The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 50

Thread: Universal Health Care

  1. #1
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,308

    Default Universal Health Care

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...ized-medicine/

    This is an opinion piece, but cites numerous facts.

    Seems that universal health care won't necessarily decrease costs. I believe MA is already finding that out.

    The cost to British patients and taxpayers for their dismally performing NHS has been enormous and has increased by 94 per cent in real terms between 1999-2000 and 2009-2010. And even in the face of such outrageous money-wasting as reported in September that millions of non-existent “ghost” patients were registered at NHS surgeries costing taxpayers 750 million over five years, Secretary of State for [/Health Jeremy Hunt intransigently argued against any restraints on the 2014 NHS budget of 114 billion ($175 billion), despite its shameful performance and lack of accountability.

    And that cost still does not prevent a growing number of British taxpayers from looking elsewhere for medical care. About six million Brits now buy private health insurance, including almost two-thirds of Brits earning more than $78,700.


    According to The Telegraph, the number of people paying for their own private care is up 20 percent year-to-year, with about 250,000 now choosing to pay for private treatment out-of-pocket each year.

    Isn’t it notable that more than 50,000 Britons travel out of the country per year and spend 161 million to receive medical care due to lack of access, even though they are already paying for their NHS insurance?

    The NHS has become hugely reliant on doctors trained outside the UK. An estimated 94,833 of the 259,719 doctors of all doctors registered with the General Medical Council, 36.5% of the total, are from foreign medical schools. And what is the solution to the disastrous waiting lists and disgraceful care in the NHS in the face of a considerable outflow of UK medical professionals?


    The U.K. government is now considering sub-contracting operations to private firms from other countries.
    So, it would be the poorest people who get stuck with the fuzzy end of the lollipop? Polticians keep proposing programs to "help the poor", yet the most in need seem to hurt most when those policies fail.
    Last edited by Gerry Clinchy; 01-05-2014 at 03:14 PM.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,915

    Default

    Some interesting facts. It is easy to see from the graphs that the USA spends probably 2.5 times per capita more than the UK, and about twice as a precent of GDP. The UK pretty much spends less per capita than any other country shown on the graphs. The only country that spends less per capita, but not shown on the graphs is Japan. So, you're taking the one country that spends less than almost any other industrialized country, pointing out the problems they have, and comparing it to MA? The UK has a government system, top to bottom. How much they spend on medical care is decided politically. If the population wanted to spend more, they would surely make sure the politicians did it. But for some reason they don't. They are getting what they ask for.

    And, when you look at what we spend per capita, how can we be surprised to see that it costs $500-700 to cover an individual and $900-1500 to cover a family? Especially when a decent fraction of folks decide to opt out of carrying insurance, then get sick, and declare bankruptcy & don't pay their bills, dumping the cost on the rest of us who pay.

    It boggles my mind that conservatives defend the right of folks to not carry coverage. If they want to opt out, they should opt out all the way. If they get sick, let them pay up front. If they can't pay up front, kick them to the curb.






    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  3. #3
    Senior Member J Hoggatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Grand Island, NE.
    Posts
    329

    Default still defending socialism......

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    Some interesting facts. It is easy to see from the graphs that the USA spends probably 2.5 times per capita more than the UK, and about twice as a precent of GDP. The UK pretty much spends less per capita than any other country shown on the graphs. The only country that spends less per capita, but not shown on the graphs is Japan. So, you're taking the one country that spends less than almost any other industrialized country, pointing out the problems they have, and comparing it to MA? The UK has a government system, top to bottom. How much they spend on medical care is decided politically. If the population wanted to spend more, they would surely make sure the politicians did it. But for some reason they don't. They are getting what they ask for.

    And, when you look at what we spend per capita, how can we be surprised to see that it costs $500-700 to cover an individual and $900-1500 to cover a family? Especially when a decent fraction of folks decide to opt out of carrying insurance, then get sick, and declare bankruptcy & don't pay their bills, dumping the cost on the rest of us who pay.

    It boggles my mind that conservatives defend the right of folks to not carry coverage. If they want to opt out, they should opt out all the way. If they get sick, let them pay up front. If they can't pay up front, kick them to the =curb.
    ]
    BUZZ;
    I haven't been on here for a while - but I see some things haven't changed --- Still defending or encouraging Socialism.

    The healthcare system needs work -- conservatives don't believe it should be government controlled.
    Please stop tell republicans - what a republican believes - (spin the headline if you must... it just draws the line in the sand harder for anyone to agree on almost anything).

    See you in this spring! - Comrade!
    Attributed to Ben Franklin-
    "Don't Argue with Stupid People..... They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!"

    "When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It is difficult only for the others. It is the same when you are stupid."

    "Arguing with Idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon..... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to sh$t on the board and strut around like it won anyway."

  4. #4
    Senior Member twall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,135

    Default

    I'm not sure per capita healthcare spending tells the whole story. Since there are so many uninsured who do not seek healthcare average spending per patient is even higher.

    But, the question becomes is cost the only measure for quality healthcare? Who is deciding what quality healthcare is? As far as I am concerned I decide what is the best for me.

    What other things does a single payor system bring?

    While we don't have a single payor system at the moment medicare has a huge impact on what services are provided and reimbursement rates private insurance compaines provide.

    One size cannot fit all.

    Tom
    Tom Wall

  5. #5
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    2,318

    Default

    Buzz...these numbers do nothing to tell the story...even if they are apples to apples....which I do not believe it is...as for infant mortality...doesn't include abortions does it!

    What about the quality and availability of healthcare? I have been in England and worked for a British guy....he had nothing good to say about his healthcare and they, like the USA have such a screwed up media (all government owned in England) most of the non labor union voters have given up on trying to vote out the Labor Party....the propaganda is 100% all the time throughout Europe, you never hear other view points, just Liberal Marxist Socialism babble. You better thank God for the Republicans and Libertarians in the USA, they are the last line in the global fight for freedom....(which I define as the lack of Socialism or Marxism)...and I realize that we are already Socialized in many ways already....OMG
    Last edited by swampcollielover; 01-06-2014 at 12:30 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampcollielover View Post
    Buzz...these numbers do nothing to tell the story...even if they are apples to apples....which I do not believe it is...as for infant mortality...doesn't include abortions does it!

    What about the quality and availability of healthcare? I have been in England and worked for a British guy....he had nothing good to say about his healthcare and they, like the USA have such a screwed up media (all government owned in England) most of the non labor union voters have given up on trying to vote out the Labor Party....the propaganda is 100% all the time throughout Europe, you never hear other view points, just Liberal Marxist Socialism babble. You better thank God for the Republicans and Libertarians in the USA, they are the last line in the global fight for freedom....(which I define as the lack of Socialism or Marxism)...and I realize that we are already Socialized in many ways already....OMG
    There is very little difference between the Republican and Democratic party besides who they dole out our money to, putting them in the same sentence with the Libertarians doesn't sound right. Keep in mind that the last Presidential candidate they ran was a Socialist in most regards, government controlled everything....., hardly a party we should thank God for.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lebanon, OH
    Posts
    829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    Some interesting facts. It is easy to see from the graphs that the USA spends probably 2.5 times per capita more than the UK, and about twice as a precent of GDP. The UK pretty much spends less per capita than any other country shown on the graphs. The only country that spends less per capita, but not shown on the graphs is Japan. So, you're taking the one country that spends less than almost any other industrialized country, pointing out the problems they have, and comparing it to MA? The UK has a government system, top to bottom. How much they spend on medical care is decided politically. If the population wanted to spend more, they would surely make sure the politicians did it. But for some reason they don't. They are getting what they ask for.

    And, when you look at what we spend per capita, how can we be surprised to see that it costs $500-700 to cover an individual and $900-1500 to cover a family? Especially when a decent fraction of folks decide to opt out of carrying insurance, then get sick, and declare bankruptcy & don't pay their bills, dumping the cost on the rest of us who pay.

    It boggles my mind that conservatives defend the right of folks to not carry coverage. If they want to opt out, they should opt out all the way. If they get sick, let them pay up front. If they can't pay up front, kick them to the curb.






    This is Dr. Linda Halderman US figures determining infant mortality. Basically another example of use statics for you convenience. Now this is not saying it would put the US into the #1 position but we would definitely be in the top percentile.

    Low birth weight infants are not counted against the "live birth" statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates.

    According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g is not considered a living child.

    But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies - considered "unsalvageable" outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive - is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. infant mortality statistics.

    [...]

    Some of the countries reporting infant mortality rates lower than the U.S. classify babies as "stillborn" if they survive less than 24 hours whether or not such babies breathe, move, or have a beating heart at birth.

    Forty percent of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life.

    In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive.

    If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a "miscarriage" and does not affect the country's reported infant mortality rates.

    [...]

    Too short to count?

    In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. Therefore, unlike in the U.S., such high-risk infants cannot affect Swiss infant mortality rates.

    Efforts to salvage these tiny babies reflect this classification. Since 2000, 42 of the world's 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.

    Dan

  8. #8
    Senior Member HuntClub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Washington County, Mn
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    There is very little difference between the Republican and Democratic party besides who they dole out our money to, putting them in the same sentence with the Libertarians doesn't sound right. Keep in mind that the last Presidential candidate they ran was a Socialist in most regards, government controlled everything....., hardly a party we should thank God for.
    While I don't totally disagree with you on this, there is only one party who is preventing us from only owning single shot 12 gauges and flint lock rifles.

  9. #9
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    2,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    There is very little difference between the Republican and Democratic party besides who they dole out our money to, putting them in the same sentence with the Libertarians doesn't sound right. Keep in mind that the last Presidential candidate they ran was a Socialist in most regards, government controlled everything....., hardly a party we should thank God for.
    MN as usual your comments make no since. I did not put the Democrats and Republicans in the "same sentence"! Better get your bifocals checked! Also saying that "there is very little difference between the Republican and Democratic party" is just plain stupid! Things like this are easy to say, impossible to prove...

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampcollielover View Post
    MN as usual your comments make no since. I did not put the Democrats and Republicans in the "same sentence"! Better get your bifocals checked! Also saying that "there is very little difference between the Republican and Democratic party" is just plain stupid! Things like this are easy to say, impossible to prove...
    Once again your comprehension skills are lacking, which is so typical of your type.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •