Wait, I thought that the UK NHS kills old people, so how come people have a longer life expectancy in the UK?FatherTed wrote:
Socialised Healthcare is the Devil
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc58 … OChart.jpg
Rightclick the pic> View image (and even then it's a bit small)
cooked this up using WHO stats.
conspiricy propagated by the commie evil liberals, lets be honest.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Wait, I thought that the UK NHS kills old people, so how come people have a longer life expectancy in the UK?FatherTed wrote:
Socialised Healthcare is the Devil
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc58 … OChart.jpg
Rightclick the pic> View image (and even then it's a bit small)
cooked this up using WHO stats.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
You've sort of made my point for me. Clearly, the amount we pay over what the rest of the world pays doesn't usually translate to that much better care per dollar. Healthcare is like anything else in that you have the law of diminishing returns. Once you start spending past a certain point, the extra cost isn't worth it.FEOS wrote:
Who are you (or anyone else) to decide that? You would assume that the benefits of health care are linear to the amount expended. That is a flawed assumption.
I take that back. Admittedly, I was going by a previous ranking set I had seen that put Norway above us. I can see now that the most recent rankings show that the most competitive country is actually the U.S.FEOS wrote:
By what measure?
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gcr/2008/rankings.pdf
It's small in proportion to what NHS's require. In other words, it's not really comparable to a NHS, because they serve all of a population, not just the elderly and needy.FEOS wrote:
At more than 20% of annual federal expenditures, Medicare is hardly a "relatively small program".
I could list out a lot of things we could cut, but unfortunately, no one in power seems interested in cutting spending.FEOS wrote:
It absolutely IS an issue. What areas are you going to cut? How are you going to deal with the ramifications of said cuts? That is an overly simplistic approach that ignores the scope of the issue at hand.
And those people aren't looking at the big picture of how the health of the public determines the health of the economy.FEOS wrote:
Many believe individual health care is an individual responsibility as well.
No, it's not. That is completely ludicrous and totally at odds with the actual economic data.PureFodder wrote:
Currently the rest of the US economy is paying for the healthcare industry, if healthcare spending drops, it means that other businesses are paying less to cover the healthcare costs of their employees. The cascading effect will include most of the economy increasing profits, increasing exports/reducing imports as they become more efficient and therefore more competative, and as a result of that expanding and hiring more people. This will both even out the lost tax income AND reduce the trade deficit. At the moment the healthcare industry is wasting hundreds of billions of dollars each year.FEOS wrote:
Again, that ignores the cascading effects of socializing 1/6th of the GDP. There are reductions in tax receipts associated with that...which only amplifies the deficit-creating aspect of this.
And again completely ignores the cascading impact of socializing 1/6th of the US economy.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
That's not for YOU to decide, Turq. If people want to spend the money on their health care, that is their right.Turquoise wrote:
You've sort of made my point for me. Clearly, the amount we pay over what the rest of the world pays doesn't usually translate to that much better care per dollar. Healthcare is like anything else in that you have the law of diminishing returns. Once you start spending past a certain point, the extra cost isn't worth it.FEOS wrote:
Who are you (or anyone else) to decide that? You would assume that the benefits of health care are linear to the amount expended. That is a flawed assumption.
The best example we have of an NHS here is Medicare. It covers a small portion of the population...and it runs at over 20% of federal expenditures. How do you see expanding it to cover the entire population NOT to be completely economically unworkable?Turquoise wrote:
It's small in proportion to what NHS's require. In other words, it's not really comparable to a NHS, because they serve all of a population, not just the elderly and needy.FEOS wrote:
At more than 20% of annual federal expenditures, Medicare is hardly a "relatively small program".
Sure you could list a lot of things you think need to be cut. But you don't understand the interdependencies or the legal requirements for the spending that's in place. Just cutting spending isn't as simple as you think.Turquoise wrote:
I could list out a lot of things we could cut, but unfortunately, no one in power seems interested in cutting spending.FEOS wrote:
It absolutely IS an issue. What areas are you going to cut? How are you going to deal with the ramifications of said cuts? That is an overly simplistic approach that ignores the scope of the issue at hand.
Yet you've pointed out that our economy is one of the most competitive in the world...but that's just not possible with our flawed medical care system, is it? Your logic doesn't mesh with reality, Turq.Turquoise wrote:
And those people aren't looking at the big picture of how the health of the public determines the health of the economy.FEOS wrote:
Many believe individual health care is an individual responsibility as well.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
What makes you think that a socialized system wouldn't allow you to spend more on private care?FEOS wrote:
That's not for YOU to decide, Turq. If people want to spend the money on their health care, that is their right.
The way it usually works is that basic care is paid for by taxes, while you can still purchase supplemental private care. That's how it works in France and most other systems. Why would it be different here?
It isn't unworkable, it just requires a tax structure similar to a place like France. You'd pay a VAT, and income taxes would be higher for the wealthy.FEOS wrote:
The best example we have of an NHS here is Medicare. It covers a small portion of the population...and it runs at over 20% of federal expenditures. How do you see expanding it to cover the entire population NOT to be completely economically unworkable?
Well, like I said, if we changed our tax code to resemble that of a place like France, it would be much less of an issue.FEOS wrote:
Sure you could list a lot of things you think need to be cut. But you don't understand the interdependencies or the legal requirements for the spending that's in place. Just cutting spending isn't as simple as you think.
Your assumption is that competitiveness is an accurate measure of quality of life. It's not. Wealth disparity and access to healthcare are.FEOS wrote:
Yet you've pointed out that our economy is one of the most competitive in the world...but that's just not possible with our flawed medical care system, is it? Your logic doesn't mesh with reality, Turq.
Because almost every other developed nation on earth has done it with little trouble and in many cases works far better then your privatised system.FEOS wrote:
The best example we have of an NHS here is Medicare. It covers a small portion of the population...and it runs at over 20% of federal expenditures. How do you see expanding it to cover the entire population NOT to be completely economically unworkable?Turquoise wrote:
It's small in proportion to what NHS's require. In other words, it's not really comparable to a NHS, because they serve all of a population, not just the elderly and needy.FEOS wrote:
At more than 20% of annual federal expenditures, Medicare is hardly a "relatively small program".
Its the firearms debate all over again, Just because you can't do it, you say it can't be done. Yet ignore that there are countless successful examples throughout the rest of the world.
What exactly is wrong with what I wrote:FEOS wrote:
No, it's not. That is completely ludicrous and totally at odds with the actual economic data.PureFodder wrote:
Currently the rest of the US economy is paying for the healthcare industry, if healthcare spending drops, it means that other businesses are paying less to cover the healthcare costs of their employees. The cascading effect will include most of the economy increasing profits, increasing exports/reducing imports as they become more efficient and therefore more competative, and as a result of that expanding and hiring more people. This will both even out the lost tax income AND reduce the trade deficit. At the moment the healthcare industry is wasting hundreds of billions of dollars each year.FEOS wrote:
Again, that ignores the cascading effects of socializing 1/6th of the GDP. There are reductions in tax receipts associated with that...which only amplifies the deficit-creating aspect of this.
And again completely ignores the cascading impact of socializing 1/6th of the US economy.
a) Other US businesses primarily pay the costs of US healthcare through taxes and employee health insurance
b) Paying less money to fund the healthcare system is good for business as it reduced costs.
c) Reducing costs makes your business more competative with foreign imports/exports therefore allowing US companies to export more and import less, improving the US trade deficit.
d) As they expand they will take on more workers.
In the cascading effects, all the actual useful bits of the heath system will still be paid for, doctors, drugs (unless that idiot law that prevents the US government from negotiating lowered drug prices gets scrapped), hospitals, equipment etc. It'll cut down costs in advertising, administration and insurance company profits, but they all occur at the expense of the rest of the economy who are currently paying for it. At the moment a large proportion of the US healthcare industry is essentially building themselves a bridge to nowhere at the expense of other businesses who are paying it's costs. Yes lots of money and jobs are involved with the healthcare bridge to nowhere so it acts as a kind of kensyan stimulus, but the economic impact of this spending is almost nothing. The money could be spent on something useful with long term economic benefits.
What do you thing the cascading effects will be from removing a significant financial burden from most US businesses as you claim to know the actual economic data but haven't presented it at all?
Anyone consider that we subsidize part of the world's health care with all our innovations?
Last edited by Harmor (2009-08-16 12:24:27)
That subsidization would be much more evenhanded throughout the world if we socialized.Harmor wrote:
Anyone consider that we subsidize part of the world's health care with all our innovations?
As things currently stand, we're the healthcare market's chump, so to speak.
Who determines what constitutes "basic care"? So are you saying the disproportionate number of low-income blacks with diabetes wouldn't benefit from socialized medicine? Diabetes care is certainly not "basic"...or do you make exceptions?Turquoise wrote:
What makes you think that a socialized system wouldn't allow you to spend more on private care?FEOS wrote:
That's not for YOU to decide, Turq. If people want to spend the money on their health care, that is their right.
The way it usually works is that basic care is paid for by taxes, while you can still purchase supplemental private care. That's how it works in France and most other systems. Why would it be different here?
Taxes already are higher for the wealthy. Perhaps if we had a more reasonable tax structure overall, we could afford to pay for it. But we don't. So we can't.Turq wrote:
It isn't unworkable, it just requires a tax structure similar to a place like France. You'd pay a VAT, and income taxes would be higher for the wealthy.FEOS wrote:
The best example we have of an NHS here is Medicare. It covers a small portion of the population...and it runs at over 20% of federal expenditures. How do you see expanding it to cover the entire population NOT to be completely economically unworkable?
See above. Health care reform is bigger than health care reform.Turq wrote:
Well, like I said, if we changed our tax code to resemble that of a place like France, it would be much less of an issue.FEOS wrote:
Sure you could list a lot of things you think need to be cut. But you don't understand the interdependencies or the legal requirements for the spending that's in place. Just cutting spending isn't as simple as you think.
That's not my assumption at all. I was simply going off your previously-provided economic competitiveness metric.Turq wrote:
Your assumption is that competitiveness is an accurate measure of quality of life. It's not. Wealth disparity and access to healthcare are.FEOS wrote:
Yet you've pointed out that our economy is one of the most competitive in the world...but that's just not possible with our flawed medical care system, is it? Your logic doesn't mesh with reality, Turq.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
And our corporate taxes are already less competitive than other countries'. But let's go ahead and raise them anyway.PureFodder wrote:
What exactly is wrong with what I wrote:FEOS wrote:
No, it's not. That is completely ludicrous and totally at odds with the actual economic data.PureFodder wrote:
Currently the rest of the US economy is paying for the healthcare industry, if healthcare spending drops, it means that other businesses are paying less to cover the healthcare costs of their employees. The cascading effect will include most of the economy increasing profits, increasing exports/reducing imports as they become more efficient and therefore more competative, and as a result of that expanding and hiring more people. This will both even out the lost tax income AND reduce the trade deficit. At the moment the healthcare industry is wasting hundreds of billions of dollars each year.
And again completely ignores the cascading impact of socializing 1/6th of the US economy.
a) Other US businesses primarily pay the costs of US healthcare through taxes and employee health insurance
Where do you get this? How is moving 1/6th of our economy to government control (and subsequently increasing taxes to cover it) "paying less"?PureFodder wrote:
b) Paying less money to fund the healthcare system is good for business as it reduced costs.
Wow. That's a reach. Does it solve world hunger and make people stop fighting, too?PureFodder wrote:
c) Reducing costs makes your business more competative with foreign imports/exports therefore allowing US companies to export more and import less, improving the US trade deficit.
How will they expand when they are having to pay more in taxes, have higher absentee rates because people are having to wait forever for care, etc? Government-run health care in this country is ludicrous. Expanding it will not make it less ludicrous.PureFodder wrote:
d) As they expand they will take on more workers.
However, as has been posted in multiple other threads related to this topic, a public option for health insurance is fine...so long as there is true legal reform wrt health care in this country. A single-payer system is not the answer. Competition in the industry is.
Oh, and here's a little secret: Public-option insurance is still run by a private (for profit) company(ies). There's that evil old free enterprise again.
In a perfect world...maybe. But the world is not perfect. The government's payment levels are laughably low. So low that without reforms in other key areas (torts, etc), hospitals wouldn't be able to stay open without subsidies from the government (hidden costs). Pharmaceutical companies wouldn't get the funding for current R&D levels without subsidy from the government (more hidden costs). DME manufacturers and service provision companies wouldn't be able to manufacture/rent/sell DME and associated medical equipment without subsidy from the government (yet another hidden cost).PureFodder wrote:
In the cascading effects, all the actual useful bits of the heath system will still be paid for, doctors, drugs (unless that idiot law that prevents the US government from negotiating lowered drug prices gets scrapped), hospitals, equipment etc. It'll cut down costs in advertising, administration and insurance company profits, but they all occur at the expense of the rest of the economy who are currently paying for it. At the moment a large proportion of the US healthcare industry is essentially building themselves a bridge to nowhere at the expense of other businesses who are paying it's costs. Yes lots of money and jobs are involved with the healthcare bridge to nowhere so it acts as a kind of kensyan stimulus, but the economic impact of this spending is almost nothing. The money could be spent on something useful with long term economic benefits.
Right now, it is the privately-run insurance companies that end up subsidizing the government, not the other way around.
The actual economic data isn't available. Because people don't look at the cascading effects. I've pointed it out pretty clearly above. My observations are from personal experience, dealing with both government-run care, government-run insurance, and privately-run care and privately-run insurance. I look at the explanations of benefits. I see what is charged by the provider and what is paid by the government vice what is paid by private insurance. The differences are staggering.PureFodder wrote:
What do you thing the cascading effects will be from removing a significant financial burden from most US businesses as you claim to know the actual economic data but haven't presented it at all?
So discount my personal, first-hand experience with both sides of the issue in the US. Go ahead and worship your internet-derived analysis and your perspective that is developed absent any actual experience with the US system.
I'll stick with my own, thank you.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Tax rates are, but not tax burden. Tax rates tell you nothing.FEOS wrote:
And our corporate taxes are already less competitive than other countries'. But let's go ahead and raise them anyway.PureFodder wrote:
What exactly is wrong with what I wrote:FEOS wrote:
No, it's not. That is completely ludicrous and totally at odds with the actual economic data.
And again completely ignores the cascading impact of socializing 1/6th of the US economy.
a) Other US businesses primarily pay the costs of US healthcare through taxes and employee health insurance
Because you no longer have to pay for the inefficient private part.FEOS wrote:
Where do you get this? How is moving 1/6th of our economy to government control (and subsequently increasing taxes to cover it) "paying less"?PureFodder wrote:
b) Paying less money to fund the healthcare system is good for business as it reduced costs.
So if you reduce the costs on a company, that doesn't allow them to reduce the price of their goods/services whilst maintaining profits? Or maybe lower prices don't increase how competative the goods are vs. foreign goods? Maybe reducing imports and increasing exports due to lowed prices (in comparison to foreign comperitors) doesn't reduce trade deficits? This is utterly basic economics you're arguing against.FEOS wrote:
Wow. That's a reach. Does it solve world hunger and make people stop fighting, too?PureFodder wrote:
c) Reducing costs makes your business more competative with foreign imports/exports therefore allowing US companies to export more and import less, improving the US trade deficit.
More taxes, but they no longer have to pay for their employees private healthcare insurance. The costs per person are less, and as we all know, it's ultimately business that pays all these costs. When you have reduced costs... well... see above for that explaination.FEOS wrote:
How will they expand when they are having to pay more in taxes, have higher absentee rates because people are having to wait forever for care, etc? Government-run health care in this country is ludicrous. Expanding it will not make it less ludicrous.PureFodder wrote:
d) As they expand they will take on more workers.
Which is one of the resons that I think the current US proposals are fairly pointless and won't address the problems, as I've said before.FEOS wrote:
However, as has been posted in multiple other threads related to this topic, a public option for health insurance is fine...so long as there is true legal reform wrt health care in this country. A single-payer system is not the answer. Competition in the industry is.
Oh, and here's a little secret: Public-option insurance is still run by a private (for profit) company(ies). There's that evil old free enterprise again.
Every other country manages this task without imploding. Hospitals for example in the US have to employ an army of administrators to sort out the endless complexities of thousands of different types of insurance from large numbers of different insurers. In a public healthcare system, there's one insurer and one plan. The savings here are huge. Pharmacuticals companies already earn something around $5 in extra profits due to patents for each dollar they spend in research. (if you count research on new drugs and exclude money spent copycating existing drugs to get around existing patents that number rises to $8 extra profit per dollar spent on research). This is an insanely wasteful system that needs an overhaul. The idea that they couldn't support future R&D in the current system is completely laughable. The situation is similar in equiptment supply, where the patents add huge costs, distort the market, and worst of all, most of the research that goes into the products comes from public spending in the first place.FEOS wrote:
In a perfect world...maybe. But the world is not perfect. The government's payment levels are laughably low. So low that without reforms in other key areas (torts, etc), hospitals wouldn't be able to stay open without subsidies from the government (hidden costs). Pharmaceutical companies wouldn't get the funding for current R&D levels without subsidy from the government (more hidden costs). DME manufacturers and service provision companies wouldn't be able to manufacture/rent/sell DME and associated medical equipment without subsidy from the government (yet another hidden cost).PureFodder wrote:
In the cascading effects, all the actual useful bits of the heath system will still be paid for, doctors, drugs (unless that idiot law that prevents the US government from negotiating lowered drug prices gets scrapped), hospitals, equipment etc. It'll cut down costs in advertising, administration and insurance company profits, but they all occur at the expense of the rest of the economy who are currently paying for it. At the moment a large proportion of the US healthcare industry is essentially building themselves a bridge to nowhere at the expense of other businesses who are paying it's costs. Yes lots of money and jobs are involved with the healthcare bridge to nowhere so it acts as a kind of kensyan stimulus, but the economic impact of this spending is almost nothing. The money could be spent on something useful with long term economic benefits.
Right now, it is the privately-run insurance companies that end up subsidizing the government, not the other way around.
You started this page by saying my arguments go against the actual economic data, now you claim that this data isn't available?FEOS wrote:
The actual economic data isn't available. Because people don't look at the cascading effects. I've pointed it out pretty clearly above. My observations are from personal experience, dealing with both government-run care, government-run insurance, and privately-run care and privately-run insurance. I look at the explanations of benefits. I see what is charged by the provider and what is paid by the government vice what is paid by private insurance. The differences are staggering.PureFodder wrote:
What do you thing the cascading effects will be from removing a significant financial burden from most US businesses as you claim to know the actual economic data but haven't presented it at all?
So discount my personal, first-hand experience with both sides of the issue in the US. Go ahead and worship your internet-derived analysis and your perspective that is developed absent any actual experience with the US system.
I'll stick with my own, thank you.
You have literally no relavant experience of the economic ramifications and widespread effects that this has on the economy. You've never personally changed the US system from a private to public healthcare system. You haven't even undertaken extensive research based on the effects this would have upon various sectors of the economy, you haven't worked in planning and budgeting in the healthcare industry at all, you haven't even managed to make basic economic sense. Your experience is the equivalent of me claiming to have experience of how economic policies effects the construction industry because I live in a house, or that I am an expert in aerodynamics because I flew in a plane. At least I'm aware enough to know that I don't know that stuff and will rely on actual experts as opposed to being an armchair economist.
Harmor wrote:
Woman gives birth on pavement 'after being refused ambulance'
Think British medicine is still good?
100 fucking metres.... it would take longer to get the ambulance to her then for her to walk to the hospital.she was refused an ambulance and told to walk the 100m from her house in Leicester to the city's nearby Royal Infirmary.
Last edited by DrunkFace (2009-08-17 22:28:22)
Do you not think that anyone in America has been denied care by private health insurers?Harmor wrote:
Woman gives birth on pavement 'after being refused ambulance'
Think British medicine is still good?
It doesn't matter what I.. an American thinks.Harmor wrote:
Woman gives birth on pavement 'after being refused ambulance'
Think British medicine is still good?
If the British like it good for them.
It also doesn't matter what they (the rest of the world) thinks when it comes to our system. Although they sure do like to chime in.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Actually it does matter to us. After witnessing the results of the latest problems with the US economy and the worldwide results of that, it's sobering to hear that the potential problems with the US healthcare industry dwarf those created by the housing bubble collapse.Kmarion wrote:
It doesn't matter what I.. an American thinks.Harmor wrote:
Woman gives birth on pavement 'after being refused ambulance'
Think British medicine is still good?
If the British like it good for them.
It also doesn't matter what they (the rest of the world) thinks when it comes to our system. Although they sure do like to chime in.
Let me be a little clearer. I've personally experienced buying private health care for myself here and I am pleased with the results. The bottom line is your opinion has no value. Your self gratification and the thought that this topic is somehow "sobering" to you is a testament of your arrogance. You have made your opinion of America abundantly clear on this forum, telling us how we should be taxed and how we should model our healthcare system. You have no vote in the matter, and so your opinion has has no real weight.PureFodder wrote:
Actually it does matter to us. After witnessing the results of the latest problems with the US economy and the worldwide results of that, it's sobering to hear that the potential problems with the US healthcare industry dwarf those created by the housing bubble collapse.Kmarion wrote:
It doesn't matter what I.. an American thinks.Harmor wrote:
Woman gives birth on pavement 'after being refused ambulance'
Think British medicine is still good?
If the British like it good for them.
It also doesn't matter what they (the rest of the world) thinks when it comes to our system. Although they sure do like to chime in.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Here's a story:
I have a friend who is a relative of Princess Diana's "agent" - not sure exactly the title, but he's the guy who kept her schedule, etc.
He had a major health concern and the doctors told him to wait two years and see what happens. He booked a flight to Houston and got his cancer taken care of.
I hope this isn't what we are looking forward to. Probably not, but it sure shows the dangers in government interference, in my opinion.
I have a friend who is a relative of Princess Diana's "agent" - not sure exactly the title, but he's the guy who kept her schedule, etc.
He had a major health concern and the doctors told him to wait two years and see what happens. He booked a flight to Houston and got his cancer taken care of.
I hope this isn't what we are looking forward to. Probably not, but it sure shows the dangers in government interference, in my opinion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/ … 7916.shtml
60 Thousand Quit AARP Over Health Reform
60 Thousand Quit AARP Over Health Reform
I guess the only news that gets told is bad news to be fair.Pug wrote:
Here's a story:
I have a friend who is a relative of Princess Diana's "agent" - not sure exactly the title, but he's the guy who kept her schedule, etc.
He had a major health concern and the doctors told him to wait two years and see what happens. He booked a flight to Houston and got his cancer taken care of.
I hope this isn't what we are looking forward to. Probably not, but it sure shows the dangers in government interference, in my opinion.
Example1, i smashed my front teeth out, and within 1 hour i had new ones in. Example2, i broke my hand, the next day i met with my surgical team, and had top rate surgery done. Example3, my dad broke his leg, within two hours he was home with his leg in a cast, drinking a beer. Example4, my grandad contracted cancer. 4 days later he had a bed in a specialist cancer ward and enjoyed a fantastic QOL until the end.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
But as the effects of the US healthcare industry on the US economy will effect the global economy and therefore are likely to impact my life I am a stake holder in the process. The potential collapse of the US medical system is being viewed with plenty of concern by economists around the world as they have had a pertinent demonstration of what happens when the US economy goes off the rails for a bit.Kmarion wrote:
Let me be a little clearer. I've personally experienced buying private health care for myself here and I am pleased with the results. The bottom line is your opinion has no value. Your self gratification and the thought that this topic is somehow "sobering" to you is a testament of your arrogance. You have made your opinion of America abundantly clear on this forum, telling us how we should be taxed and how we should model our healthcare system. You have no vote in the matter, and so your opinion has has no real weight.PureFodder wrote:
Actually it does matter to us. After witnessing the results of the latest problems with the US economy and the worldwide results of that, it's sobering to hear that the potential problems with the US healthcare industry dwarf those created by the housing bubble collapse.Kmarion wrote:
It doesn't matter what I.. an American thinks.
If the British like it good for them.
It also doesn't matter what they (the rest of the world) thinks when it comes to our system. Although they sure do like to chime in.
How is any of what I said arrogant? the fact that the US system has a seious potential to impact me is arrogant? The real arrogance is people like you who claim to have in depth knowledge of the system simply by being involved with the end result of it. The idea that having had medical insurance means that you can speak with authority for 300,000,000 people and all their situations and know all the economic and personal effects that changes to the system can have is insane. When I buy a train ticket I don't claim to have any in depth knowledge of the transportation industry. When I buy some imported German sausages I don't claim to have relavant personal experience of the effects of the Euro on the British economy. That would be arrogance.
I did not say that I speak for 300 million people. You made that association because pointing out the absurdity makes you some how feel enlightened. However my real experience does have value, as opposed to a Google educated perception of what someone feels it is really like over here. I'm not basing this on just my own personal experience neither. I have friends and family that share their real day to day involvement with me. Some of them work in the healthcare industry. This knowledge is combined with the opportunity I share with you, to investigate the situation on a larger scale. Unfortunately this information is too often filled with bias interpretation. The US healthcare system isn't going to collapse. Far from it. However, if you have propped yourself up on an economy that you feel is on the verge of collapse then that is your problem. I'm critical of my own countries debt problem and I'm not looking for another country to blame or excuse it. Sometimes you have to look inwards to progress. It is not our responsibility to cater to you. Every country in the world acts in what believe to be their best interest. We are going to make our choices in domestic healthcare based on what we feel is right for our country. A fact you should think about accepting.PureFodder wrote:
But as the effects of the US healthcare industry on the US economy will effect the global economy and therefore are likely to impact my life I am a stake holder in the process. The potential collapse of the US medical system is being viewed with plenty of concern by economists around the world as they have had a pertinent demonstration of what happens when the US economy goes off the rails for a bit.Kmarion wrote:
Let me be a little clearer. I've personally experienced buying private health care for myself here and I am pleased with the results. The bottom line is your opinion has no value. Your self gratification and the thought that this topic is somehow "sobering" to you is a testament of your arrogance. You have made your opinion of America abundantly clear on this forum, telling us how we should be taxed and how we should model our healthcare system. You have no vote in the matter, and so your opinion has has no real weight.PureFodder wrote:
Actually it does matter to us. After witnessing the results of the latest problems with the US economy and the worldwide results of that, it's sobering to hear that the potential problems with the US healthcare industry dwarf those created by the housing bubble collapse.
How is any of what I said arrogant? the fact that the US system has a seious potential to impact me is arrogant? The real arrogance is people like you who claim to have in depth knowledge of the system simply by being involved with the end result of it. The idea that having had medical insurance means that you can speak with authority for 300,000,000 people and all their situations and know all the economic and personal effects that changes to the system can have is insane. When I buy a train ticket I don't claim to have any in depth knowledge of the transportation industry. When I buy some imported German sausages I don't claim to have relavant personal experience of the effects of the Euro on the British economy. That would be arrogance.
Xbone Stormsurgezz