It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NOBama Nation: 1.7 Trillon required for Universal Healthcare AND Global Poverty Act

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I think some of you need to get off of your high horse about what you think ''Universal Healthcare'' means. I am sorry my American friends, but you have NO IDEA about National Healthcare systems.

Where the hell do you get the idea that ''Universal Healthcare'' is socialist?
To you lot, socialism = communism - thats bull#!
Isnt it your Governments job to look after its population regardless of wealth?
Its your Governments moral right to look after your healthcare.

The trouble with some of you is, that you have the ''I am alright Jack, pull the ladder up'' mentality ..... just a bunch of arogant greedy selfish B******s imo.

Virtually most of the free world has in place a FREE healthcare system and we are not bankrupt. I am not saying it is perfect, but it works and at least I know I will get any neccessary medical/surgical care without the added benefit of being presented with a bloody great bill at the end of it.

I suggest some of you look at the UN Charter on basic Human Rights. It is YOUR right to decent healthcare regardless of what your financial status is.

I am a Trauma and Orthopaedic Nurse working in the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. I am morally and ethically bound by the Nursing and Midwifery Council's Code of Professional Conduct (2004) to care for everyone in my charge equally regardless of their status. Private healthcare has its place, but in my experience you cannot beat a National system of healthcare. Long live the NHS, which by the way is the envy of most of the world.

I for one would rather know that my taxes were paying for universal healthcare for the health and well-being of my countrymen than buying wasteful and expensive military hardware that are going to be used abroad to kill people.

Ask yourself this:- How can it be morally and ethically right for a private health company to charge you whatever it damm well pleases for your healthcare with the possibility of 'dropping you' as a patient if the treatment becomes too expensive or your insurance runs out?




posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Oh yeah! I just realised that the US has dropped out of the UN Charter of Human Rights.

Well bloody good luck to you all, you are gonna need it.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
you guys who bash the idea of UHC are hilarious. I love how you ignore every fact presented to you. I love how you regurgitate the talking points given to you. There is no point in trying to have a discussion with those who refuse to listen and to think critically.

Quite honestly you all display an incredible cluelessness and lack of curiosity. All I can say is if you beliefs are so fragile that you can not participate openly and honestly is a friendly debate over the issue you may want to reconsider putting your full faith into YOUR side of the issue as this is a sign that your faith may be misplaced.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
When will people quit trying to act like God.. There is no way the earth can support everyone, not enough wealth to do that, it will fail so bad it won't be funny. We have something called natural selection, let time take it's place.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   
So I suppose the poor do not have the right to live, I guess if your poor you should just die if you get sick. If a freaking person goes to the ER and do not pay, the same freaking people pay, so get off this trash. Try bitching about the real problems illegals, abuse of health care. If you a US citizen you have just as much right as I do to health care. Oh then we might not have money for your wars.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


Great post!

But I do have a small point to make. If my company could stop administering their own health care and instead make my health benefit paid premiums for national health care (i.e. they pay my national health care premium for me) What do you think they would prefer to do?

Health care is a big headache for companies. It seems like it wouldn't take very long berfore we would all be forced to switch. Don't you think so? I could be wrong, but I have a gut instinct that's how it will play out.

It would be like the biggest health care insurance provider that has ever existed in the USA suddenly appearing on the block and my private insurance has to compete with it. I personally think they will wipe the private ones out in the short term, and in the long term would be more expensive and less competitive than the ones they wiped out.

I hope I'm wrong, because as you clearly pointed out, it's going to happen no matter what candidate gets elected. Doesn't change the fact that Oboma is peddling some pretty strong "Hopium". It's just like when in the worse times people turn to God or Aliens to save them (and I believe in Gods and Aliens) but I don't expect them to save us any more than smoking the Obama Hope-Bong. (Not happy with McCain on war or immigration either. )

Other than claiming that it's not socialized medicine (I believe at the very least it's the junior version or ver. 1.0, the one that Americans might actually vote for. Then comes Ver 2.0, "full-on socialized med", after everyone has lubed up a little bit then accidentally drops the soap).... thanks for the post!



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
Also, you are not paying for the war in Iraq, other countries are!! The US has alot of hollow debt for the war, none of it, is being taken from you!





Are you just insane? Have you not been watching the numbers?

Of *COURSE* We are paying for the war in Iraq!



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Wotan
 


Wow... I know this seems selfish to you but...



Isnt it your Governments job to look after its population regardless of wealth?


To answer your question: No, absolutely not. This country was founded on the premise of small government and self-reliance. Remember, we didn't like the way England ran our lives so we fought to live the way we wanted. It's really nice that the English way of life is winning out in the end anyway. I'm so darn glad people fought and died to anex ourselves from big government rule for nothing. We loved big government sooo much and all those big taxes sooo much that we had the revolutionary war for the fun of it. Americans... remember THAT on the 4th of July when you are shooting off your firecrackers.

Ok, so you guys live the way you want accross the pond and call us selfish, but this is the way we wanted to live and at least for the moment, it is the way we live. We are also the most charitable country in the world and the first to help out people in need whether at home or abroad. But we like to do it volunteerily. We like to do these things ourselves and many are unhappy any time the government mandates charity (like our social programs).

With that said:

But maybe you are right. Instead of talking I will listen for a minute because maybe I am indeed mis-guided. Here are my questions (because I want to hear it from the horses mouth):

1. What is the average income tax (%) one would pay there. Say a middle class person with a good income?

2. How long do you have to wait to see a doctor for an illness?

3. Can you go to the doctor you like or is one assigned to you?

4. Can you see a specialist without a referal?

5. About 20 years ago I had a hernia. I had the choice of a $700 traditional proceedure where I would be left with a lifetime of discomfort and the possibility of giving up all the adventure sports I do and a 4" scar. (note me in the Grand Canyon, in the picture on the left, inspecting Lava Falls which I was getting ready to raft over last August) Or I could have a laparoscopy based repair that cost $10,000. My insurance paid for the lap/laser based repair. I paid a $2.00 co-pay. Would I have that choice under the British system or would they say it was simply too much money and I could either pay the $10,000 myself or take the "free" $700 version. Seriously... I have no idea... I'm only guessing you have to take the cheapo surgery... enlighten me please... (no sarcasm intended)

6. How do doctors get compensated differently based on their level of expertise or educational differences? Harvard / Mayo / etc vs. a lesser unversity? How do incentives to be the best work?

7. Do they ever threaten you, that if you do not have some proceedure or whatever, or refuse to take a particular med, that you'll be cut off from future treatments? Many people in the USA refuse to have certain immunizations for various reasons. I'm fearfull that they will insist we take them or be expelled from the program. I'm not willing to give up my freedoms.

It's simple... if other countries have figured these issues out maybe I can be sold on it. But I want to hear how all that stuff works for you. I ask with all sincerity to please answer these questions.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
duplicate post -deleted


[edit on 9-6-2008 by JonInMichigan]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
Everyone should do a little reading before making knee jerk reactions.


That would imply ignoring one's own emotions and using logic, but that seems to be quite vacant on this website recently.

Quite frankly, universal healthcare will not cost $1.7 trillion dollars. Your post proved that to be a fallacy. This entire thread is based on a fallacy. Could a moderator please change the title as it is very misleading, blatantly false, and/or biased.

jetxnet, from your own source:


Obama's Health Care Plan Will Cost Up To $65 Billion A Year; Equal To $260 Billion Over Four Years."


How does $260 billion jump to $1.7 trillion? Are you just making numbers up? Even the $800 billion number is completely bull# and you know it.

Stop trying to steer this into a "Universal Healthcare is Anti-American" thread. Invading sovereign nations without the consent of the American people and then not listening to their wishes is anti-american.

If we simply leave Iraq we will have enough leftover to fund healthcare. How much money do you think we are spending there? So far its over $500 billion on Iraq ALONE. That's not including all other military spending, which is bloated in the first place.

We are paying Halliburton $45 for a case of coke in Iraq and $600 for a toilet seat. Are you #ing kidding me?


US Senators Charles E. Schumer and Richard Durbin and Congressman Henry Waxman today revealed shocking examples of jaw-dropping price gouging and extraordinary waste by Halliburton and its subsidiaries that have put our men and women in uniform at risk and cost Americans billions in misspent tax dollars. Pointing to Halliburton's equivalents of the famed "$600 toilet seats", including $45 dollar cases of coke and "$85,000 oil filters". Based on these reports Schumer, Durbin and Waxman called for a full investigation by the GAO into every Halliburton contract and requisition.

"Waste, neglect, lack of oversight–these are exactly the things we do not need in a situation as volatile as the one in the Iraq," said Schumer, pointing to an incredibly overpriced can of soda. "These blatant examples of price gouging are reminiscent of the famed "$600 toilet seat" and are exactly what we do not need when our troops are in harms way and wanting for the resources they need and we are so squeezed for funding here at home for such vital needs as health care and education."


Don't talk to me about wasting money on healthcare when your corporate buddies are looting the American people left and right. I've had about enough of the apologists on this thread.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
k to be honest i would rather pay raised taxes for health care rather than raised taxes for the war.
i think yea its a lot of money but its long over due! we wouldnt have this health care problem if it was taken care of years ago.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBadge
k to be honest i would rather pay raised taxes for health care rather than raised taxes for the war.


I's rather not pay taxes at all and have 25% of my income back to pay for health care in a competitive free market economy in which monopoly control of our govenment by big-pharma and big-insurance wasn't driving prices to ridiculous levels. (Not to mention lawsuits.)

Kinda sounded like a Paulie there didn't I? Just think of how different things would be!



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JonInMichigan
Great post!

Back atcha.



But I do have a small point to make. If my company could stop administering their own health care and instead make my health benefit paid premiums for national health care (i.e. they pay my national health care premium for me) What do you think they would prefer to do?

If UHC is cheaper, there is no doubt they would switch over to it.



Health care is a big headache for companies. It seems like it wouldn't take very long berfore we would all be forced to switch. Don't you think so? I could be wrong, but I have a gut instinct that's how it will play out.

I agree health care is so expensive, if we keep going the way were going, I think employers will eventually no longer provide it as a benefit. I still don't see a problem with switching over IF it is cheaper. I don't see how employers would be forced to do anything, unless you mean that the government runs all other providers out of business. I find this scenario unlikely, because as so many point out the government does tend to overload the system with bureaucracy and usually can't do it as cheap as the private sector.

Heres is the whole reason why I support mandatory coverage. As I have said in my own thread if everyone is covered, that should reduce the cost of health care overall, because when someone is uninsured and can't pay for hospitalization, we who do pay wind up covering the cost in the form of higher premiums. If everyone is covered then even the private providers prices should go down.

In a sense, we are already paying for it, so why not take advantage of mandatory coverage? It will include preventative health care, which should also help reduce the cost.

When my state instituted mandatory automobile insurance coverage, premiums went down because the uninsured motorist portion went down. The same thing should apply here, and BTW, I don't care if it is Obama's plan or someone else's, but I think we still need it to reduce the cost of health care.

[edit on 6/9/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JonInMichigan
 


I would like to point out first, that this is based on the UK Health System, The National Health Service (NHS) and not the Private Sector.

1. Income Tax:
Starting rate is 10% = £0 - £2,230
Basic rate is 22% = £2,231 - £34,600 pa
Higher Rate is 40% = Over £34,600 pa
There is also an additional National Insurance:- www.hmrc.gov.uk...

Please dont ask me to explain the UK Tax system, its too complicated and I am not an accountant.

2. When you mean a doctor, are you referring to a General Practitioner (GP) or a Hospital Consultant/Specialist? If it’s a GP, it could be the same day depending on your local GP practice/locale you live in. For a consultant in my area its normally within a couple of weeks – this does depend on what condition is suspected. Cancer and Coronary Heart Disease has a ‘fast track system’ as do some other conditions. I have known of some patients being admitted/being seen by a Consultant within a couple of minutes of seeing their GP.

3. Again, is this a GP or Consultant? Everyone can change their GP’s whenever they like. Consultant wise, you can ask to be referred to a certain Consultant, provided you know who they hell they are and what their speciality is.

4. To be honest, I am not too sure here but I think you have to be referred.

5. A lot would depend on the problem you would be having surgery on. It is normally a process of recommendation and agreement between the patient and doctor as to what procedure is for the best. Laparoscopies are routinely performed as are hernia repairs under local anaesthetics nowadays as well as ‘traditional’ surgery procedures. These are normally done under Day Surgery conditions, whereby you go home the same day as the operation.

6. As far as I know (I am a Nurse, not a Doctor), it doesn’t matter which University you are trained in, you are treated the same, ie; no elitism. There is a rank structure: House Officer, Senior House Officer, Registrar and Consultant. It is based on years served in job and additional exams/qualifications, etc. NB: Pay for all NHS workers regardless of job are paid on a pay scale range. The UK Government decides the Pay Scales and pay increases.

7. Yes and No. Non-compliance to certain conditions could put you as the patient in jeopardy. Example: An obese patient could be at risk if they were going to have spinal surgery – The doctor may insist on some weight loss beforehand to reduce the risk. If the doctor deems that you are ‘not fit’ for surgery, then you would not have it. By ‘not fit’, I mean that your survival rate under the knife would not be great.

PS: Sorry for the delay, but i had to check a few things first.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wotan

Isnt it your Governments job to look after its population regardless of wealth?
Its your Governments moral right to look after your healthcare.


That's absolutely correct. In the 9/11 attacks, 3,000 people died and we went gung-ho attacking the world. The US has 870,000 people die every year from heart disease and it doesn't seem like we're that gung-ho about protecting our citizens from that terror.

And that's just heart disease. I'm not even touching on the other diseases that plague our population.

As for my previous statement, of course there are more options than feeding your children McDonalds, but many poor families don't consider them. Should the children suffer because of it?



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
When will people quit trying to act like God.. There is no way the earth can support everyone, not enough wealth to do that, it will fail so bad it won't be funny. We have something called natural selection, let time take it's place.


That's about the dumbest statement I've ever heard. Natural selection involves NATURE!!

In your scenario, the rich will survive and the poor will die off. That's not natural selection.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 


honestly you make no sense when u are arguing ur point about obama being a nwo puppet take the god damn aluminum foil off ur head and go lay in the sun and read a book u #in loony son of a bitch



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wotan
I think some of you need to get off of your high horse about what you think ''Universal Healthcare'' means. I am sorry my American friends, but you have NO IDEA about National Healthcare systems.


Yes I do and so do many others posting here. And what we know and you don’t is that our country was not put in place to provide National Healthcare Systems.


Originally posted by Wotan
Where the hell do you get the idea that ''Universal Healthcare'' is socialist?
To you lot, socialism = communism - thats bull#!


Well, how about the basic premise that we go to work and earn our money and pay for our own health care and then the government takes our money and gives it to someone else! That sounds like Socialism/Communism to me! Redistribution of wealth, right?
Furthermore, you need to read a little more on Socialism and Communism yourself, Wotan. Ever hear about the “Great Leap Forward”? Socialism is not equal to Communism but rather is a step towards it.


Originally posted by Wotan
Isnt it your Governments job to look after its population regardless of wealth?Its your Governments moral right to look after your healthcare.


No it is not. Please read the United States Constitution for further guidance. Our Government’s “job” is to stay out of our homes and purses. That’s it in a nutshell.


Originally posted by Wotan
The trouble with some of you is, that you have the ''I am alright Jack, pull the ladder up'' mentality ..... just a bunch of arogant greedy selfish B******s imo.


Call it what you like. I don’t see why I should have to go to work and have the Government take my money. If I work extra hard so I can buy something more for myself, why should the Government have the right to deprive me of it and give it to someone who hasn’t earned it?


Originally posted by Wotan
I suggest some of you look at the UN Charter on basic Human Rights. It is YOUR right to decent healthcare regardless of what your financial status is.


Oh yes! We have all seen the great accomplishments that the U.N. has achieved in establishing Human Rights around the world. Perhaps you should make a trip to Sudan, Zimbabwe, North Korea or a host of other nations to see the U.N. in all their glorious accomplishments.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by passenger
 



1. Nor was any Western country. National Health systems never came about until the 20th Century.

2. Well according to your belief of Socialism/Communism then the whole of Europe are Socialist and/or Communist. I believe the US gives money to other countries around the world, so is the US now a Socialist/Communist Country. It would be under your set of beliefs. I would hardly call the UK, Denmark, Holland and Norway socialist countries. I think you lump socialism and communism into the same mold when really there is a big difference.

3. Frankly, the Constitution isn’t worth the paper its written on. It means nothing to me, sorry. It has no bearing on this issue. Your Government is voted by the people to look after the people.

4. Well you cant just pick and choose which bits of the UN you like at the time. It suits the US when it wants to start a war.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on some points. I think it must be a cultural thing between the US and EU countries but for the life of me I cant see what the problem is in wanting to help the less fortunate out of your citizenry.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wotan
reply to post by JonInMichigan
 


I would like to point out first, that this is based on the UK Health System, The National Health Service (NHS) and not the Private Sector.

1. Income Tax:
Higher Rate is 40% = Over £34,600 pa
There is also an additional National Insurance:- www.hmrc.gov.uk...

6. As far as I know (I am a Nurse, not a Doctor), it doesn’t matter which University you are trained in, you are treated the same, ie; no elitism. There is a rank structure: House Officer, Senior House Officer, Registrar and Consultant. It is based on years served in job and additional exams/qualifications, etc. NB: Pay for all NHS workers regardless of job are paid on a pay scale range. The UK Government decides the Pay Scales and pay increases.



Wow! Very complete! Thanks so much for taking the time to do all that!

Doesn't sound too different from an HMO here except for a few things:

40% taxes over $68k - that's a lot! (I hope you guys get some deductions.) But it confirms what I have heard from rumor. Most middle class households here in the USA make over $68k - I know the median income is $40k and if you're are a married couple, 60k, 70k,80k would be typical. Minimum wage is at: $7.40 in Michigan as of 7/1/08. So that would be: $7.40 x 2080 (full time) = $15,392 x two people = $30.7k
Americans are going to get sticker shock on the health care thing.

(My company pays $8k/year for my health benes and I pay $70 / month or $840 / year and I am in the 25% bracket. 15% more in taxes would boil down in $16,500 additional taxes for me. As you can imagine, I'm not a big fan for that reason alone! In other words, on the UK model I would pay over $15k more a year to support other people. Ouch!

Some of the things you mentioned like a doctor requiring a patient to lose weight before surgery is standard fair here. It's a safety thing. I was more concerned about being forced to be innoculated, etc.

I don't opt for the HMO at my company just so I don't need any referal from a GP. (we have a choice of plans - I use a PPO) So I wouldn't like that much but I understand why it is done in the HMOs or a national program. It is a wasted visit or wasted money to see an ear, nose, and throat doctor for a sore foot.

But the one that really really bothers me is #6. Again, you got a bit upset and said we equate socialism with communism. We didn't actually say that but there is a path to communism from socialism and #6 illustrates the point to some extent. Where is the incentive to go to a top school? Where is the incentive to keep you skills top notch? Where is the drive to be the very best that comes from capitalism? I think that scares many of us Americans. We kind of see it with unions to some degree... not that I'm dogging unions, but as long as you have worked X number of years you get payed Y number of dollars in some unions. Eventually, the American companies get tired of paying the high cost and move the jobs out of country. You can't do that with a service industry like a med doctor... so instead, the quality of service just drops while the price goes up.

I still think many Americans are convinced that they will receive the same quality of service they get at a doctor now without paying much. Somehow you always pay. There is no free lunch, just redistribution of wealth.

Oh well. Looks like we're screwed. I can tell from the pro-UHC people on here there is no swaying their belief in this system, but I would recommend to you supporters... go talk to the Canadians. You will get responses from luke warm to unhappy, in general, and they also pay big money for that system.

Thanks again for your time on answering these questions. I think it's the most productive thing we have done on this thread yet!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join