Round One - Obama??

[FinanceDude]

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070125/ap_on_go_co/democrats_health_care [/url]

 

[dex]

It is easy to be for things and not have to provide details or pay for it.
I'm in favor of:
Universal health care
Free university education
Eliminating taxes on Social security
Free prescription drugs
Eliminate the IRS and go to a flat tax
Eliminate taxes on food
People over 51 go to the head of all lines (except the bad ones)
Eliminate all diseases
Everyone around the world should speak English
Free Sex
Peace on earth

 

[Peter]

It is easy to be for things and not have to provide details or pay for it.

The difference between universal health care and the other things on your list is that all other first world nations have found a way to do it.

Existence proof.

Peter

 

[donheff]

The difference between universal health care and the other things on your list is that all other first world nations have found a way to do it.

Existence proof.

Peter

I was listening to a program on PBS today where people were talking about how health costs would = the entire budget by 2050. They kept saying "this is a REAL crisis, something has to be done." The thought crossed my mind, does the rest of the developed world see health care as this much of a crisis? I believe the answer is no. They have solved the problem to a degree that is at least marginally satisfactory to their citizens. Our system doesn't seem marginally satisfactory to anyone.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Our system doesn't seem marginally satisfactory to anyone.

That is because we have become a nation of whiners, waiting for someone
(government) to solve our problems. Your government won't solve
the problem. They are the problem.

JG

 

[laurence]

I'm glad to see you are tearing up your social security check in protest, JG.

You know, we could make a magic JG 8 ball and just shake it once per thread and post what it says....

 

[Leonidas]

The thought crossed my mind, does the rest of the developed world see health care as this much of a crisis? I believe the answer is no. They have solved the problem to a degree that is at least marginally satisfactory to their citizens. Our system doesn't seem marginally satisfactory to anyone.

People love the idea of fixing the healthcare issues with universal healthcare until you start mentioning the potential drawbacks.

In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments. Indeed, most Americans, or 54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States — the first majority in three polls since 1993, and up 10 points since 2000.

And are those kind of drawbacks present in those countries where they have universal healthcare? It seems so. You may find this interesting comparison of the British and American healthcare systems by an American author whose wife had a stroke in England.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006785

Two interesting quotes from that story for those who don't bother to click over:

Comparing the hospitals and equipment:

When I covered Latin America for The Wall Street Journal, I'd visit hospitals, prisons and schools as barometers of public services in the country. Based on my Latin American scale, Queen's Square would rate somewhere in the middle. It certainly wasn't as bad as public hospitals in El Salvador, where patients often share beds. But it wasn't as nice as some of the hospitals I've seen in Buenos Aires or southern Brazil. And compared with virtually any hospital ward in the U.S., Queen's Square would fall short by a mile.

The equipment wasn't ancient, but it was often quite old. On occasion my wife and I would giggle at heart and blood-pressure monitors that were literally taped together and would come apart as they were being moved into place. The nurses and hospital technicians had become expert at jerry-rigging temporary fixes for a lot of the damaged equipment. I pitched in as best as I could with simple things, like fixing the wiring for the one TV in the ward. And I'd make frequent trips to the local pharmacies to buy extra tissues and cleaning wipes, which were always in short supply.

n fact, cleaning was my main occupation for the month we were at Queen's Square. Infections in hospitals are, of course, a problem everywhere. But in Britain, hospital-borne infections are getting out of control. At least 100,000 British patients a year are hit by hospital-acquired infections, including the penicillin-resistant "superbug" MRSA. A new study carried out by the British Health Protection Agency says that MRSA plays a part in the deaths of up to 32,000 patients every year. But even at lower numbers, Britain has the worst MRSA infection rates in Europe. It's not hard to see why.

As far as we could tell in our month at Queen's Square, the only method of keeping the floors clean was an industrious worker from the Philippines named Marcello, equipped with a mop and pail. Marcello did the best that he could. But there's only so much a single worker can do with a mop and pail against a ward full of germ-laden filth. Only a constant cleaning by me kept our little corner of the ward relatively germ-free. When my wife and I walked into Cornell University Hospital in New York after a month in England, the first thing we noticed was the floors. They were not only clean. They were shining! We were giddy with the prospect of not constantly engaging in germ warfare.

On price comparisons:

"Free health care" is a mantra that one hears all the time from advocates of the British system. But British health care is not "free." I mentioned the cost of living in London, which is twice as high for almost any good or service as prices in Manhattan. Folks like to blame an overvalued pound (or undervalued dollar). But that only explains about 30% of the extra cost. A far larger part of those extra costs come in the hidden value-added taxes--which can add up to 40% when you combine costs to consumers and producers. And with salaries tending to be about 20% lower in England than they are here, the purchasing power of Brits must be close to what we would define as the poverty level. The enormous costs of socialized medicine explain at least some of this disparity in the standard of living.

Something is clearly wrong with medical pricing over here. Ten therapy sessions aren't worth $27,000, no matter how shiny the floors are. On the other hand my wife was wheeled into Cornell and managed to partially walk out after a relatively pleasant stay in a relatively clean environment. Can one really put a price on that?

There are obviously trade offs to be made.

 

[Peter]

There are obviously trade offs to be made.

Obviously.

You know, I hate to get involved in these discussions, because someone always quotes some story about how the health care system in the UK, or wherever, is less than ideal.

But I will mention two things:

The person who was treated for stroke in the quoted story is alive and apparently well.
The Brits spend less than half on health care, per person, than we do.

Of course no system is perfect. But what we have seems to be far less perfect than most other countries are able to provide for much less money.

Peter

 

[macdaddy]

Didn't Obama admit to doing cocaine in college?

Am I wrong, or doesn't this still doom someone running for President? (Not doing it obviously, because I'm sure Bush did a whole heaping mound of coke at Yale, but admitting it publicly...).

 

[youbet]

I'm sure we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg regarding Obama's past.....

 

[2B]

I'm sure we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg regarding Obama's past.....

Don't worry. Hillary will make sure we know all about everything by the first primary -- unless there's a deal for him to "lose gracefully" and become her VP.

 

[dex]

Didn't Obama admit to doing cocaine in college?

Am I wrong, or doesn't this still doom someone running for President? (Not doing it obviously, because I'm sure Bush did a whole heaping mound of coke at Yale, but admitting it publicly...).

It is really the denial that kills you.

I think Bill Clinton said he had pot but didn't inhale.

 

[donheff]

That is because we have become a nation of whiners, waiting for someone
(government) to solve our problems. Your government won't solve
the problem. They are the problem.

JG

Welcome back JG. I hope you are in good health.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Welcome back JG. I hope you are in good health.

Thanks. Grumpy as ever.

JG