I now think B Obama is the best choice for America and the world
- Thread starter Mike375
- Start date
No offense Mike, but you don't live here and I don't think you really have any idea what it is like. Health care is unaffordable even for people earning an average or above average salary. Surely you don't expect EVERYONE to do better than average? Or should the whole world be like lake woebegone?
Re: What a bunch of hooey.
Can you go start your own whining about Obama thread somewhere else so I don't have to keep looking at your idiotic posts?
Can you go start your own whining about Obama thread somewhere else so I don't have to keep looking at your idiotic posts?
boblarson
Smeghead
- Local time
- , 19:32
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2001
- Messages
- 32,059
Re: What a bunch of hooey.
Nope, if I gotta see your idiotic posts then you have to see mine.
Nope, if I gotta see your idiotic posts then you have to see mine.
Alisa,
I am well aware of the situation in the US as my most my business is dealing with medical specialists.
Actually the best system is the one that existed in Australia until 1972. To get healthcare (including from the GP) you had to pay or be insured unless you passed a means test. Within the hospital system a medical specialist might have had 5 patients and 1 or 2 were "means tested public patients". The specialist levied no charge to the gov't as he made his money form the insured patients and in return was also able to use the hospital facilities.
The net result was that virtually all the population of working age was insured and this allowed for a very viable community premium rating system.
We now have a system that would be similar to what you advocate. We have a private and public sector. The specialist receives a reduced fee for "public patients" and everyone is covered via a medicare levy but of course many people have private cover. The public patient is OK for life threatening issues but otherwise the waiting list can be in the years. The surgeons who are very good and who operate (no pun intended
) in areas that do not require the use of the large public hospitals opt out of the public system. Thus if you a get a knee replacement as a public patient you won't get the top surgeons.
After allowing for inflation our health insurance is much more expensive than it use to be and the cover is nowhere near as wide as it use to even cover a vistit to the GP. The reason it is much more expensive is because the community rating principle does not work when only a smaller percentage of the population is insured.
But I still stick with my original point. For anyone who is capable of working a full week there is no reason why they can't earn sufficient income UNLESS they choose that path.
I am well aware of the situation in the US as my most my business is dealing with medical specialists.
Actually the best system is the one that existed in Australia until 1972. To get healthcare (including from the GP) you had to pay or be insured unless you passed a means test. Within the hospital system a medical specialist might have had 5 patients and 1 or 2 were "means tested public patients". The specialist levied no charge to the gov't as he made his money form the insured patients and in return was also able to use the hospital facilities.
The net result was that virtually all the population of working age was insured and this allowed for a very viable community premium rating system.
We now have a system that would be similar to what you advocate. We have a private and public sector. The specialist receives a reduced fee for "public patients" and everyone is covered via a medicare levy but of course many people have private cover. The public patient is OK for life threatening issues but otherwise the waiting list can be in the years. The surgeons who are very good and who operate (no pun intended
) in areas that do not require the use of the large public hospitals opt out of the public system. Thus if you a get a knee replacement as a public patient you won't get the top surgeons.After allowing for inflation our health insurance is much more expensive than it use to be and the cover is nowhere near as wide as it use to even cover a vistit to the GP. The reason it is much more expensive is because the community rating principle does not work when only a smaller percentage of the population is insured.
But I still stick with my original point. For anyone who is capable of working a full week there is no reason why they can't earn sufficient income UNLESS they choose that path.
Re: What a bunch of hooey.
Who is forcing you? We were having a perfectly reasonable conversation before you showed up. I don't see anyone else bseides you posting comments and pictures SOLELY for the purpose of annoying other people.
Who is forcing you? We were having a perfectly reasonable conversation before you showed up. I don't see anyone else bseides you posting comments and pictures SOLELY for the purpose of annoying other people.
boblarson
Smeghead
- Local time
- , 19:32
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2001
- Messages
- 32,059
Re: What a bunch of hooey.
Rich and Colin post SOLEY for the purpose of annoying other people. So, why can't I? So it has been said, so it shall be done.
In the U.S., that is just not true. The median salary is around 40k per year (BEFORE taxes). The median health care policy is almost 12k per year. How on earth is it reasonable to expect working people who are earning average salaries to spend 30% of their income on health care?
And what about people that have a preexisting condition who can't get coverage period and end up having to pay for all their medical costs, even if it is tens of thousands of dollars per year?
But why do they only earn $40,000?
That is a problem with the insurance system if you do not have a community rating basis. What should happen is that full underwriting is applied, as would be the case if you bought life cover or disability insurance and this would make the premium drop like a rock. Then people who were unable to get cover would be covered by a gov't/tax subsidised system.
As a side note comprehensive health insurance in Australia is about $1500 per year for one person. Our cover also covers pre existing conditions once someone has the cover from 3 months to 12 months. Transferring to another insurer does not restart the "waiting period" for pre existing. But ours is still not as cheap as it use to be because we don't have a full community rating system.
The best system is undoubtedly the one where everyone except for the disadvantaged are insured or means tested. Possible a fully nationalised system is better than the "in between systems".
What do you mean why do they only earn 40k? Doesn't everyone who works forty hours a week deserve access to basic medical care? Even if they *only* make the average salaray?
There are many huge problems with our health care system, which was my whole point - I have never said we need "free" health care, I have just said we need to fix the problems.
lol ... I was quoting the article ...
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=37519
It's probably the date, or the fact that Obama changes his policy on whatever the 40% that doesn't pay taxes think or what Axelrod writes for his teleprompter.
-dK
Since I see this is the thread for the general tomfoolery of politics I am going to contribute =).
Barrack Hussein Obama . . .
Guess who elses middle name was Hussein?
Jesus H. Christ - Prove me wrong.
We hear a lot about CEOs making tons of money. Honestly, I can think of about 5 professions that deserve to be making tons of money. Teachers, Doctors, Firemen, Police, Military. Strange, isn't it. Teacher's salary is paid by the government, private school excluded, Firemen and Police are civil service jobs - government, Military . . . well that's government too and for it to properly function it has to borrow part of it's governing concepts from totalitarianism (proud vet reporting, other vets know this is true). It's just odd. If you cannot afford an attorney we appoint you one. If your local government cannot provide you with police your state will. It's just odd that we haven't figured out a way to provide a basic parachute of health industry as well.
I'm not saying I want primo coverage for free, I'm saying I want a bottom line where no line exists at all. I understand my public defendant for my murder trial my be a tax attorney but I'm still willing to bet he'll do better than nothing. I could deal with a podiatrist working on my broken arm. I don't expect the greatest health coverage in the world. I would just like a parachute where there is nothing.
*Ahh and I see on the first page someone saying Powell supports Obama, yes this is true. However, the man has no credibility what so ever. Anyone who trusts Colin Powell to tell them how to tie their own shoe would be silly. His endorsement doesn't mean too much. It's like saying "The man who held the vial up at the UN and swore there existed WMD's is now holding up Obama and swearing he is the greatest. Honestly, I would have preferred he endorsed McCain but as it stands McCain can't touch the issue. He is running on experience and for what little it means Obama would still be able to toss any criticism back at McCain saying a one time respected military officer chose Obama, not McCain. Meh, all BS in my opinion.
Barrack Hussein Obama . . .
Guess who elses middle name was Hussein?
Jesus H. Christ - Prove me wrong.
We hear a lot about CEOs making tons of money. Honestly, I can think of about 5 professions that deserve to be making tons of money. Teachers, Doctors, Firemen, Police, Military. Strange, isn't it. Teacher's salary is paid by the government, private school excluded, Firemen and Police are civil service jobs - government, Military . . . well that's government too and for it to properly function it has to borrow part of it's governing concepts from totalitarianism (proud vet reporting, other vets know this is true). It's just odd. If you cannot afford an attorney we appoint you one. If your local government cannot provide you with police your state will. It's just odd that we haven't figured out a way to provide a basic parachute of health industry as well.
I'm not saying I want primo coverage for free, I'm saying I want a bottom line where no line exists at all. I understand my public defendant for my murder trial my be a tax attorney but I'm still willing to bet he'll do better than nothing. I could deal with a podiatrist working on my broken arm. I don't expect the greatest health coverage in the world. I would just like a parachute where there is nothing.
*Ahh and I see on the first page someone saying Powell supports Obama, yes this is true. However, the man has no credibility what so ever. Anyone who trusts Colin Powell to tell them how to tie their own shoe would be silly. His endorsement doesn't mean too much. It's like saying "The man who held the vial up at the UN and swore there existed WMD's is now holding up Obama and swearing he is the greatest. Honestly, I would have preferred he endorsed McCain but as it stands McCain can't touch the issue. He is running on experience and for what little it means Obama would still be able to toss any criticism back at McCain saying a one time respected military officer chose Obama, not McCain. Meh, all BS in my opinion.
Last edited:
Health care should not be a right. Having healthcare as a "right" then removes the "right" of the doctor to treat you or not treat you and for the fee he wants to charge.
And why do people only earn $40,000? There are heaps of people who earn $40,000 that regulary say those who earn 10 times as much are not real bright so it can't be an intellegence thing. Some of the highest earners also have the lowest "formal" educations. Thus the $40,000 is because of a choice they make. If they make that choice then why I do I have to subsidise them?
Here is the difference. In your country, if you work, you can get health care. In my country, you can work, and even make a substantially good salary, such as double or triple the federally defined poverty level, and STILL not be able to afford basic health care. If you would like to come live over here, and have the experience of not being able to go to the doctor when you are sick or when your child is injured, then by all means, feel free.
The point is not whether someone makes 40k or 100k. The point is that working people should have access to basic medical care at a price they can afford.
Ouch!
Where do you live? I hope you qualify for your state's medicaid program?
I actually had very good health care when I was in college only working part time and making less than 20k, through my state's medicaid program.
But if I went to live in America it would not to be to make 2 to 3 times the poverty level. There is no doubt that the Australian health system is superior. But I still don't understand how anyone who is physically capable of working only wants to earn 2 or 3 times the poverty level.
What would you rather do?
1) Earn $200,000 plus and not need the system.
2) Earn 2 times the poverty level and hope the system caters for you.
Similar threads
