Didja read my post before commenting, because health care is not really the issue here, serfdom is.

We have had a very similar scheme in australia for DECADES. If you dont get private health cover, the govt will tax you to a rate where you would otherwise be paying for it anyway, in order to provide public care to those too poor to even pay taxes to begin with.

So why does anyone there bother to buy private health insurance? Isn't socialied medicine just as good or better than for-profit health care?

This ensures EVERYONE IS COVERED EVERYWHERE, no matter the circumstances.
If you have ZERO insurance and you have to amputate a leg, or get coronary bipass surgery....ITS FREE!

We have that here too. Ever hear of Medicaid? What about the "free" care for the 12 million illegals here (more than HALF of Australia's ENTIRE population)

Our standard of care is FAR above yours, WE SPEND LESS GDP PER CAPITA than you for it too!

You're really going to compare an island of 22 million to the USA? You are FAR from utopia.

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2007/187/9/challenges-health-and-health-care-australia

Access to (Australian) health services is becoming less equitable. Patients’ out-of-pocket costs have grown 50% in the past decade and now, for some, present a sizeable barrier to needed care.

You don't get it because you're not an American. As an honorary member of the Euro system, you will always see government as the solution to everything, and that's fine for you, but that shit doesn't fly here. The settlers didn't flee England in search of a new world in order to have a gigantic leviathan government coddle us. Fucking Obama and King George III of England look a lot alike these days, maybe it's the crown.

Your assumptions are many and flawed. You assume taxocrats (the American left) want to "save" money. They couldn't care less, we've spent 9 trillion on a failed war on poverty. Liberals measure success by the weight of their good intentions, not results.

In other words, insanity.

If this was really about the 30 million uninsured, there's more than enough revenue just to cover them. But Nooooooo, EVERYONE is now a subject of the King, because this corrupt legal decision isn't about health insurance, it's about control. Tyranny. The end of freedom.

Fuck 'em. November is coming.

Putting aside the tortured "logic" of this horrible Court decision, here's the straight dope:

People who couldn't or wouldn't pay for health insurance are now forced at gunpoint to pay for it.

Boy that's new, before there were limits to federal power. Now for the first time, the federal mafia can force you to buy a product, and if you refuse, they illegally penalize you under the guise of a "tax", an argument so warped even His Earness didn't use it.

If the formerly uninsured don't have the money or refuse to pay for health insurance, someone else pays the tab anyway (you can't easily put 30 million people in prison).

In other words, nothing has changed, except for expanded unconstitutional government powers and huge, economy-destroying tax hikes with 19,000 new IRS agent/enforcers to collect.

If there's one constant in life, it's whenever government gets involved in business, everything gets cheaper and more efficient.

Putting aside the tortured "logic" of this horrible Court decision, here's the straight dope:

People who couldn't or wouldn't pay for health insurance are now forced at gunpoint to pay for it.

Boy that's new, before there were limits to federal power. Now for the first time, the federal mafia can force you to buy a product, and if you refuse, they illegally penalize you under the guise of a "tax", an argument so warped even His Earness didn't use it.

If the formerly uninsured don't have the money or refuse to pay for health insurance, someone else pays the tab anyway (you can't easily put 30 million people in prison).

In other words, nothing has changed, except for expanded unconstitutional government powers and huge, economy-destroying tax hikes with 19,000 new IRS agent/enforcers to collect.

If there's one constant in life, it's whenever government gets involved in business, everything gets cheaper and more efficient.

1) Vote taxocrat
2) watch sh1t gets worse
3) Blame Bush
4) repeat until revolution

Irish O'bama is ignorant of Tea Party ideals. One cannot expect a Eurosocialist to understand a healthy fear of government power, the sole reason our American government is divided in TREES.


"It is said by the proponents of government-run health care that 47 million people go without health care in the United States. For example, during the so-called Cover the Uninsured Week event in 2008, Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued a statement declaring that this is the “time to reaffirm our commitment to access to quality, affordable health care for every American, including the 47 million who live in fear of even a minor illness because they lack health insurance…In the wealthiest nation on earth, it is scandalous that a single working American or a young child must face life without the economic security of health coverage.” This is more deceit.

"In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance.

About 9.5 million were not United States citizens.

Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health care coverage.

Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it.

Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months.

The 47 million “uninsured” figure used by Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate."

--Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny

Why should we give a sh1t, Kenyan? You've ALREADY jacked taxes to the tune of 21 billion a year.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/07/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-says-he-didnt-raise-taxes/


The idea that Obama did not raise taxes is just plain wrong. He signed legislation raising taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products soon after taking office...the law went into effect in 2009. He also signed the health care law, which includes taxes on indoor tanning that went into effect last year (2010).

The new health care law also includes a tax on people who decide not to have health insurance, as an incentive for them to get coverage. The tax phases in gradually, starting in 2014. By 2016, the tax would be $695 per uninsured person up to a maximum of three times that amount, or $2,085.

More significantly, the health care law includes new taxes on the wealthy, starting in 2013. Individuals who make more than $200,000 and couples that make more than $250,000 will see additional Medicare taxes of 0.9 percent. They will also, for the first time, have to pay Medicare taxes on their investment income at a 3.8 percent rate. (Current law is that all workers and employers split a 2.9 percent Medicare tax; the self-employed pay all of it.)

The small percentages may not sound like a lot, but those taxes are expected to generate $210 billion over 10 years, or just over half of all the new revenues the health care law authorizes. Other provisions include new fees on health insurance companies and prescription drug manufacturers, and a new tax on high-cost "Cadillac" health insurance plans.


Moochelle couldn't wait another week to leave for another "family" vacation, so please apologize to the 2500 'working class' bastards who had to shell out $40 each for that.

>> ^snoozedoctor:

Exactly what is preventive medicine? It's basically don't smoke, don't drink too much, eat right, exercise, and wear your seatbelt. Oh, and don't text while you drive. So, most of it is just personal responsibility. Then there are the screening tests, mammograms, PSAs.....most of which are being cut back because of lack of evidence they improve outcomes and because they probably lead to many unnecessary tests. Immunizations are a great example of preventive medicine that works.
The Emergency treatment and active Labor Act of 1986 was an unfunded mandate that required hospitals to provide emergency services and obstetrical care to all patients presenting for emergent care, regardless of their ability to pay or citizenship. So, nobody is denied emergent care in the US health-care system. Of course, the real problem is uninsured patients that have non-emergent health-care problems.
The complexities of the current US system will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to completely convert to a single payer, National Health Care Plan. Perhaps it may evolve as a parallel public system, similar to the VA system. Regardless, the major problems with the current system are not being addressed. The heroic measures to save a few elderly people, without realistic hope for recovery, are consuming resources that could be used to provide health-care for younger citizens with some hope for a good quality of life. The threat of lawsuits are resulting in physicians ordering tests and consultations that are unnecessary and may add up to a full 10% of all health-care costs.
One often overlooked result of a "for profit" system is the investment in medical technology. The US is by far the World's largest exporter of medical devices. We invented and manufactured the MRI and CT scanners, and much of the high tech devices that other countries use in their National Health Care Systems.
>> ^criticalthud:
@snoozedoctor
personal responsibility is not really the issue. actual access to healthcare is.
yeah, americans are fat, stupid, and lazy, and eat like shit, but the "for profit" status of western medicine and the insurance and pharma scams aren't really helping matters.
one of the big problems with a "for profit" system is that preventative medicine is not nearly as profitable as medicine that bills by procedures.



well, one really lacking area is in somatic complaints, which make up, i believe, the close to the majority of complaints at hospitals. things like - bad back, bad shoulder...etc. these are all complaints that often have chronic structural issues, for which western medicine is ill-equipped to deal. they often just medicate those issues until they turn into procedural issues, which is often a very incomplete treatment.
instead structural issues are left to mostly the chiro's to muck about with, and while they get some of the theory right, their quick-fix practices are also often based on a profit motive, and rather incomplete.

Exactly what is preventive medicine? It's basically don't smoke, don't drink too much, eat right, exercise, and wear your seatbelt. Oh, and don't text while you drive. So, most of it is just personal responsibility. Then there are the screening tests, mammograms, PSAs.....most of which are being cut back because of lack of evidence they improve outcomes and because they probably lead to many unnecessary tests. Immunizations are a great example of preventive medicine that works.
The Emergency treatment and active Labor Act of 1986 was an unfunded mandate that required hospitals to provide emergency services and obstetrical care to all patients presenting for emergent care, regardless of their ability to pay or citizenship. So, nobody is denied emergent care in the US health-care system. Of course, the real problem is uninsured patients that have non-emergent health-care problems.
The complexities of the current US system will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to completely convert to a single payer, National Health Care Plan. Perhaps it may evolve as a parallel public system, similar to the VA system. Regardless, the major problems with the current system are not being addressed. The heroic measures to save a few elderly people, without realistic hope for recovery, are consuming resources that could be used to provide health-care for younger citizens with some hope for a good quality of life. The threat of lawsuits are resulting in physicians ordering tests and consultations that are unnecessary and may add up to a full 10% of all health-care costs.
One often overlooked result of a "for profit" system is the investment in medical technology. The US is by far the World's largest exporter of medical devices. We invented and manufactured the MRI and CT scanners, and much of the high tech devices that other countries use in their National Health Care Systems.
>> ^criticalthud:

@snoozedoctor
personal responsibility is not really the issue. actual access to healthcare is.
yeah, americans are fat, stupid, and lazy, and eat like shit, but the "for profit" status of western medicine and the insurance and pharma scams aren't really helping matters.
one of the big problems with a "for profit" system is that preventative medicine is not nearly as profitable as medicine that bills by procedures.

Well, the Ron Paul right wingers I can't really explain. They are pro death for unborn babies and the uninsured, but pro-life for convicted serial killers.

A better number of right wingers though are pro-life for unborn babies, and pro-death for serial killers. That at least seems self consistent and not inherently and obviously evil or wrong.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

It is more akin to the idea of WHICH good thing you wish to practice, or the thing being done that is said to be good not being good in your own moral judgement. One might say feeding the poor isn't done properly unless accompanied by a health dose of soul food. I am no one to tell them they are wrong. The hard part of doing good with other peoples money is we don't have the same idea of what good is, so any attempt is muddled in personal bias and dogma. Which is why I support more community based charity than national.

Again, I'm not a theologian, but does Jesus say something akin to "don't help people at all if you're uncertain whether you'll succeed?"

Do you really dispute that providing medical treatment to people who're sick is a good thing?

I'm not religious, and I don't think we should base our morals on what we read in the Bible, but what little I do know of the Bible is that Jesus doesn't sound much like Ayn Rand, or any other right-wing ideologue on this topic.

Is there any passage of the bible that supports the libertarian case against state-sponsored distributive justice? Does Jesus say property is the sole enforceable moral obligation we have to one another, and everything else must be considered a matter of personal choice? Does he say tax-funded welfare programs are morally worse than letting the poor starve or succumb to treatable illness through individual negligence?

If he did, it'd resolve what I see as the biggest cognitive dissonance present in American culture, but I don't think the Bible says anything of the sort.

It is more akin to the idea of WHICH good thing you wish to practice, or the thing being done that is said to be good not being good in your own moral judgement. One might say feeding the poor isn't done properly unless accompanied by a health dose of soul food. I am no one to tell them they are wrong. The hard part of doing good with other peoples money is we don't have the same idea of what good is, so any attempt is muddled in personal bias and dogma. Which is why I support more community based charity than national.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
Actually I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Jesus had in mind when he tells us to give up our earthly possessions and follow God, trusting in him to take care of us.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Is it Christian to let other people do good deeds for you instead of doing them yourself? Social services undercut many peoples ability to practice their own moral choices.


Trusting government is trusting God? That is a stretch I don't think that is what you meant, but it is what you seem to of said.

I'm no theologian, but nobody's ever cited to me the part of the Bible where Jesus makes a distinction between people helping others through an institution (like churches, non-profits, or government), or on their own as an individual.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
Actually I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Jesus had in mind when he tells us to give up our earthly possessions and follow God, trusting in him to take care of us.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Is it Christian to let other people do good deeds for you instead of doing them yourself? Social services undercut many peoples ability to practice their own moral choices.


Trusting government is trusting God? That is a stretch I don't think that is what you meant, but it is what you seem to of said.


I'm no theologian, but nobody's ever cited to me the part of the Bible where Jesus makes a distinction between people helping others through an institution (like churches, non-profits, or government), or on their own as an individual.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

Actually I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Jesus had in mind when he tells us to give up our earthly possessions and follow God, trusting in him to take care of us.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Is it Christian to let other people do good deeds for you instead of doing them yourself? Social services undercut many peoples ability to practice their own moral choices.



Trusting government is trusting God? That is a stretch I don't think that is what you meant, but it is what you seem to of said.

Actually I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Jesus had in mind when he tells us to give up our earthly possessions and follow God, trusting in him to take care of us.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Is it Christian to let other people do good deeds for you instead of doing them yourself? Social services undercut many peoples ability to practice their own moral choices.

I'm asking people to sit down, and decide together to set up some fair and equal structure for identifying and clarifying our responsibilities to one another, and create an incentive structure to help us make sure we are all living up to the commitments morality demands of us.

Perfect! Sounds like you've formed a solid mission statement for a nongovernmental nonprofit.


I don't really see much promotion of altruism in that.

Funny: I see responsibilities mandated by the government as infinitely less altruistic than responsibilities mandated by individual moral imperative.


Oh, and one that I missed from earlier: It's not that I misunderstand Paul's "message," it's that I see through the spin.

Classifying Ron Paul as some kind of spin doctor is comical to me. We're talking about someone who has contributed more in the way of treating the underprivileged and uninsured than most of us ever will. Idealistic and inflexible with respect to individual liberty? Maybe. Disingenuous? Try again.
>> ^NetRunner:
Not at all. I'm asking people to sit down, and decide together to set up some fair and equal structure for identifying and clarifying our responsibilities to one another, and create an incentive structure to help us make sure we are all living up to the commitments morality demands of us ...

Your video, Ron Paul's Campaign Mgr Died Uninsured w/Huge Medical Debt, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.