heh heh, rachel's always worth some chuckles

but whether it's rachel or otherwise, i try to always dig a little at sources as a way of getting a better grasp of the context

for example, texas does have the highest percentage of uninsured in the country, though california leads in total number of uninsured - as well, the texas numbers include (as i imagine they do for california, etc) non-citizens... a whopping 27% of the total number of the uninsured rachel cites for texas are non-citizens -- i think that it's fair to assume that states like texas and california, etc, that have a semi-porous border with mexico, would have a disproportionate amount of non-citizens included in their total numbers of uninsured - this assumption seems to bear out in the case of texas, with the percentages of uninsured rising as much as 13% by county the closer one moves to the mexican border

http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=5517

suspecting the bent of minds like newt's, i further suspect that their plans for states like texas would follow a course wherein non-citizens would be either disenfranchised or excluded completely from state-funded healthcare

Selection Bias.

As it stands Illegal Aliens do not have a right to tax funded health care.

But like I said, health care shouldn't have a price.

You dig deep enough every state has something ass backwards about it.

Like Private Prisons in Arizona.

^Heh, private prisons..

"You are now in Bubba's Prison, where mohlestation is not only tolerated, it's guaranteed."

>> ^NordlichReiter:
You dig deep enough every state has something ass backwards about it.
Like Private Prisons in Arizona.

i think there's a pretty good selection at http://www.dumblaws.com/

My wife is one of those uninsured Texans! People here are very opposed to the health care bill. I cringe whenever its mentioned.

health care shouldn't have a price

Oi vey... It is comments like this that illustrate the terrible state of U.S. education. No matter how much emotion or moral outrage people may have, the fact remains that all goods & services have a cost because they don't spontaneously appear out of thin air. G&S must be 'produced' and therefore MUST have a price. And - moreover - in order to have quality goods & services (instead of useless junk), the price must also be PROFITABLE otherwise no one would bother to provide it.

So you can rant and rave and whine all you want about how health care 'shouldn't have a price'. But all such verbal offal must be ignored as foolishness.

If health care should 'have no price' then there are a dozen other things that also should have no price. Food, clothing, shelter, utilities, and transportation are all life-sustaining requirements to survive. Why should health care 'have no price' but these other necessities cost money? In fact, why should money exist at all for anything? Why isn't everything free? Yeesh - I think every man, woman and child in the US needs to immediately be marched into a basic economics and prove that they actually understand basics like supply & demand before they're allowed to vote or post comments on the internet.

I'm an American Citizen, a lifetime resident of Texas, and I am uninsured. I love my little 5 acre plot of Texas, but Texas Gov't, along with that grease bag Rick Perry, DO NOT have the solution to the health care crisis.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Why should health care 'have no price' but these other necessities cost money? In fact, why should money exist at all for anything? Why isn't everything free?

You strike me as a person that has never really considered these questions, and whether perhaps the answers you were told in grade school might be mistaken in some way.

For example, why write comments on Videosift? Presumably no one pays you to do so, and yet you manage to tear yourself away from your couch and do it anyway.

What if the underlying behavioral mechanics that classical economics presupposes are wrong? What if the thing that motivates people has more to do with a sense of accomplishment and personal fulfillment than actual remuneration?

Why, if a select group of people knew how to do that, they could quite possibly command 90% of the world's population, while only letting them have 10% of the world's economic output, while getting them to think they're "free"...

I had a serious illness a few years ago. The medical bill, if not insured (I did my homework out of intellectual curiousity), was $387,630. I'd like to see anyone not in the upper 8% of this nation's wealth afford this, WITHOUT going bankrupt. Yes, you STILL have to may the morgage on the house, and all the other expenses like cloths, food, gas, etc. Oh, and do this, when you dont have a job, because you were laid off, during a bad economy.

There's no way to do it. None.

Fortunately, I have and had, Mass Health (for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts), that paid for it. Yeah, I suffered on a level you will never know, nor understand, during that time period. You want to know what torture feels like? experience a year of what I went through. Anyone that has heard the tale and knows me, just is amazed at the horror ahd Hell I went through to get better (mostly).

I've come to understand the two sides of this: Republican and Democrat.

Republican: Do not want this, as its feared it will interfere with PROFIT. That's right, reduce the human equation down to numbers related to a substance that doesnt exist in the nature world: money. But then, I can not recall the last time I saw, heard, or witness a republican showing compassion for their fellow Americans, UNLESS, they themselves were also gaining from the act of compassion.

Democrats: Traditionally been the group that helps the workers out. Help pass structures and legal code that brought the worlding hours down in states from 60 to 40 hours a week. Put in a number of healthy life style provisions over the years. And now, they are doing something that benefits Americans for decades to come.

You can argue my words anyway you want. Republicans LIE to get what they want. They lied to get Bush in to office back in 2000. They lied on the energy crisis of 2003. They lied on Iraqq (no nuclear WMD, anyone?). They lied on Afghanistan. Some say they lied on 9/11. They lied on 'no nation building'. They lied for months on Health Care Reform. This video here, is simply showing, how often, and deeply, the lies go. We even have Winston above, showing us bold face lies.

You know Winston....

If you show up at the ER one night in catostophic pain, from an unknown source (be it a kidney stone, heart attack, etc). And the person there said "ok, you can access our hospital, but first, you must: A) Give us all your money B) Make yourself our slave, C) Give your body parts away for free. You WILL do so. Because, when someone is in that level of pain and suffering, they can not think straight, clearly, or consciously. Its a level of torture, someone like you, is unfamilar with. And yes, fortunately, the US hospitals (thanks to good legistation) prevent this sort of thing taking place. However, this sort of thing takes place outside of ER's every day in the US. You just choose not to see, hear, or witness it,

because....YOU....ARE....NOT....COMPASSIONATE....TO...YOUR....FELLOW....AMERICANS!

We even have Winston above, showing us bold face lies.

As much as I side with you on this, WP didnt exactly lie in that post. He says healthcare costs money, and yes it does.

What healthcare shold not do, however, is to be exploited for profit. And if the US Government didnt have its nutsack firmly placed in the hands of the health and insurance industry, they could, like most comparable country, spend HALF of what they do NOW, and provide free, universal healthcare


One of the reasons healthcare is so expensive in the US, is precisely because it is privately run. Providing care isnt like selling cars. You dont have the same kind of "competition driving the prices down", and even if you did, a MRI-scan is still insanely expensive. And then you have insurance.. sure, insurers can compete to have the lowest premiums, but that of course means that they'll have to cut somewhere to make a profit, and that means to reduce the number of actual payouts, so they make sure to attach hundreds of conditions and rules that no one reads anyway, so that they can blame pre-existing conditions or whatever, and then refuse payout. Overall, its a system that encourages PROFIT, and not actual healthcare.

If you ever needed proof of this, simply look at the numbers: The US government spends more money, yes MORE TAXPAYER's MONEY (hear that, republicans?) today then every single country that provides free, universal healthcare
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
http://seekingalpha.com/article/146992-comparing-u-s-healthcare-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

You strike me as a person that has never really considered these questions, and whether perhaps the answers you were told in grade school might be mistaken in some way.

Meh - your perceptions - like your political philosophy - are inaccurate. I've pondered these issues long and deep, and arrived at conclusions as opposed to opinions. Goods & services have real costs in time & resources. It is fair & necessary for such things to have requisite prices affixed.

What if the thing that motivates people has more to do with a sense of accomplishment and personal fulfillment than actual remuneration?

Such persons still need food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and dozens of other necessities to survive & prosper. Feeling accomplished or fulfilled does not create goods & services. Work & resources do, and both of those require $$$ on Planet Earth.

I had a serious illness a few years ago... YOU ARE NOT COMPASSIONATE...!

It is a hallmark of liberalism to brainlessly demonize those who have valid but politically different points of view. I reject such foolishness. I also reject big government as a solution. Just because you may believe big government is 'more compassionate' does not make it true. There are many approaches that work just fine and DON'T involve government. Only a small percentage of people need real help. Everyone else merely needs to budget properly and plan. Those who need help can easily obtain it without a 1.3 trillion government program.

Nice anecdote though. I've got one too. I had medical costs over $250K. With my privately purchased insurance and wisely planned cafeteria plan my total out of pocket was $5K - all which was tax free. No government. Catastrophic medical is easily affordable & widely available with family plans for less than $100 a month & individual plans for less than $40. It works just fine, and that's why over 86% of all Americans (and over 70% of the NON-INSURED) are 'satisfied' with their current medical care. "But some can't afford it...!" True. Such persons can be assisted by state, municipal, and private aid. This tiny percentage does not require a 1.3 trillion national plan to address its needs.

What healthcare shold not do, however, is to be exploited for profit.

Without profit, there is no reason to provide the good or service. Let's say health care is now 'free'. Manufacturers of medical supplies, health care workers, administrators, hospitals, & clinics are still not going to be working for nothing. Therefore people are going to be earning profit under a so-called 'non-profit' public system (otherwise it wouldn't cost 1.3 trillion dollars).

Liberals are merely taking the profit they malign so much and transferring it to government - an entity that needs it the LEAST and will abuse it the MOST. Medicare alone loses over 30% of its revenue every year in fraud, abuse, and waste. That'll happen with Obamacare X10. Evil, rich insurance fatcats can be dealt with if they commit real abuses (as opposed to your personal objections over their profits). You can also go with any number of competitors if you don't like a company. Good luck trying once government is in charge.

The US government spends more money, yes MORE TAXPAYER's MONEY (hear that, republicans?) today then every single country that provides free, universal healthcare

Aaand so that means we should increase the federal budget by a further 1.3 trillion? Specious reasoning, especially when you consider that with medicare/medicaid the government is already spending hundreds of billions on medical care.

You can also go with any number of competitors if you don't like a company. Good luck trying once government is in charge.

Thanks, we have. for decades, and as I just pointed out, the end result: My government spends LESS TAXPAYERS money than the US government spends on healthcare. Every single country with public healthcare does, and everyone is covered.

Now explain that.

Without profit, there is no reason to provide the good or service. Let's say health care is now 'free'. Manufacturers of medical supplies, health care workers, administrators, hospitals, & clinics are still not going to be working for nothing. Therefore people are going to be earning profit under a so-called 'non-profit' public system (otherwise it wouldn't cost 1.3 trillion dollars).

No, of-fucking-course someone is paying for the goods and services. In my country's case, the government covers all that with tax-money, but again, we still spend LESS than the US government currently does.

Instead of raving on about how publicly run healthcare will be hundreds of times more expensive than the private ones, look at the numbers.

My government spends LESS TAXPAYERS money than the US government spends on healthcare. Every single country with public healthcare does, and everyone is covered. Now explain that.

The U.S. currently spends 23% of its federal budget on Medicare and Medicaid which only covers 15% of the population. These two programs alone rack up 700+ billion a year. That's $2,333 for every man, woman & child. As a family of 4, I could get a peach insurance plan with that $9,300 in my pocket. For refernce, military spending is 21%.

So why indeed is not 'everyone covered'? Do you have to ask? Medicare & Medicaid are grossly inefficient, rampant with corruption, run by cronyism, and waste 65+ cents on the dollar. In exchange for this wonderful spending efficiency they are able to puke out substandard care. People on Medicare/aid routinely deal with long delays, denied coverage, and onerous bureaucracy. They are flawed, expensive, ineffective programs so of course they can't cover everyone. Obamacare is (essentially) nationalized Medicare. Why would any sane person want that as thier national plan? Now explain that.

Instead of raving on about how publicly run healthcare will be hundreds of times more expensive than the private ones, look at the numbers.

Looking at the numbers is WHY I am saying publicly run healthcare will be more expensive. Duh.