Trump in NYC says Australia has better health care -- it has a universal coverage system

a reply to: Flatfish

Medicare no as it is not manditory
ssi yes it is a scam

interstate highway is cool who regulates interstate commerce

i wasnt aware the internet belongs to the us govt
i pay att for it

nasa imo is a military program so no problem

are you saying the ged and the states do mot have speciffic piwers?q

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: markosity1973

we do not need the govt mandating purchasing insurance simply because i am alive

i am capable of deciding if i want to purchase health insurance and i am capable of paying for it
we do not allow our govt to make us purchase anything else why health insurance

i already pay federal income tax and medicare tax

Yes, you see here in Australia we simply pay via income tax. There is a medicare levy already. We do not notice the tax, because we have paid it all our lives. I pay somewhere in the vicinity of 21% taxes on what I earn and as part of that, I get free health care. We do not have an insurance policy as such. Just a levy that goes into the coffers to fund our system.

I can if I choose to purchase additional health cover that gets me American style private hospital care. But I do not see the need to go to the expense when what I have does the job adequately.

I get that it would be tough to the USA to transition to our way of doing things without extra cost to an already overburdened taxpayer. And for you guys I have no answer. But I can say that our system works and that it is a good system.

a reply to: markosity1973

i have no doubt your system meets your needs
i find it silly you can buy additional insurance and get better or faster treatment
i find it funny you call the better or faster treatment "american style"

i would be happy to pay a total of 21% and then everyone is covered
i am not currently willing to add to my 25% when its not enough
the govt will just crap it away
my insurance was much much better before obamacare my plan was too expensive and was no longer offered by blue cross blue shield
the plan i got is now just as expensive with less coverage and more out of picket cost

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Flatfish

Medicare no as it is not manditory
ssi yes it is a scam

interstate highway is cool who regulates interstate commerce

i wasnt aware the internet belongs to the us govt
i pay att for it

nasa imo is a military program so no problem

are you saying the ged and the states do mot have speciffic piwers?q

For starters, Medicare tax is just as mandatory as S.S. tax. But it's not about being mandatory, it's about whether or not it's forbidden in our Constitution, remember?

Secondly, the interstate highway system wasn't built just for commerce. It's was built by all, for all.

Third, the internet was invented and maintained during the Cold War with U.S. tax dollars as a means of executing MAD, or "Mutually Assured Destruction," in the event of a nuclear exchange with Russia. (Believe it or not, I think it was Al Gore who was largely responsible for turning it into a public domain.)

Fourth, NASA is NOT a military program. The "National Aeronautics & Space Administration is a PUBLIC program financed with public funds. It's sometimes used by the military to launch satellites and such, but it's a public program not associated with, or under the jurisdiction of, any branch of the military.

I agree that the fed and the states are granted separate powers under the Constitution, but if the Constitution does not prohibit the fed from orchestrating and administering Medicare & S.S. for the public welfare, then it should be OK if we expand Medicare and provide coverage for everyone.

There's one sure way to find out, just do it and let someone challenge it in the courts.

a reply to: shooterbrody


We don't pay premiums mate, no idea what you are thinking??

a reply to: seasonal

from what I know of the Australian and the US health case system, this assessment by Trump is correct.

It also strikes me that the biggest single problem with the US health system is the cost of medical liability insurance, or rather, the sheer number of medical 'accidents.' From data I have seen on this site before it seems that medical "accidents" are the second biggest cause of death in Americia.

An accident is something that is not foreseeable or preventatble. An unwanted event that is foreesable and prevantable but not controlled to the point that it prevented from occuring, is something other than an accident.

It seems to me that what Americia needs to do is to research why such high numbers of unwanted events occur and also enquire into the effectiveness or otherwise of medical insurance.

originally posted by: crappiekat
a reply to: pheonix358

Can you explain how it works?

I've never really paid that much attention to all this. Until now.

Most first world countries have universal healthcare.

It is only in third world countries that they don't.

a reply to: shooterbrody

sounds like you people pay premiums as well if you want any control over your treatment....

The premiums apart from getting your a room to yourself and maybe your choice of doctor are more about speed of service for non emergency surgery , read knee ops and the like . Thats the simple version of course as things like dental physio etc come into play depending on the level of insurance you have . The thing is if you dont have insurance ( as in my case ) everything is free and if you need emergency treatment you get it , you see the doc its free , xray free , ct scan free etc etc . In my case 2 ct scans , 2 angiograms , lung function , heart stress test , ultrasound , ecgs ,a crap load of blood tests , aortal-femoral bypass , 5 days in hospital including high dependency . Total cost . Nothing . This also imcluded home visits for dressing changes . Time from the surgeon deciding the bypass was the best option to surgery was 3 weeks . Summing up private health has its advantages but it wont get you your urgent heart operation any quicker . Perfect system , no but what is In my case i am pretty sure it saved my legs so im not going to knock it .

As an Aussie I can say without a shadow of a doubt that our system is infinitely better. Whenever I need to see a doctor, or go to the hospital, all I have to do is give them a little green Medicare card. That's it. No large bills, no bill shock. Nothing. It does not reduce the standard of care either, our doctors and nurses are true professionals.

Add to that our PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) that reduces the cost of most common medications to no more than $7 AUD for people who have a pension card and our heath care system is second to none.

And all for a measly little extra bit of tax each year that we don't even notice.

I will never EVER understand why Americans would be against that.

a reply to: chr0naut

It is only in third world countries that they don't.

Quite a few 3rd world countries have free health care . 1st world standards , probably not but its free .

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Flatfish

obamacare went to court
the penalty got turned into a tax (ssi tax medicare tax) to get it through
congress can tax

i think you are full of it about the internet
unless michigan state was going to launch missiles

nsarchive.gwu.edu...
thats info on nasa and the dod and cia with records dated back to 1963

originally posted by: Kryties
I will never EVER understand why Americans would be against that.

Same, I reckon they are not really against it (why would any sane person) they just don't like admitting other people do it better.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: markosity1973

i have no doubt your system meets your needs
i find it silly you can buy additional insurance and get better or faster treatment
i find it funny you call the better or faster treatment "american style"

That mostly applies only to "elective surgery" - being surgery that isn't vital and is the patients choice. Most, if not all, vital surgeries are covered by Medicare.

originally posted by: liammc

originally posted by: Kryties
I will never EVER understand why Americans would be against that.

Same, I reckon they are not really against it (why would any sane person) they just don't like admitting other people do it better.

No, it's actually that they don't like the thought of paying their "hard earned cash" towards someone elses health care - totally failing to realise that it also applies to them if and when they need medical attention.

In a nutshell its the "every man for himself" mentality that a lot of Americans have that has caused their health system to be so medieval.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: chr0naut

It is only in third world countries that they don't.

Quite a few 3rd world countries have free health care . 1st world standards , probably not but its free .

en.wikipedia.org...

I would have thought that the fact that everyone can afford essential healthcare is a criteria that defines a first world country.

... and Detroit!

The US is a belligerent feudal fiefdom. It has the highest incarceration rate in the world. It is not democratic and is not 'first world', by any means, to the majority of its citizens.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Flatfish

obamacare went to court
the penalty got turned into a tax (ssi tax medicare tax) to get it through
congress can tax

i think you are full of it about the internet
unless michigan state was going to launch missiles

nsarchive.gwu.edu...
thats info on nasa and the dod and cia with records dated back to 1963

Not sure what Michigan State has to do with it but the internet was created as the system that would automatically retaliate by launching our missiles in the event that Russia had launched a successful first strike and knocked our means of doing so manually. It was part of MAD.

And.....I don't care how far back you go with NASA history, it was created as a civilian space agency and that's how it was funded too.

I know the military sometimes used them and probably even had secret, behind the scenes dealings with them, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a civilian agency.

For instance, I was a union longshoreman for 33yrs and we sometimes loaded military cargo. From time to time I even participated in covert CIA operations involving sensitive cargo movements through my port. But neither myself, nor the union I worked for was affiliated in any way with any branch of government or military.

Another Aussie here, and yes our healthcare system is pretty good.

When I was ill about 10 years ago I had fantastic treatment in the Australian public health system. I spent a week in hospital and it cost me nothing except for the cost medication post treatment. Had I been unemployed the medication would have cost me $5.00, instead it cost a bit more, but it was certainly affordable.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Well, not being rude, but the Trillion odd dollars that has been spent bombing the Middle East for no good reason would buy a lot of free health care.

I think it's more a matter of spending priorities by the government of the USA. I thought this is part of what Trump supporters were hoping for - less war, more spending on home soil.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: seasonal

thank for clearing up what profits are

so the govt will decide what drs make?
who would then want to be a dr?

just where and when are profits appropriate?

Profit is a better motivator than altruism.

It makes things bigger and better.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: pheonix358

who decides my needs?
do i get a voice in that discussion?

how much profit is "unbridled"?who decides that amount?

why do you hate profits?
is it a christian "love of money is evil" thing?

Maybe this will help.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need(or needs) is a slogan that Karl Marx made popular in his writing Critique of the Gotha program, published in 1875.


The German original is Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen. Once society has changed to Communism, it will produce enough goods and services so that everyone's needs can be satisfied.[1][2] Even though the phrase is commonly attributed to Marx, he was not the first to use it.

The same idea and very nearly the same wording can be found in Joseph Smith's The Book of Mormon: "every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants." And slogan was common within the socialist movement. Louis Blanc first used it in 1839, in "The organization of work",[3]The origin of this phrasing has also been attributed to the French communist Morelly,[4] who proposed in his 1755 Code of Nature "Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society" including

“ I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.

II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.

III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.[5]

Sounds like heaven, don't it?

Is it the Mormons getting kicked out of russia?