Interesting health care articles.

[AtlCB]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html

August 22, 2007
Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study
By John Stossel

The New York Times recently declared "the disturbing truth ... that ... the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care."

As usual, the Times editors get it wrong.

They find evidence in a 2000 World Health Organization (WHO) rating of 191 nations and a Commonwealth Fund study of wealthy nations published last May.

In the WHO rankings, the United States finished 37th, behind nations like Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica. Finishing first and second were France and Italy. Michael Moore makes much of this in his movie "Sicko."

The Commonwealth Fund looked at Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States -- and ranked the U.S. last or next to last on all but one criterion.

So the verdict is in. The vaunted U.S. medical system is one of the worst.

But there's less to these studies than meets the eye. They measure something other than quality of medical care. So saying that the U.S. finished behind those other countries is misleading.

First let's acknowledge that the U.S. medical system has serious problems. But the problems stem from departures from free-market principles. The system is riddled with tax manipulation, costly insurance mandates and bureaucratic interference. Most important, six out of seven health-care dollars are spent by third parties, which means that most consumers exercise no cost-consciousness. As Milton Friedman always pointed out, no one spends other people's money as carefully as he spends his own.

Even with all that, it strains credulity to hear that the U.S. ranks far from the top. Sick people come to the United States for treatment. When was the last time you heard of someone leaving this country to get medical care? The last famous case I can remember is Rock Hudson, who went to France in the 1980s to seek treatment for AIDS.

So what's wrong with the WHO and Commonwealth Fund studies? Let me count the ways.

The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. But that's a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care problem.

Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.

When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.

Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south.

The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people -- 45 million -- without medical insurance. As I reported in previous columns, our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state.

Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.

For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.

Next week: the truth about the Commonwealth Fund study.

Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/another_bogus_report_card_for.html

August 29, 2007
Another Bogus Report Card for U.S. Medical Care
By John Stossel

In May, the Commonwealth Fund issued its latest comparison of the U.S. medical system with five other wealthy nations' systems: Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and Great Britain.

Predictably, the study begins: "Despite having the most costly health system in the world, the United States consistently underperforms."

I was immediately suspicious, considering the loaded study by the World Health Organization seven years ago. (I wrote about it last week.)

My suspicion was justified. It turns out the new study is almost as biased as the WHO's. The authors write, "The U.S. is the only country in the study without universal health insurance coverage, partly accounting for its poor performance on access, equity, and health outcomes."

I see. America "underperforms" because we don't have enough government intervention.

But while the U.S. lost points for not having national health insurance, the authors added, "[I]f insured, patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services."

That's an understatement. Insured Americans have almost immediate access to cutting-edge procedures performed by some of the best-trained doctors. It's why our outcomes for such diseases as prostate and breast cancer are markedly better than in Canada's and Britain's socialized systems. The Commonwealth Fund doesn't mention that.

The United States is the center of medical innovation for the world. When internists ranked the world's top 10 medical innovations, eight were developed thanks to American innovations. The Commonwealth Fund ignores all that and focuses almost exclusively on the problems of our uninsured population.

As I've noted previously, the problem of the 45 million uninsured is exaggerated. The statistics represent a snapshot, and many uninsured people are reinsured in less than a year. The same people are not uninsured year in and year out.

The Commonwealth Fund study divides "quality" into right (effective) care, safe care, coordinated care and patient-centered care. The U.S. placed fifth or sixth in the last three.

But where did the U.S. place in "right care"?

First.

"Right care" is the most important criterion because it includes things like how often women have mammograms and whether diabetics get proper treatment.

The Commonwealth Fund ranked the U.S. last in "equity": "Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick, not getting a recommended test, treatment or follow-up care ... because of costs."

But how much of that is due to the government's increasing the cost of care and insurance through mandates, a tax code that encourages reliance on expensive insurance and bureaucratic red tape?

The Commonwealth Fund's study has other problems. It was based on telephone interviews with patients and doctors. So it grades nations on people's perceptions without controlling for their expectations. Yet patients who live in a country with long waits for medical care and bureaucratic inefficiency may have low expectations.

More ridiculous is the arbitrary way the Commonwealth Fund assigns weight to each of its measures. The proportion of patients who say they got infected at a hospital counts about the same in the "quality" measure as the proportion of doctors who use automated computer systems to remind them to tell patients their test results. Those things aren't equal in my book.

The study's authors also consider having high administrative costs and spending the largest share of GDP on health care worse than having the highest share of patients who wait four months or more for surgery. This seems designed to make the U.S. look bad.

Finally, the study penalizes nations for having large numbers of patients who spent more than $1,000 on medical care out of pocket, as if third-party payment is somehow superior.

Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute's director of health policy studies, summed up what's wrong with the study: "The report does nothing more than reveal which nation does the worst job of satisfying the subjective preferences of the people who conducted this study."

Fans of the Canadian system should note that Canada ranked fifth out of six and did worse than the U.S. in many ways.

Are you listening, Michael Moore?

Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.

[Aikbach]

Health care reform starts with making sure malpractice suits are always legitimate and not the work of ambulance chasers such as his hairness John Edwards.

Frivolous lawsuits are what has driven premiums on all of us through the roof, everyone has to cover their butts from the wolves.

My roommate in college had a father who was an OBGYN in North Carolina, he delivered a woman that was a known crack addict's child even though she possessed no insurance.

Low and behold the child was born with severe complications, who ever thought a little thing like crack could inspire such, later her attorney settled out of court for 15 million dollars with his malpractice insurance, his name was John Edwards, he promptly went to get a haircut at Tiffany's. ( I inferred that last part)

[Sasquatch]

Throw out the 45 million uninsured and we're actually pretty good. :laugh2:

Thanks for clearing that up, John Stossel.

[AtlCB]

Throw out the 45 million uninsured and we're actually pretty good. :laugh2:

Thanks for clearing that up, John Stossel.I guess you missed the part where he wrote about who makes up the 45 million.

[zrinkill]

I guess you missed the part where he wrote about who makes up the 45 million.


That does not matter .... Michael Moore said we have the worst health care in the world ....

:lmao2:

[Sasquatch]

I guess you missed the part where he wrote about who makes up the 45 million.

Oh, I read it, but the gist was that it's only more like 23 million uninsured.

I honestly don't know why people defend this system so vehemently. It's inefficient (administrative costs are considerably more than medicaid), it restricts freedom of choice (what, my wife can no longer visit this hospital because our insurance company has decided to sever ties with it mid-way through the pregnancy?), it's punitive, it discourages people from seeking help at early stages of an ailment, and it leaves swathes of the population uninsured. There's a reason people in France and Scandinavia are not clamoring for a system like the United States but a sizable portion of our population wants a system like theirs.

No system of health care is perfect but some are more moral than others. Ours is designed foremost to allow people to capitalize on other people's illness and vulnerability. I reject that on principle alone and statistics seem to suggest that socialized or hybrid systems provide an equal if not better standard of care at less cost for the majority of their populations.

[Aikbach]

Oh, I read it, but the gist was that it's only more like 23 million uninsured.

I honestly don't know why people defend this system so vehemently. It's inefficient (administrative costs are considerably more than medicaid), it restricts freedom of choice (what, my wife can no longer visit this hospital because our insurance company has decided to sever ties with it mid-way through the pregnancy?), it's punitive, it discourages people from seeking help at early stages of an ailment, and it leaves swathes of the population uninsured. There's a reason people in France and Scandinavia are not clamoring for a system like the United States but a sizable portion of our population wants a system like theirs.

No system of health care is perfect but some are more moral than others. Ours is designed foremost to allow people to capitalize on other people's illness and vulnerability. I reject that on principle alone and statistics seem to suggest that socialized or hybrid systems provide an equal if not better standard of care at less cost for the majority of their populations.France and Scandinavia also have 80 percent tax brackets and sky high unemployment rates. The average Norweigian doesn't get a job until his 27th birthday because he doesn't have to legally, the state will take care of him, he doesn't have to think for himself or contribute to society, someone else's taxes will be redistributed by the state for his benefit.

If you want socialism go to France or Canada what stops you?

[AtlCB]

Oh, I read it, but the gist was that it's only more like 23 million uninsured.

I honestly don't know why people defend this system so vehemently. It's inefficient (administrative costs are considerably more than medicaid), it restricts freedom of choice (what, my wife can no longer visit this hospital because our insurance company has decided to sever ties with it mid-way through the pregnancy?), it's punitive, it discourages people from seeking help at early stages of an ailment, and it leaves swathes of the population uninsured. There's a reason people in France and Scandinavia are not clamoring for a system like the United States but a sizable portion of our population wants a system like theirs.

No system of health care is perfect but some are more moral than others. Ours is designed foremost to allow people to capitalize on other people's illness and vulnerability. I reject that on principle alone and statistics seem to suggest that socialized or hybrid systems provide an equal if not better standard of care at less cost for the majority of their populations.Actually, the number is closer to $5M. 20% are not citizens, 33% are eligible for government health care, and 37% make over $50k/yr. (they have the ability to afford insurance).

I honestly hope that your argument isn't that socialized medicine with give you more freedom of choice? :lmao: In most socialized health care systems, you are told where to go and when to go for preventative medicine.

Socialized medicine isn't really fair. Why should I pay for a hypochondriac to visit the ER frequently. Under our current system, this person would still have to shell out some of his/her money when he/she visits the ER.

You would also have to pay much more in taxes in order to have this system. Your insurance payments would seem tiny compared to the potential tax increase.

[zrinkill]

If you want socialism go to France or Canada what stops you?

:lmao2:

[Sasquatch]

If you want socialism go to France or Canada what stops you?

Because I don't need to. It's coming here within the next 50 years. The writing is on the wall. You guys are on the wrong side of history.

[zrinkill]

Because I don't need to. It's coming here within the next 50 years. The writing is on the wall. You guys are on the wrong side of history.

:lmao:

I love when people make claims that something is gonna happen in "50" years ....

Its like the global warming crowd ..... there is NO way to prove something like that.

way to go out on a limb Sassy ..... predict that in 100 years the earth will be taken over by machines next.

:rolleyes:

[Sasquatch]

:lmao:

I love when people make claims that something is gonna happen in "50" years ....

Its like the global warming crowd ..... there is NO way to prove something like that.

way to go out on a limb Sassy ..... predict that in 100 years the earth will be taken over by machines next.

:rolleyes:

As much as you would like to suggest that I'm merely pulling the prediction out of my Sass, it's based on information such as this:

Health Care Delivery
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.





.

"Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?"





.



Yes No Unsure

% % %
5/4-6/07
64 35 2




.

"Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all children under the age of 18, even if this would require higher taxes?"





.



Yes No Unsure

% % %
5/4-6/07
73 25 2
Along with increasing tolerance of gay marriage, it's an inevitable trend, in my humble opinion. As the baby boomers age, need more medical attention at a time when they are on fixed incomes, we'll see more and more pressure for this.

[Aikbach]

Because I don't need to. It's coming here within the next 50 years. The writing is on the wall. You guys are on the wrong side of history.Well what you want is fundamentally not American so I don't know why you bother staying in a land that makes you so cotton pickin' miserable.

If you are alive in 50 years to revel in socialism I'll be surprised and saddened by the outcome of such a wasteful and morally bankrupt system as socialism.

[Sasquatch]

Well what you want is fundamentally not American so I don't know why you bother staying in a land that makes you so cotton pickin' miserable.

If you are alive in 50 years to revel in socialism I'll be surprised and saddened by the outcome of such a wasteful and morally bankrupt system as socialism.

Remaining static is fundamentally un-American. What defines our country is its willingness to change and evolve. Socialized medicine is not socialism in the Soviet sense. The opponents of socialized medicine know this, of course, but that doesn't stop them from endlessly citing that bugbear.

Providing universal health care for Americans is "wasteful and morally bankrupt"? I suppose that says it all.

[Aikbach]

Remaining static is fundamentally un-American. What defines our country is its willingness to change and evolve. Socialized medicine is not socialism in the Soviet sense. The opponents of socialized medicine know this, of course, but that doesn't stop them from endlessly citing that bugbear.

Providing universal health care for Americans is "wasteful and morally bankrupt"? I suppose that says it all.What defines socialism as progress? I never proposed communism, but if the shoe size is but a fitting away from being such so be it.

The romanticized view you have of western Europe is remarkable seeming you forget that European socialism is actually subsidized by the American tax payer, a relic of the cold war, we are their national defense and they don't spend as much money on defense because they are aware that we are committed to European security.

Providing a welfare system under the guise of universal health care is morally abhorrent, if you hate bureaucracy now why would you expand it? Big government does not empower it enslaves, the European socialists are LAZY and state dollars fund euthanasia and abortion, something I would never pay for someone else to have done.

You want it, there are places to pursue it but not in the USA, go test it out and see how you like it, bon voyage.

[burmafrd]

Those like Sasquatch are the real enemies of America. they want us to be European.

[Sasquatch]

You want it, there are places to pursue it but not in the USA, go test it out and see how you like it, bon voyage.

I reject your rather antiquated and static vision of what constitutes the USA, obviously. And, apparently, so do many other Americans.

"Providing a welfare system under the guise of universal health care is health care is morally abhorrent?" :lmao2: According to what code of morality exactly?

And what makes you think that we cannot have these things in the USA? The people collectively define the USA. And the people increasingly are moving towards a universal health care system. Oh, the horror!

[Sasquatch]

Those like Sasquatch are the real enemies of America. they want us to be European.

Weren't you the guy who was citing Switzerland and Finland as models for gun ownership laws in another thread?

[burmafrd]

You make a lot of claims about the People Sasq. And you are full of it on all sides.

[burmafrd]

Finland and Switzerland have a lot of guns. I was using them to blow your pathetic arguement out of the water as regards number of guns vs gun crime. I in no way shape or form want to be like them. BUT go ahead and make more unsupported claims.

[Aikbach]

I reject your rather antiquated and static vision of what constitutes the USA, obviously. And, apparently, so do many other Americans.

"Providing a welfare system under the guise of universal health care is health care is morally abhorrent?" :lmao2: According to what code of morality exactly?

And what makes you think that we cannot have these things in the USA? The people collectively define the USA. And the people increasingly are moving towards a universal health care system. Oh, the horror!I've already cliff noted my objections to you in a previous post.

You are beginning to sound like the former Iraqi information minister "The Americans are not in Baghdad, soon they will be overthrown by socialism!"

[Sasquatch]

You are beginning to sound like the former Iraqi information minister "The Americans are not in Baghdad, soon they will be overthrown by socialism!"

I was rather trying to emulate some other famous prognosticators who made such claims as "We know exactly where the WMD are ... they're just south of Baghdad," "Mission Accomplished," "They are nothing more than Batthist deadenders" and the like.

Same thing I suppose.

[burmafrd]

Pretty sad when a supposedly American poster tries to say that Our Government is the same as Saddam Husseins. But then what do you expect from someone like Sasquatch- named for a fictional beast.

[Mavs Man]

Healthcare should be available to all Americans, regardless of income, and we should have the freedom to choose for ourselves a provider; however, I do not think mandatory government healthcare is the way to go. Healthcare access may be universal in countries such as Canada and the UK, but the wait time for even basic procedures is notoriously long. Also, it is just as expensive as private healthcare (and often, many times moreso), only the costs are hidden in taxes.

If we truly want healthcare costs to drop, we need to curtail frivolous lawsuits and have transparent healthcare costs. If you go to the doctor for every cough or cold, it's going to cost you so you hold back if you know you really don't need to go. If it's already paid for by taxpayer money, then costs will shoot up even more from people charging it to the government (i.e. tax paying citizens).

When your job pays the tab for your lunch, most people don't hesitate spending that money freely. Why is it any different when government pays the tab?

I don't mind assisting low income families with tax credits or deductions for healthcare, but should we also force mandatory healthcare on young, wealthier households who can afford it but simply choose not to have it?

[AtlCB]

Because I don't need to. It's coming here within the next 50 years. The writing is on the wall. You guys are on the wrong side of history.
I don't doubt that socialism is inevitable. I just would like to see the government become more efficient and more accountable with our before I can support anymore social programs. We also need sufficient rules and enforcement to ensure that users of government programs are not abusing the system.

[burmafrd]

Cannot beleive the number of idiots that want our government to now run health care. Like they do such a great job on medicare, social security, etc.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Cannot beleive the number of idiots that want our government to now run health care. Like they do such a great job on medicare, social security, etc.

You know your arguments would be much more acceptable if you didn't always use the Ann Coulter method of calling the other side idiots, pathetic, ignorant etc before you made them.

[ConcordCowboy]

You know your arguments would be much more acceptable if you didn't always use the Ann Coulter method of calling the other side idiots, pathetic, ignorant etc before you made them.

You forgot to put Liberals after all those names....Which of course is the root of all evil.

[burmafrd]

CONGRATULATIONS CONCORD!!!
I think you are finally freeing yourself of the slavery of liberal BS.

And I have no problem calling a spade a spade. Idiots are idiots whether you call em that or not.

[ConcordCowboy]

CONGRATULATIONS CONCORD!!!
I think you are finally freeing yourself of the slavery of liberal BS. And I have no problem calling a spade a spade. Idiots are idiots whether you call em that or not.

No...never will happen.

We have to balance out Nuts like you.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

CONGRATULATIONS CONCORD!!!
I think you are finally freeing yourself of the slavery of liberal BS.

And I have no problem calling a spade a spade. Idiots are idiots whether you call em that or not.

So is Ann Coulter an idiot?

[ConcordCowboy]

So is Ann Coulter an idiot?

Is that a trick question?:D

[Rackat]

So is Ann Coulter an idiot?
Yes.

Is Janine Garrofolo (sic?) an idiot?

[Sasquatch]

I don't doubt that socialism is inevitable. I just would like to see the government become more efficient and more accountable with our before I can support anymore social programs. We also need sufficient rules and enforcement to ensure that users of government programs are not abusing the system.

I think this is a legitimate concern. What do make of the argument that the administrative costs of the current system is vastly greater than medicaid, somewhere around the order of a 15%?

[Crown Royal]

CONGRATULATIONS CONCORD!!!
I think you are finally freeing yourself of the slavery of liberal BS.

And I have no problem calling a spade a spade. Idiots are idiots whether you call em that or not.

Funny. The only people I have ever considered moronic in any debate are those who can't recognize that someone might have a differing opinion and still be intelligent.

[ConcordCowboy]

Funny. The only people I have ever considered moronic in any debate are those who can't recognize that someone might have a differing opinion and still be intelligent.

Absolutely impossible.

:D

[burmafrd]

If the opinion is stupid why should it be respected? the US Government is not really very efficient about much of anything and some here want it to run the health care system as well. With the HISTORICAL example of how badly the US Government has done with large social programs, wanting them in charge of ANOTHER is STUPID.

[Crown Royal]

If the opinion is stupid why should it be respected? the US Government is not really very efficient about much of anything and some here want it to run the health care system as well. With the HISTORICAL example of how badly the US Government has done with large social programs, wanting them in charge of ANOTHER is STUPID.

But you didn't indict the opinion. You said idiots are idiots. Not stupid opinions are stupid opinions.

[burmafrd]

If you have stupid opinions then you are an idiot.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Yes.

Is Janine Garrofolo (sic?) an idiot?

Nah, just a bad actress.

[Crown Royal]

Funny. The only people I have ever considered moronic in any debate are those who can't recognize that someone might have a differing opinion and still be intelligent.

If you have stupid opinions then you are an idiot.


http://smiliesftw.com/x/hsugh3.gif

[CanadianCowboysFan]

If you have stupid opinions then you are an idiot.

So then it will be ok for me to refer to you as an idiot from here on? Mods is that allowed? :eek:

[L-O-Jete]

:lmao2: http://smiliesftw.com/x/hsugh3.gif

[Rackat]

http://smiliesftw.com/x/hsugh3.gif
That's gonna leave a mark.

[AtlCB]

I think this is a legitimate concern. What do make of the argument that the administrative costs of the current system is vastly greater than medicaid, somewhere around the order of a 15%?I would be extremely surprised if the number was that low. Most government administrative costs are in the neighborhood of 50%+. I believe 5-10% is a reasonable number when discussing admin costs for a government health insurance program. Does anyone know the admin cost % for the Canadian system?

[Sasquatch]

I would be extremely surprised if the number was that low. Most government administrative costs are in the neighborhood of 50%+. I believe 5-10% is a reasonable number when discussing admin costs for a government health insurance program. Does anyone know the admin cost % for the Canadian system?

Sorry for not being more clear. My understanding is that administrative costs for Medicaid are somewhere around 3% compared to 18% for private insurance. These are just rough guesses based on previous reading, so take it with a grain of salt.

[Crown Royal]

By the way - this is also a debate I stay out of, when I can help it. I will say that I am a 24 year old without a college degree, and I have yet to have any problem getting health care. I currently have an excellent plan where I can do just about anything I need as far as my health.

I will be leaving this job whenever I can, but even then, I will be able to get coverage at my next job.

Is healthcare really that hard?

[zrinkill]

By the way - this is also a debate I stay out of, when I can help it. I will say that I am a 24 year old without a college degree, and I have yet to have any problem getting health care. I currently have an excellent plan where I can do just about anything I need as far as my health.

I will be leaving this job whenever I can, but even then, I will be able to get coverage at my next job.

Is healthcare really that hard?

Only to people who do not want to get jobs.

[burmafrd]

3%? Where in the world did you get that figure?
Does it include all the fraud, waste and abuse?
Like in social security where every year millions of dollars in checks are sent out to people already dead.

[burmafrd]

http://www.ncpa.org/health/pdh5.html

http://www.arkansas.gov/dhs/aging/hsAug03.html

The arkansas link said 10% was lost in fraud waste and abuse by itself. Not counting administrative costs. I am looking now for more on that.

[burmafrd]

Its very hard to find a study on medicare that comes from someone or some organization that does not have an axe to grind. I have looked at half a dozen different ones from different sources. The only thing they all agree on is that Medicare's claim that they only spend 2% on administrative costs is a crock. This does not in many cases count the cost of heating and utilities and maintenance on the buildings that Medicare inhabits; also many other costs are not mentioned. Its probably closer to reality to say that Medicare probably in actuality spends somewhere between 5 and 10% instead.
Add to that the minimum of 10% lost in fraud waste and abuse and the costs are a whole lot higher then its defenders claim.

[burmafrd]

here is some of the studies:

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/36129.php

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm285.cfm

http://www.nationalcenter.org/2006/07/medicare-for-all-no-thanks-part-ii.html

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/1/24/161041.shtml

[burmafrd]

After wading through more of those studies- and talk about written flatulence- I think something over 5% and probably less then 10% is pretty close to reality.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

So when are you running for the Libertarian party Bumfard.

[burmafrd]

libertarians are wimps.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

libertarians are wimps.

Ok, when are you running for the Fascist or National Socialist party. Or where they wimps too?

[burmafrd]

Nah, too stupid. They are right up there with PETA and MOVEON.ORG for idiocy.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Nah, too stupid. They are right up there with PETA and MOVEON.ORG for idiocy.

I don't see you as running for the Christian Coalition either, you probably aren't effiminate enough to run for them. I mean Ralph Reed is pretty girly looking.

[burmafrd]

The Coalition had some stones when it first started. Now its a joke.
There really are not any large or even medium sized parties that I want to be part of anymore. Just about all of them are corrupt in one way or another- or just plain stupid.

[AtlCB]

Ok, when are you running for the Fascist or National Socialist party. Or where they wimps too?

:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

I don't think either one of these organizations would want Burm. He wants less government control. These organizations are totalitarian.

[trickblue]

Because I don't need to. It's coming here within the next 50 years. The writing is on the wall. You guys are on the wrong side of history.

Which doesn't necessarily mean being on the wrong side of the issue...

[zrinkill]

Which doesn't necessarily mean being on the wrong side of the issue...

It makes perfect sense ..... to a socialist.

[Sasquatch]

Which doesn't necessarily mean being on the wrong side of the issue...

I'll grant you that possibility. I suspect, as with many such policies, it will continue to require tweaking and possibly a few more overhauls before most people are content.

But I honestly believe that the increasing belief among individuals that their health should not be the occasion for profiteering and small-businesses and corporations wanting to shift the burden of health care onto the tax payers indicates that this is the direction in which we're headed. And the baby-boomers who will be on fixed incomes will constitute a powerful and vocal voting constituency.

People appear willing to pay higher taxes if there is a tangible return. It will be interesting to see how the details shake out.

[trickblue]

I'll grant you that possibility. I suspect, as with many such policies, it will continue to require tweaking and possibly a few more overhauls before most people are content.

But I honestly believe that the increasing belief among individuals that their health should not be the occasion for profiteering and small-businesses and corporations wanting to shift the burden of health care onto the tax payers indicates that this is the direction in which we're headed. And the baby-boomers who will be on fixed incomes will constitute a powerful and vocal voting constituency.

People appear willing to pay higher taxes if there is a tangible return. It will be interesting to see how the details shake out.

I trust our government very little in public social policy...

If it is managed like SS; and there is nothing to think it won't be, our economy is likely to go in the tank...

Over 60 years of SS and it still hasn't been tweaked correctly. LBJ sticks the monies into the general budget 1968 and the rest is history. If this money is earmarked to go into the General Budget (which wouldn't surprise me a bit) we are financially doomed...