|
|
#51
10-06-2007, 10:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
Its true that US spend more on health care than other countries. The comparison of how many dollars spent however is irrelevant as countries like Cuba, Malta and Singapore are countries where health care-workers (and all other workers) are far lower than in the US. The percentage of GDP spent on health care or money spent per capita adjusted for the average income in the countries are more relevant.
Its also important to look at what you get back. If people die when they are 76 or when they are 79 isnt the only way to look at it. Its also about the quality and expertise that the money buys. If you are poor you you probably want the Norwegian health care system, where everything is free (except a 300$max annual expenditure). But the US have some advatages that you will not find elsewhere, the wait lines in Norway can be really long, there are people who wait for 1-2 years to get a simple knee-operation, and in the meantime they have to deal with the pain and complications. With a good health care plan you are secured much speedier help in the US, where all the money spent has created a much higher number of available hospital beds and equipment than most countries that it would be natural to compare with. The US also spends money on advanced medicine, expensive treatment and equipment that other countries are less willing to invest in. While Norway has a health care system that makes Michael Moore drool there are no instances where a patient in the US needs to be sent to norway for treatment. On the other hand there are several times that Norway has needed to fly patients to the US because there is expertise and equipment there that isnt available in Europe. I had a small medical issue taken care of this summer when I was back in Norway, and the process of getting it done and the wait for an available spot was redicolously long. If I had been covered by an American health care-insurance I wouldnt have been surprised if the matter would have been sorted out in one day. 
|
|
#52
10-06-2007, 11:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
Two points: We spend more than we should because of government regulations that prevent competition in the insurance industry and *require* people to buy coverage for things they may not want to buy coverage for. This artificially raises costs.
Second, there are fewer restrictions here on what drug companies charge for medicine. In effect, Americans subsidize the drug costs for people in other countries.
|
|
#53
10-07-2007, 07:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
I know a retired couple in the US. He lost his pension when Enron went belly-up. They lost 2/3 of their income overnight but they were only worried about the loss of their health insurance. That's what is difficult for people in other countries to understand.
Rhetoric about freedom of choice is nonsense when it means the freedom to be forced to pay vastly over the odds for basic healthcare or have none. It's no different from Blair's rhetoric about freedom of choice in education. "Education, education, education" sounded good at the time, until we realised that it meant a 3 tier system of excellence for the rich, adequate state funding for the moderately well-off and far less than adequate state funding for the poor. Propaganda is a remarkably powerful thing; it's amazing what people fall for. Blair sold us to the corporations and now Brown is making sure the effective two-identical-party system is set in stone, just as it is in the US. He shut down internal party democracy within the Labour party at conference last week. The problem is, we can't keep borrowing money indefinitely to fund this excess greed from the rich whilst destroying manufacturing jobs at home. It'll hurt when the crash comes. Sooner rather than later given the number of countries who are now doing significant parts of their trade in currencies other than the nose-diving dollar. But that's propaganda for you. Reality always catches up eventually. http://tinyurl.com/38f4dm http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9494
|
|
#54
10-07-2007, 10:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
I know a retired couple in the US. He lost his pension when Enron went belly-up. They lost 2/3 of their income overnight but they were only worried about the loss of their health insurance. That's what is difficult for people in other countries to understand. Rhetoric about freedom of choice is nonsense when it means the freedom to be forced to pay vastly over the odds for basic healthcare or have none. It's no different from Blair's rhetoric about freedom of choice in education. "Education, education, education" sounded good at the time, until we realised that it meant a 3 tier system of excellence for the rich, adequate state funding for the moderately well-off and far less than adequate state funding for the poor. Propaganda is a remarkably powerful thing; it's amazing what people fall for. Blair sold us to the corporations and now Brown is making sure the effective two-identical-party system is set in stone, just as it is in the US. He shut down internal party democracy within the Labour party at conference last week. The problem is, we can't keep borrowing money indefinitely to fund this excess greed from the rich whilst destroying manufacturing jobs at home. It'll hurt when the crash comes. Sooner rather than later given the number of countries who are now doing significant parts of their trade in currencies other than the nose-diving dollar. But that's propaganda for you. Reality always catches up eventually. http://tinyurl.com/38f4dm http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9494 [/ QUOTE ] So, to summarize your points.... I can't. You're incoherent. As far as I can tell your message is that Blair sold you out to corporate interests, which is what happens when you let government spend your money and dictate what services you will get. And you mentioned Enron which is always good to throw in. natedogg
|
|
#55
10-07-2007, 10:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
I know a retired couple in the US. He lost his pension when Enron went belly-up. They lost 2/3 of their income overnight but they were only worried about the loss of their health insurance. That's what is difficult for people in other countries to understand. [/ QUOTE ] That's pretty difficult to understand inside this country too, not just outside of it. If I lost 2/3 of my income overnight due to Enron....the last thing I'm worrying about is my health insurance. Somebody's ass is going to jail.
|
|
#56
10-07-2007, 11:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
And then getting pardoned ...
And lol at the comeback from nate. Ver ver convincing. I totally forgot your politicians haven't sold you to the corporations. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
|
|
#57
10-07-2007, 11:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
And then getting pardoned ... And lol at the comeback from nate. Ver ver convincing. I totally forgot your politicians haven't sold you to the corporations. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I hadn't heard that anyone in the Enron scandal was pardoned. Who was it?
|
|
#59
10-08-2007, 12:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
|
|
#60
10-08-2007, 12:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
Funny, I didn't think Bush was gone until 20th Jan 2009. Nothing to see here, move on now. [/ QUOTE ] Careful with that axe, Eugene. I'm not disputing anything you said....I just asked who got pardoned. Thanks for linking a few articles about a whole slew of stuff that I have no interest in reading, I guess. But....um...who got pardoned?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
