[clubchucker]

Originally Posted by Cory Scheuer

wow, just wow, i'm surprise at how many people here are the greedy type (not a personal attack just and observation)

its amazing to see how many people in North America really dont give a f***en hoots about anyone else in your own country or the world... until other people start to care for others, then the world is still going to go into these slumps of economic troubles, along with alot of other issues

I think you're mis-reading a lot of people's opinions. Most people, like myself, only care for those who care about themselves. Make an honest effort and I'll give you every benefit of the doubt and help you where I can (but not at the expense of my own family).

The reason most people "don't care" about others is simple: too many people 1) take advantage of the situation and 2) do nothing to improve themselves. Why should me or my family do without (or pay more taxes) for other people's stupid decisions? Should I pay for your 6 kids that you had while you were living on welfare? Should I pay higher taxes because you decided to drop out of school in the 10th grade? Should I pay more taxes because all you wanted to do was smoke dope and party while I was working my way up the ladder and doing what's right?

Each individual has choices to make in life. Sometimes, you have to live with those choices. I did things the "right way" in my opinion, and I didn't have anything given to me. I WORKED for what I have. Came from nothing and make myself something.

All men are created equal....but after that, it's up to the individual. Make your own choices and live with those choices.

[betterlate1]

Originally Posted by Cory Scheuer

wow, just wow, i'm surprise at how many people here are the greedy type (not a personal attack just and observation)

its amazing to see how many people in North America really dont give a f***en hoots about anyone else in your own country or the world... until other people start to care for others, then the world is still going to go into these slumps of economic troubles, along with alot of other issues

Cory,
You sound very young. We explain the concept to students this way:
Some of you have earned straight A's on your report cards.
We're going to take some of your A's and give them to the less ambitious students so that their D's and F's become C's.
Then of course your A's will have to become B's.
Everyone will benefit because those who didn't have any A's will now have more than nothing and those who had A's will still have something.

Yes its true, I want to keep the A's that I earned...all of them.
I should be the one deciding whether to give my A's to anyone else, not the school board or the principal.
I don't want my A's going to anyone who skipped class to go smoke in the boys room.
Greed is Good

[test54]

people will justify their actions in very stupid ways.

I bet the teacher here teaches in a public school? how about only teaching those kids whose parents make over 18k, would you really want to do that and let the other kids just figure things out amongst themselves.

thats what happens with healthcare, the people who can afford it are not the issue it the people who cannot afford it. And please don't say that everyone in the country can make enough to pay healthcare for their family because that is certainly not true.

[test54]

The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. Thats the average cost to the employer. That same person would actually pay $3,300 as their portion.

The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700.20, again the average for the employer. That employee would pay on average $694 as their portion of it.

So its not surprise why companies are having a tough time competing with international companies. No surprise when a company moves out of the US.

Although not everyone has an employer to pay a portion of the expenses since most businesses in the US are small businesses and more of them are dropping healthcare everyday.

For non-employer based insurance: one-person policy was $2,835 in 2005, up from $2,531 in 2002. family policies were $5,568 in 2005, up from $4,442 in 2002.

Sure there are people who cannot afford this, so they end up in the emergency room and that bill gets paid by the tax payers anyway. So you already are paying for people you do not want to pay for.

[DallasFlier]

Originally Posted by Cory Scheuer

I dont get it, why are you guys opposed to universal health care? We have that in a canada, and we have one of the best health care systems in the world, same with switzerland. they too have the best in the world...

I'm sorry but if it means paying a bit more taxes for health care then why not?

Why not, you say? If having one of the best health care systems in the world means waiting ridiculously long times for needed health care, then I don't want it, thanks.

A typical Canadian seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment had to wait 18.3 weeks in 2007, an all-time high, according to new research published Monday by independent research organization the Fraser Institute.

"Despite government promises and the billions of dollars funnelled into the Canadian health-care system, the average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required," said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the 17th annual edition of Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada.

Wait times for surgery in Canada at all-time high: study

December 8, 2008 - Many people assume that Canadians enjoy universal healthcare coverage while receiving the same quality and quantity of medical goods and services as Americans. But the alleged superiority of single-payer health care is not consistent with the evidence. The reality is that, on average, Americans spend more of their income on healthcare than Canadians do but get faster access to more and better medical resources.

Healthcare appears to cost less in Canada than in the United States partly because Canadian government health insurance does not cover many advanced medical treatments and technologies that are commonly available to Americans. If Canadians had access to the same quality and quantity of healthcare resources that Americans enjoy, Canada’s government health insurance monopoly would cost much more than it currently does.

Our recent study comparing healthcare in the United States and Canada shows that the public-private U.S. system outperforms the Canadian system on almost all the key indicators of available healthcare resources. The United States even performs nearly as well as Canada in terms of providing “effective” health insurance coverage for its population.

The Trouble with Canadian Healthcare

[DallasFlier]

Originally Posted by test54

For profit health care insurance by definition is not the best method as I see it.

A bloated, government-run bureaucracy by definition is not the best method to deliver anything, as I see it.

[test54]

Are those elective surgery waiting periods or what?

also the person who wrote the article works for the Frasier Institute which states:
"Support Greater Choice and Personal Responsibility
The Fraser Institute is a registered non-profit organization. We depend entirely on donations from people who understand the importance of impartial research and who support greater choice, less government intervention, and more personal responsibility" - not very impartial.

My rankings are form the W.H.O. - put Canada well above the US. actually puts the US only two spots above CUBA. Check the top countries and there methods of insuring their population.

[betterlate1]

Originally Posted by test54

people will justify their actions in very stupid ways.

I bet the teacher here teaches in a public school? how about only teaching those kids whose parents make over 18k, would you really want to do that and let the other kids just figure things out amongst themselves.

thats what happens with healthcare, the people who can afford it are not the issue it the people who cannot afford it. And please don't say that everyone in the country can make enough to pay healthcare for their family because that is certainly not true.

Currently, I pay nothing for excellent healthcare and I hate it! I have no say in where my tax dollars go. I am indirectly contributing to the treatment of people who would just as quickly kill me for a few dollars. I honestly would rather pay a premium and have the right to refuse to contribute to certain individuals' healthcare plans.

And yes, everyone who obeys the law and wants to work can find work at a place that offers healthcare. I worked 26 years at the same company as an accountant and lost my job. I took another job as a janitor because I had the responsibility to pay bills and provide healthcare for my family of four. But here in the US for some reason, we are too proud to take a job that is beneath us.

If you've made mistakes in the past and you can't seem to get out of the cycle, that's your problem. Don't try to make your problems my problems.

If you've had success getting out of the lifestyle that got you in trouble, welcome. You above everyone should understand that bailing out chronic offenders is futile and a huge waste of resources.

A dual system gives me options.

[test54]

Originally Posted by betterlate1

And yes, everyone who obeys the law and wants to work can find work at a place that offers healthcare.

your kidding right?

your theory then would get rid of public schools, public highways and the military. Since they are partially funded by you yet they provide a service for those others that "wish to kill you for a few $$". great idea and one that would have killed off innovations of the last couple centuries.

does that make sense or is it just health care that you only want to pay for yourself?

[John Clark]

Originally Posted by test54

Great article in the NY Times by Paul Krugman about the need for Obama to follow through on his promise to reform healthcare in the US. He points out how during the current tough times that this could be very good for the US.

Op-Ed Columnist - Health Care Now - NYTimes.com

I still have yet to see a "great article" in the NY Times!

[test54]

Originally Posted by John Clark

I still have yet to see a "great article" in the NY Times!

well the writer did just win the Nobel prize for economics. so he does write some good things.

[John Clark]

I lost all respect for the Nobel prize when they gave it to Al Gore. :rollseyes:

[JSanders]

Originally Posted by Cory Scheuer

its amazing to see how many people in North America really dont give a f***en hoots about anyone else in your own country or the world...

That is one of the most ill-informed, pathetic statements I have read in any of these "sensitive forum" threads yet.

[John Clark]

The poll says it all.

[betterlate1]

Originally Posted by test54

your kidding right?

your theory then would get rid of public schools, public highways and the military. Since they are partially funded by you yet they provide a service for those others that "wish to kill you for a few $$". great idea and one that would have killed off innovations of the last couple centuries.

does that make sense or is it just health care that you only want to pay for yourself?

Apparently you are a politician because you are not listening...i want the choice, I don't want you to decide for me.

[DallasFlier]

Originally Posted by test54

Are those elective surgery waiting periods or what?

also the person who wrote the article works for the Frasier Institute which states:
"Support Greater Choice and Personal Responsibility
The Fraser Institute is a registered non-profit organization. We depend entirely on donations from people who understand the importance of impartial research and who support greater choice, less government intervention, and more personal responsibility" - not very impartial.

My rankings are form the W.H.O. - put Canada well above the US. actually puts the US only two spots above CUBA. Check the top countries and there methods of insuring their population.

You know, everyone advocating Universal Health Care always likes to cite W.H.O. as a totally impartial source, and then denigrate sources presenting conflicting information as biased. Personally, as an arm of the United Nations, I'm not inclined to take W.H.O. as impartial as you want to claim it is. In many (most?) things, the United Nations ends up being fairly anti-U.S.

You said, "check the top countries and their methods of insuring their population." I suggest you check the top countries against the home countries of those in charge at W.H.O. and their methods of insuring their population. The Director General is from China, the Deputy Director General is from Ghana, and of 11 Assistant Directors-General, 1 is from the U.S. (in charge of polio eradication.)

As I know, and I imagine you know, "statistics" can be heavily biased - in either direction - based on the biases of those constructing the methodology. I won't try to claim that Frasier Institute is completely unbiased, but I don't think its reasonable to claim that W.H.O. is unbiased either.

[test54]

Originally Posted by John Clark

The poll says it all.

well the results are better than expected to me because of the conservative nature of posters.

[test54]

Originally Posted by DallasFlier

You know, everyone advocating Universal Health Care always likes to cite W.H.O. as a totally impartial source, and then denigrate sources presenting conflicting information as biased. Personally, as an arm of the United Nations, I'm not inclined to take W.H.O. as impartial as you want to claim it is. In many (most?) things, the United Nations ends up being fairly anti-U.S.

You said, "check the top countries and their methods of insuring their population." I suggest you check the top countries against the home countries of those in charge at W.H.O. and their methods of insuring their population. The Director General is from China, the Deputy Director General is from Ghana, and of 11 Assistant Directors-General, 1 is from the U.S. (in charge of polio eradication.)

As I know, and I imagine you know, "statistics" can be heavily biased - in either direction - based on the biases of those constructing the methodology. I won't try to claim that Frasier Institute is completely unbiased, but I don't think its reasonable to claim that W.H.O. is unbiased either.

yes, the world is out to get the US. great theory, yes they weighted the survey because they want us to change our health care system. ok.

the US if anything has had tremendous influence on the US over the years.

[test54]

Originally Posted by betterlate1

Apparently you are a politician because you are not listening...i want the choice, I don't want you to decide for me.

you want the choice to not pay for anything that does not apply directly to you, I get that. But you don't have that choice now, if someone uninsured goes to the ER and needs something then guess what - you pay and you have no choice. so since you have no choice then the question is whether you want to pay for a universal system or continue to pay for a grossly inefficient health care system that is in place today - theirs a choice for you. and yes I know the answer.

[DallasFlier]

Originally Posted by test54

yes, the world is out to get the US. great theory, yes they weighted the survey because they want us to change our health care system. ok.

the US if anything has had tremendous influence on the US over the years.

OK, I get it now, your references are above reproach, but any which cite statistics and information you disagree with are biased by definition.

The Fraser Institute is in Canada, so I doubt they're out to "get Canada" either. In fact, they say that "The Fraser Institute is an independent non-partisan research and educational organization based in Canada."

So tell me please, why the W.H.O. is more "objective" and less biased - other than the fact that you happen to agree with their position.