses in many places. In my opinion it would even decrease crime to some degree, because of that.

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Let try to show what I mean.
I will work with a made up company here. Let call it X Inc. ?
? The Obama administration has already shown the world it can not run a used car lot, so what makes any one think they can run a national health care system?

So you say that companies usually supporting the health insurance of every employer, and with Obama care they don?t have to, but instead would have to pay a much smaller fine to the government? And in the end companies has more money, the government or the tax payer have to pay the missing money? And the insurance company bills stay the same, but more people pay in?
Obama care can?t be that simple and stupid.
I don?t know what you mean with the run a used car lot.

[randolph]

We had full employment a few years back. True, alot of it was in the building industry. What pisses me off, is we gave billions to the banks so they could loan money to companies so they would hire more workers. The problem is that the companies aren't going to hire more workers unless there is more demand for their goods. So the money sits there while the bankers take huge bonuses with our money.
It's a backasswards situation. With all that money the government could have organized massive reconstruction projects (like WPA in 1930s) to hire the unemployed to build and repair infrastructure. Once people had jobs and income, they could buy more stuff causing the companies to hire more employees to meet the increased demand.
Seems simple doesn't it?
So why hasn't Obama implemented such a program?
Guess who really runs the country.

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by Tread

I got the impression that some of you US Americans think tax changes make companies produce more in the USA. But the profit made out of low wages in overseas is multiple higher for the companies. (btw not the topic I want to talk about.)

Well as I said it would take some time. Tax cuts by them self won't bring the jobs back, though with the use of other things like import taxes and so on we might be able to.

There was no question. Only want to say that your pharmacy problems are no excuse for your high costs, (and a little backbite to your judiciary). Ignore it.

Well that makes it even better. I am always talking badly of how things are done in this nation.



But why? I know nearly nothing about Obama care.
There are also more people who pay the taxes, that would make it cheaper. More people would mean lower bills, too. Less people would get bankrupt, who cause losses in many places. In my opinion it would even decrease crime to some degree, because of that.

To the individual the cost would go up, as the hospitals rais the cost of care to pay the new tax placed on them so the Feds could bring what would be needed to pay for every one Government insurances.

So you say that companies usually supporting the health insurance of every employer, and with Obama care they don’t have to, but instead would have to pay a much smaller fine to the government? And in the end companies has more money, the government or the tax payer have to pay the missing money? And the insurance company bills stay the same, but more people pay in?
Obama care can’t be that simple and stupid.

Companies now offer a benefits package. The insurances is not forced on you can ether take or simply opt out. They do this to attract new employees. After all the benefits package is added into your wages, only you never see the cash. Let try to show it this way. If you get your health insurance, and it cost you 500 a mouth, then your company offers you the same coverage for 200, they pay the other 300, then you just got a raise of 300 a mouth.
Now with Obama care if that same company drops all insurance from the benefits package. Opting to pay the tax/ fine imposed on them, it would drop their cost to some thing like 150 per mouth per employ. A savings of 150 per mouth per employ. Their employees still get health insurances through Obama care, and the company saves 1/2 of they had been paing out.

I don’t know what you mean with the run a used car lot.

Obumer, in his sad attempt to push GM sales up, did what called cars for clunkers.The idea was that you could bring in any car, over 15 or 20 years old. (Please don't hold to the age of the car I may be wrong) You would get 1500 I think it was for that car. Only if you traded it for a smart car. One that used electricity to run. Well a lot of people jumped on it, and the feds still have got that paid for. In a way what they did was give you 1500 for a car they were going to crush and sell for scrap. Much the same as me giving you 1500 to bring me a 100. Sad but true.