It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Healthcare overhaul seen boosting U.S. economy

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:16 AM
reply to post by blueorder

Every industrialized nation struggles with immigration. You are a nation of immigrants.

The "American" way is the only way I knew growing up. It wasn't until I was deported 5 years ago that I realized that the "American" way wasn't the only way.

Not everyone wants to come to your country to displace you. Personally the best thing that ever happened to me was to be kicked out of the USA. Of course I didn't realize it at the time.

By the way, in the UK, the NHS is one of the biggest employers

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 07:34 AM
This is a horrible idea and this report comes from the White House.

You can't control Medicaire costs by adding people to a nationalized health care system. That's just silly.

Their not replacing Medicaire, their adding onto it and saying they will lower the deficit by throwing more of our money down a black hole.

Healthcare is not the issue, it's control of your money. The liberals want healthcare now to get total control of the healthcare system and more control over your lives.

Obama has Czars for everything. He's firing Managers at private companies and controlling advertising budgets. He tells us we are broke and we can't sustain the debt yet he wants to borrow and spend us into oblivion.

People need to wake up.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:50 AM
The statement about raising the income of workers is correct. What they are not saying is the if your employers pays 12,000 a year for your insurance then when you fill out your income tax returns you are going to pay income tax on that amount added to your tax burden. It does raise your income but only for TAX purposes. The MSM is conveniently ignoring this part of the equation in the reporting!


posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by milesp

I don't buy this claim at all. That sounds more like the practices of private insurance companies. I'm challenging you to provide evidence of this.

Just go to Google and type it in. Canada, UK, Cuba, etc. is all cost benefit ratio on whether you get care or not. It isn't that hard.

Ok, in order to take into account higher tax rates per in countries with national health care you would have to analyze the tax codes of literally every other industrialized nation. I don't have time for this, so I'm going to once again place the burden of proof on you since you're making the statement. And if the government were to negotiate prices for drugs with big pharma, that would be a good thing because they would be negotiating to LOWER the cost.

Again Google, the info. You don't have to analyze the tax codes all you have to do is look for the info here is the Total Tax Rate Per Country That is just income Tax, that isn't taking into account VAT's sales tax, etc.

And again, unintended consequences, Once Big Pharma isn't making as much money less research into better more effective drugs. People will quit donating to cancer research and everything else.

I'm not really sure what to make of this paragraph. Yeah doctors are going to do what they can to make you better, but you're going to be stuck with the bill if you don't have insurance. NOT ONLY THAT, but even if you do have insurance, insurance companies will do whatever they can to wriggle out of having to cover the bills. And I don't really see big pharma taking any losses.

Like I said, by the time Universal Health Care gets fully going and tax rates get put into place people could afford their own health insurance just off the tax burden. And no they aren't going to take a loss because they will be dictating the Universal Health Care(UHC) policy. Do you really want Big Pharma and the Insurance companies dictating what kind of health care you get.

I understand that as a conservative you hate being taxed. Unfortunately that's part of living in a society that has a government. The question is what our tax dollars should be spent on. I believe healthcare is a reasonable thing for the government to spend money on.

I don't. There is no way to judge how much money a year will get spent on health care. Countries with UHC are constantly suffering from budget overruns. Health care is not a set amount of money the fund fluctuate every year, then with more people means higher taxes. I'd rather keep my money because I know how to spend it better than the government does.

You wanting to give the government more money is just stupid. You disagree with the Military Industrial Complex, but guess what it isn't going anywhere. Once the government can prove it knows how to be fiscally responsible then we will talk.

Well that's not a bad idea at all. Sounds a lot like how a single-payer plan should work.

No offense but there you go with the "Newspeak". That is the way it was before Nixon. Instead of them going back that way they are trying to change the whole system.

Look at the stats. Industrialized nations with some form of universal health care spend less per capita and enjoy better services for everyone. If you're rich in a country with nationalized heath care you can still shell out the extra bucks for whatever treatment you want. If you're poor in America, you're screwed.

What they aren't telling you is that us paying as much as we do for health care is what allows the medical industry to make huge advancements in medical technology. Hate to break it to you but UHC or private health insurance the medical technology field is going to put its profits before everything else.

And in fact the chart you linked to proves my point about what Nixon did screwed up everything. If you look at exhibit 2 on that page look at 1970 and the other countries we were not the most expensive.

UHC is a horrible idea.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in