US Health Care Plan

by **KHONDAHM** » April 30, 2010, 12:49 pm

Texpat wrote:What schools (aside from the service academies) does the federal government administer?

Try Googling the Federal Department of Education all you want to know about how federal tax dollars are supporting school programs and other initiatives are right there. After you finish, come back and bash the Federal Department of Transportation or agriculture. They are all chock full of socialist programs. Public transportation? Socialist program! Who the heck needs all that federal regulation? Delaware drivers should drive on the left, Virginia drivers should drive on the right, Maryland drivers should go on red and stop on green. Abolish the Department of Agriculture and let's go back to the days before Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" was published. Private sector did a bang up job back then, right? No federal dollars should be allocated to States. Let the private sector handle all that stuff, right?

Puh-leeeeeze.

I do agree about abolishing the Federal Reserve, though. Oh but wait! That's not part of the Federal Government.

by **LoongLee** » May 3, 2010, 8:00 pm

Cant verify the following but here goes,,,,,,, I'm sure this will generate some "heat" :lol:

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%

by **jackspratt** » May 3, 2010, 8:09 pm

Bit hard to generate much of anything if you don't provide a link LL.

by **LoongLee** » May 3, 2010, 8:42 pm

Guilty as charged JackS,,,, :oops:

,,,, something I got in an e-mail and thought I'd interject into this discussion,,,,, fully expecting to be "shot at and missed, s**t at and hit" :lol:

Sorry to all if this appears to be too close to a troll,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
regards,, LL :roll:

by **jackspratt** » May 3, 2010, 9:21 pm

No probs LL - don't slit ya wrists just yet.

I did a bit more digging, and apparently the information is real:

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?p=1117281

But I guess the point is that no-one has argued that very good health care is not available in the US - the problem is that it is available to only those who can afford it, and compared to a number of other western countries with universal health schemes, gives very expensive but comparatively poor outcomes when measured across the whole health system, rather than the cherry picked examples quoted in the email you received.

by **LoongLee** » May 3, 2010, 11:07 pm

Well,,,

,,,,,Oh my goodness!!,,,, I would never "cherry pick" stats and examples,,,,, :^o

by **Texpat** » May 4, 2010, 12:36 am

The proof is in the pudding.

****** HATE their health care they're massively dissatisfied with the NHS -- unless there's an American nearby. Then it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I'm convinced it sucks out loud. Misery loves company. ****** are awfully lonely, and tired of hearing about their monied compatriots heading to the US for medical care. They wish their miserable system on others. It's apparently pathetic.

I hope I never have to drink water out of a flower vase because the fat-ass nurses won't answer my urgent hospital-room alarm.

by **rick** » May 4, 2010, 9:03 am

Those percentages posted sound highly dubious. I know several people in UK who have diabetes and all were assessed and 'treatment' provided within weeks. Of course, many only have minor symptoms so only need diet, or pills rather than insulin. But whatever you need, all free on NHS - How much in USA?

As for only 2% of americans over 65 being in poor health, i assume that is because the sick ones did not make it that far! Look at life expectancies - USA not very good (on a par with Cuba).

by **tigerryan** » May 4, 2010, 10:07 am

Rick, Your Gov cant really give you anything for "free" it must take it away from you or your kids future first, the "free" notion makes me friking cringe.

by **Philip101** » May 4, 2010, 8:50 pm

OMG TEXPAT, im actually begining to feel sorry for you.

Slag the nhs off if you like, i know your health service has MAJOR problems aswell so i couldnt give a S***

Texpat, how much gun crime is there in america? texpat, how many no-go black ghettos are there in america? texpat, how many mexicans alone are in america? have you been to miami?? south L.A?? OH WAIT WAIT sorry back to healthcare

texpat, whats the most obese country in the world?? OHHH YERRR america, fabulous...

Britain has most of the problems listed above aswell, but nowhere NOWHERE near as bad.

by **LoongLee** » May 4, 2010, 8:52 pm

by **rick** » May 5, 2010, 6:27 am

Report this postReply with quote Re: US Health Care Plan
by tigerryan » May 4, 2010, 3:07 am

Rick, Your Gov cant really give you anything for "free" it must take it away from you or your kids future first, the "free" notion makes me friking cringe.tigerryan

Ok, generalisation, what you say is true.. We pay about 10% of earned income for 'national insurance', which theoretically covers NHS, unemployment benefit and state pension. Probably these do get some other top ups from general taxation as well. But it does mean that every citizen can expect that the state will take care in hard times of the citizens basic needs (and his family), including at all times MOST health needs, so that is one fear removed from survival. Although British taxation is probably higher than USA, i expect that if health costs are taken into account, the burden on the individual in UK is the same or actually lower.

Whatever its faults, (and many do complain), very few would like to go back to the individual 'Pay as you go' principal. There are still many alive who remember life in those days and the hardship and suffering it caused. Even the head of the Conservative party, possibly the next prime minister uses it (but of course, thats good propaganda).

Very Communist, you probably think, but it works in Europe, practically every country in europe has state healthcare system in some form. I think you would be hard pressed to find one country which is seriously thinking of scrapping it. Can so many countries be wrong?

by **JimboPSM** » May 6, 2010, 10:40 am

Brits do moan and groan about the NHS, it is one of our national pastimes.

However there are very few (I know of none) who would swap the NHS for a system where they would effectively be paying over twice as much for the rather dubious privilege of dying younger – some freedoms may not be worth paying and dying for (although the ideologically brainwashed may disagree).

A couple of comments on the Investor’s Business Daily “report”:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/12 ... and_alive/

The debates about the “socialist” versus “capitalist side of healthcare have really been quite mind bending; as an example in very simplistic financial and end result terms which of these is more capitalist or socialist?

Of course the answer will largely depend on (and is not limited to) whether you are buying or selling the product, whether you actually believe the "overall" product is superior or inferior, how much you may already be ideologically brainwashed (by either side of the debate), etc, etc..............

Please note that I am only talking about the "overall" product and its cost - not the cherry picked elements that have continually been used as smoke and mirrors to cloud the debate - that may be a mixed metaphor, but it's late and I don't really care #-o

by **Farang1** » May 16, 2010, 2:03 am

Maybe, one of the reasons US health care is so expensive.

This could probably be posted on imigration reform or US Health care. You really can't have one without the other.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjPBtfpn8wI

The hearing, as far as I can tell, was 28 Aug 09.

http://obamaisnotmypresident.com/blog/?p=1859

by **UdonExpat** » July 11, 2010, 7:46 am

I was sitting with several other Americans the other day and one of them said that we would start being taxed on our health benefits next year. Having paid some attention the health care legislation I said I didn't believe that was true.

So, being as I am I had to find out.

Your Health Insurance Will NOT Be Taxed Next Year

There is another email making the rounds that claims that the new health reform law requires that you pay taxes on your employer-sponsored health insurance. It's not true. Politifact rates this email "pants on fire" and Snopes also rates this "false."

The email says the following:

Starting in 2011--next year--the W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are provided. It doesn't matter if you're retired. Your gross income WILL go up by the amount of insurance your employer paid for. So you'll be required to pay taxes on a larger sum of money that you actually received. Take the tax form you just finished for 2009 and see what $15,000.00 or $20,000.00 additional gross income does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it puts you into a much higher bracket. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for fifteen (15) percent that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases, but it's not really a "tax increase" as such, it a redefinition of your taxable income.
Politifact explains why this is not true about as well as anything I could write, including the following explanation (although Politifact does acknowledge that there is one piece of the email that is accurate):

The chain e-mail is correct that employers will be required to start listing the cost of insurance. The requirement starts for the tax year 2011, so employees will see it on the W-2s they receive in 2012.

But that amount will not be taxed. Current law excludes health insurance from taxable income, and there's nothing in the health care law that changes that................

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-ber ... 41937.html

Who is online