Hi guys, I'm from the UK. Believe it or not, whatever Fox news says, the UK is not a socialist state. But we have free at-the-point-of-use healthcare - paid for out of general taxation. This so-called 'socialised' system costs the UK half the per capita amount that the US shells out. The NHS has its flaws but we're very proud of it!

I can assure you there are millions of Europeans completely bemused by the venom being spat at Obama for his attempts to reform healthcare in your country. Why ever would you not want universal health care coverage? Thank God we don't have private health care corporations profiting from the misery and suffering of this country's sick people! Like you do. They must love this anti-Obama backlash - laughing all the way to the bank.

There are 46 million of your fellow Americans who are said to have no health care. It sure sounds like the law of the jungle out there. If that's the system you like you're welcome to it. But it strikes most of the rest of the Western world as savage, barbaric, befitting more of a third world country than a supposed leading member of the world community.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by magnetic]

I hate To be this person.

I keep on hearing personal responsibility over and over. The truth is people are no where near personally Responsible. we are reckless sometimes, Stupid, and often Arrogant.

It's The inherent human Condition that divides man with opinions and world views. We murder, kill, let people suffer to die for the sake of people individual beliefs and opinions. but, those opinions have to come from somewhere.

Is it all what we were programmed to believe? The Truth is not out there because the truth is not about self belief.

anyways, The founding fathers on the other hand gave us the freedom of choice.


Alot of people want that choice. And we should have every right to make that choice because without freedom of that choice because of agendas of a few wealthy men, how really free are we?


If you want a world where it's your way only, will that be totalitarian?

Without Medicare or medicaid, I would be Homeless or most likely dead, because I had a problem when I was a baby that was not my responsibility. It happened Naturally.

If you get a brain aneurysm , and have no insurance, you should die because you are responsible? open your mind to their view and feel the way they feel. Do not blast them for it. commend them. because its every citizens duty to question their government as said by Thomas Jefferson.


Deny ignorance....



[edit on 22-9-2009 by EnigmaXD]

[edit on 22-9-2009 by EnigmaXD]

[edit on 22-9-2009 by EnigmaXD]

[edit on 22-9-2009 by EnigmaXD]

Originally posted by EnigmaXD

If you get a brain aneurysm , and have no insurance, you should die because you are responsible? open your mind to their view and feel the way they feel.

Deny ignorance....

Right now if you have a brain aneurysm you goto the hospital and they help you, period.

What the OP doesn't understand is this health plan he is wanting is going to make his life worse.

i am in my late 20's working making enuff to get by on but by no means well off, but under this healthcare bill i will be FORCED to spend several hundred dollars a month to insure myself because it is going to be mandatory.

the founding fathers may have tried to give us freedom of choice but now it is freedom to do what your told.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Gixxer]

The thing I agree with you with. It should not be mandatory because that is being forced, wheres the freedom in that.

The key thing is if somebody wants a government paid insurance that is their choice, they should have it. but that freedom is not free, because of the cost.

Honestly All of the parties are at fault. they need to come together and seriously open debate the hell out of it and not leave until they reach a common ground. We did not see that since 1776. It should happen everyday in congress but the sad thing it does not. no one will be satisfied until there are a perfect balance of things.

If the people want government ran Health care, Lets find a way to do it, and for the other peoples benefit lets find a way for them. Choice people choice. If there is a will there is a way. There is a way to do everything, even if its deemed hard or impossible, There is always ways without killing people or screwing them over.





[edit on 22-9-2009 by EnigmaXD]

[edit on 22-9-2009 by EnigmaXD]

[edit on 22-9-2009 by EnigmaXD]

[edit on 22-9-2009 by EnigmaXD]

If health care is so bad in Canada, then why is Life expectancy longer in Canada, and its infant mortality rate is lower than that of the U.S.?

Originally posted by pjoelro
just thought i'd (age 24) share this little bit i got from my father (age 44) of the math of the situation, because i am sure that no one has taken the time to figure it out

My wife and I are self-employed, and have watched our high-deductible
> health insurance rocket up to $700 per month! That is with very few
> health visits over the past 15 years. Some quick math on the calculator
> shows that a $1 Trillion over a decade plan spread over 150 million
> workers in the US amounts to $55.56 per worker per month (call that a
> tax increase, I really don't care).

First the math. You make some serious assumptions in your calculations. The First one being that the costs will NEVER be more than $1T, and that the costs would be spread over a decade. Also you assume that there will be a rebound in the job market, since right now we don't have 150M people working.

Show me ONE, just ONE government program that has ever stayed in the projected budget.

Second, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution had prohibited Congress from creating a National Income Tax, though the 16th amendment did allow for the IRS. The only legal way for the costs to be applied to the public would be through a percentage of income, just as the income tax. Just charging everyone your quote of $56 a month would be considered Capitation which our Constitution does NOT allow.

Is this really so bad then when it does come out of the taxes of everyone (not just the rich). and these "tax increases" everyone keeps complaining about are in actuality non-renewed, or repealed tax breaks initiated by former administrations.

Well let's see, what about the people, who for reasons of religion, do not use doctors? Is it fair, right or Constitutional that they also pay for healthcare, KNOWING that they will never use the services they are paying for?

Oh, but there's that "opt-out" option, right, but... then again, no, because if you opt out, you will be charged and even higher tax penalty.

Don't use it, never will, and yet you MUST pay for it. How is that right>

And yes, I know this is a small segment of the population, but if we disenfranchise them of their rights, or present a punitive tax upon them for their religious choice, what door are we opening for even more loss of rights/disenfranchisement to occur??

Do YOU want to open that door?

now if you want to make arguements that if this cost is lumped in with all taxes, anyone making over 150k/yr (top 5%) will pay 50% of this.... this figure is based only on income tax, now we need to fit in ALL other taxes (whiche are not income based, ex. tom make 100$/yr and john makes 1000$/yr john and tom both buy 5$ of gas, tax on that gas is a flat rate regardless of income bracket, so lets say tax on that gas =1$ now tom has paid a tax of 1% of his income while john who makes 10x the income of tom pays 0.1% of his income. So in the long run things do balance out more so then people lead you to believe. This is not to say that the top 5% still pay more, but it is not nearly as much as one might think. unfortunatly i cannot find the actual figures of the long drug out and fully compiled information, mostly because i assume that it would be incredibly difficult to figure out accurate percentages for this concept.

No you can't find the info, because it doesn't exist yet. The government has absolutely no idea what the ultimate cost will be. Nor do they have an idea of how doctors quitting practice will impact their plan, and MANY intend to do just that should a "health care bill" be passed.

But above and beyond that, you appear to be fully happen with the redistribution of wealth concept, as indicated above...

Those who make more will pay more so that those who don't or can't pay can benefit too.

To that I say no. Social Security & Medicare are NOT the same as socialized/universal healthcare, since we each pay into the fund and expect to receive benefits according to what we have paid in. Not more because we need more, and not less than what we have coming to us.

On a completely different note, do you pay for major medical coverage while you are young & healthy??? If so, you are a fool. You should only have hospitalization/ catastrophic coverage policies at your age. It is still cheaper to pay the $85 once or twice a year to see the doc when you need to.

First the math. You make some serious assumptions in your calculations. The First one being that the costs will NEVER be more than $1T, and that the costs would be spread over a decade. Also you assume that there will be a rebound in the job market, since right now we don't have 150M people working.

Show me ONE, just ONE government program that has ever stayed in the projected budget.

Second, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution had prohibited Congress from creating a National Income Tax, though the 16th amendment did allow for the IRS. The only legal way for the costs to be applied to the public would be through a percentage of income, just as the income tax. Just charging everyone your quote of $56 a month would be considered Capitation which our Constitution does NOT allow.

The numbers i have used are from the latest information from one of the more resonable propositions. Lets keep in mind, there are more then one draft and/or proposal. so lets say you are right and it does not stay in budget, lets say worst case scenario is that it doubles, ok now the average tax payer's piece is 110$/mo(keep in mind this is aprox for one married couple, not an indiviual) still alot less then 700$/mo. then next the part about ti being paid over the next decade, that is not frivilous assumption, it is pretty much the only thing that nearly every single one of the propositions have in common, not to mention it is how the government works, spend now pay later. (not that i think this is right either but that is a seperate discussion) the only real concern is that they will take longer to pay it off. which would actually decrease the monthly load for the taxpayer. The rest of your arguements are conjecture and personal opinion (which you are more then entitled to). This is just my side/arguement of the situation. As far people paying for other peoples medical care who will never use any form of medical care, i would like you to point out to me, something at the federal level that has ever been satisfactory for everyone. i will not say there there never was anything but i do ask you provide proof that such things have happened, because i cannot find any.

Something i didnt state before by the way, People want to argue that they dont want to pay for junkies and lazy people with this new bill. News flash i guess you dont know that you allready do. This bill is going to help the people that; educate your children, fix your luxury items(ex. hot tubs, and sports bike, and big SUV's), Provide transportation for those who dont enough money or are incapable of driving, your veterens, and the like. The only people that are being added to the coverage are people who allready do work, and work hard for their money they do get(sometimes harder then most). If you do not take care of your lower classes, they wont be able to take care of you.

Originally posted by redhatty
Second, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution had prohibited Congress from creating a National Income Tax, though the 16th amendment did allow for the IRS. The only legal way for the costs to be applied to the public would be through a percentage of income, just as the income tax. Just charging everyone your quote of $56 a month would be considered Capitation which our Constitution does NOT allow.

btw i did address this by talking about lumping this in with regular taxes we allready pay. Did you not ready my statement fully before attempting to pick it apart, or did you just chose to ignore that part, Im curious.

On a completely different note, do you pay for major medical coverage while you are young & healthy??? If so, you are a fool. You should only have hospitalization/ catastrophic coverage policies at your age. It is still cheaper to pay the $85 once or twice a year to see the doc when you need to.

actually i do nto pay anything i am lucky enough to have made the descision to go into the military. where we have free health care. and i like it alot better then what i had befoer the military (what my father paid for) and it is good to know that i wont have to shell out $1000 dollars to have my nose fixed because some jack-ss wanted to hit me in the face becaszue he thought i was someone else (real story, and rounded down cost)

[edit on 24-9-2009 by pjoelro]

[edit on 24-9-2009 by pjoelro]

I have been unemployed since July 2008 and have no health benefits and I do not support government involvement in health care in any way shape or form. Government has proven time and again that it cannot find its way out of a paper bag let alone handle health care reform.

I avoid using traditional health care and use herbs instead. I have for the past 20 years used herbs and supplements for ailments with better results than any physician. I had bronchitis every winter for years and when I used antibiotics, it returned as soon as I stopped using them.

I have for years taken Echinacaea(sp?) and Goldenseal when I feel it coming on and have had no full blown bronchitis for years. I use other herbs as needed for other issues and use chiropractic as needed (also avoiding back surgery).

I've relieved migraine with nettle and feverfew and use other herbs for menopause. I will continue to avoid traditional medicine and use other ways to remain healthy.

Originally posted by pjoelro
The numbers i have used are from the latest information from one of the more resonable propositions. Lets keep in mind, there are more then one draft and/or proposal. so lets say you are right and it does not stay in budget, lets say worst case scenario is that it doubles, ok now the average tax payer's piece is 110$/mo(keep in mind this is aprox for one married couple, not an indiviual) still alot less then 700$/mo. then next the part about ti being paid over the next decade, that is not frivilous assumption, it is pretty much the only thing that nearly every single one of the propositions have in common, not to mention it is how the government works, spend now pay later. (not that i think this is right either but that is a seperate discussion) the only real concern is that they will take longer to pay it off. which would actually decrease the monthly load for the taxpayer.

Somehow, I think you are misguided in what you think the overall costs of this health care plan are going to be, the .gov estimates $1Trillion to LAUNCH the program, which will be cost spread over 10 years (by the plans so far in the works).

Dude, that's JUST to get it started. And if it's double, it won't be $110 for a couple, it will be $220.

Then you have the revised costs the following year, and the cost adjustments that they will also attempt to spread out over time, which will lead to annual increases in the cost to the tax payer.

Buy now pay later costs MORE in the end, as there is added interest on the amount being "financed" - just like a credit card does.

As far people paying for other peoples medical care who will never use any form of medical care, i would like you to point out to me, something at the federal level that has ever been satisfactory for everyone. i will not say there there never was anything but i do ask you provide proof that such things have happened, because i cannot find any.

So your position is since the federal gov hasn't done anything right the first time yet, why not let them keep being wrong with the things they do?

Something i didnt state before by the way, People want to argue that they dont want to pay for junkies and lazy people with this new bill. News flash i guess you dont know that you allready do. This bill is going to help the people that; educate your children, fix your luxury items(ex. hot tubs, and sports bike, and big SUV's), Provide transportation for those who dont enough money or are incapable of driving, your veterens, and the like. The only people that are being added to the coverage are people who allready do work, and work hard for their money they do get(sometimes harder then most). If you do not take care of your lower classes, they wont be able to take care of you.

So if it is just a select portion of the population that really needs the help, why must there be a "universal" change in how things are done? Why not change the restrictions over interstate coverage by companies. Make laws that make it illegal for insurance companies to disqualify you for pre-existing conditions?

Or, OMG, forcing change upon the insurance industry that makes it ALL not for profit?

Doesn't it make more sense to change only the things that are broken, instead of creating an atmosphere in this country that inspires the Doctors, who everyone seems to need to see so badly - hence the need for the change - to all go Galt? (Just up and quit, because it makes no sense for them to keep working if they are limited in what they can earn or the quality of care they can provide)

Do you realize that UK instituted the NHS after WWII, when the country was war ravished, they decided to rebuild and "do it all better." In less than 6 years, the NHS almost bankrupted the UK.

The US is already technically bankrupt. How are we supposed to actually afford the change?