Obamacare

[Skiz]

:dabs:

What will it cost Americans?

If your average yearly income is:

$80K:

Health care tax penalty (for not subscribing to health care, you get fined): $2,000
Federal income tax on wages: $16,187
NY state income tax: $5,083
Misc taxes: $5,210
35.48% of income to taxes

$235K

Federal income tax: $$79,191
NY state tax: $19,976
Healthcare tax hike (courtesy of the Dems): $2,850
Misc taxes: $13,237
40.44% of income to taxes

Couple earning $1.5 million

Federal income tax: $455,153
NY state tax: $125,153
Healthcare tax hike of 5.4%: $81K
(fork over a whopping!!)56.92% in income taxes

If Obamacare is passed, 39 states would exceed 50% of peoples income going toward paying for taxes.

The list of reason to vote again this is huge.

Is there anyone who believes this is a good idea?

[j2k4]

Uh...

[Busyman]

Uh...

Agreed....

[j2k4]

I can't find specifics, but I have heard anecdotally that those who have private insurance will have to pay the government a penalty anyway in order to finance the government's version.

[bigboab]

I can't find specifics, but I have heard anecdotally that those who have private insurance will have to pay the government a penalty anyway in order to finance the government's version.

In the UK if you take out private health insurance you still have to pay for National Health Insurance. It is not always pay your money you takes your choice;

When I had an Angiogram 11 years ago a fellow in the next bed was on private insurance. We both had to go for a triple bypasses. He got his three months before me.

Using the same surgeon, the same hospital and the same wards.

[j2k4]

Were you edified by the fairness of the situation.

[bigboab]

Were you edified by the fairness of the situation.

It would depend what the National Health Service was paid for both procedures. Including queue jumping, if it is possible to put a figure on that.

As to being edified. No.:whistling

[j2k4]

Many people seem to think that would be preferred.

[clocker]

Is there anyone who believes this is a good idea?
More to the point...
Is there anyone who believes the "facts" you posted above are real?

Bueller?


Bueller?


Didn't think so.

[Skiz]

Is there anyone who believes this is a good idea?
More to the point...
Is there anyone who believes the "facts" you posted above are real?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Didn't think so.

If you believe you're able to refute them, then by all means let's see your data. Mine comes for factcheck.org which prides itself in it's nonpartisan reporting. I think if you do you own research, you'll find they're quite accurate.

By the way, was that an "Aye"? The "Affordable Health Choices Act" is anything but. Where do you think the $trillion+ is going to come from? You will never save money by spending insane amounts of money. This is just one step closer to making a nationalized health care system that we've seen operate around the world and we see first hand how much citizens in other nations pay for it. It's not secret that queue jumping (which boab already mentioned) happens frequently and wait times for health care increase dramatically.

Over the past couple of years I have listened to Sqweeks vent about the incredible wait times she had while pregnant, then the hours of waiting once she finally got an appointment, then sometimes waited for hours in waiting rooms only to be turned away and told to try making another appointment. Brenda spoke of similar issues. One of our FST mods is currently battling cancer (not in the UK) and has spoken out adamantly of how terrible the system is in his country as well. He has done much of his treatment via private health care so he can get some. He is still on a waiting list for an MRI (which he paid for privately long ago) but just wants to see how long it will take the gov't to get him in. It's been over 18 months now and still running.

All of that on top of a friend of mine who grew up in England and Russia until she moved here at around the age of 25. She speaks out against this system like no one I've ever heard. I've even heard her mention that she feels like she's "re-living a nightmare" when thinking about having to deal with nationalized health care again.

The evidence of how these systems fail and the escalated cost of them is visible in numerous countries. What makes think our gov't will do any better?

Just look at how miserable veterans health care is. Or how about Medicare? Medicare is about to be bankrupt as is regardless of more and more money being pumped in to it every single year in an attempt to keep it afloat. Yet Obama wants to bring another gov't health care system in, which is basically a Medicare type system, into effect when not one of the current ones works. Again, why would you think this bill would do any better than privatized health care?

Apathy is destroying this country...quickly.

[Skiz]

Uh...

Agreed....

I believe he was referring to my typo where I stated monthly income instead of yearly.

[devilsadvocate]

If you believe you're able to refute them, then by all means let's see your data. Mine comes for factcheck.org which prides itself in it's nonpartisan reporting. I think if you do you own research, you'll find they're quite accurate.



Care to give the link because my search on factcheck drew a blank.

As there is no actual bill up for a vote yet the figures are pure speculation anyway. Either way the statement you make is a little misleading, I did like the way all the other taxes were lumped in for dramatic effect but in reality the rate would be 1-2% for the top 2% earners of the country.

Even if the claim is accurate only a tiny amount of people would actually have those rates.

On your point about other systems, as I've said before, for every horror story that is told about other systems the same stories are there with our system.

[j2k4]

If you believe you're able to refute them, then by all means let's see your data. Mine comes for factcheck.org which prides itself in it's nonpartisan reporting. I think if you do you own research, you'll find they're quite accurate.



Care to give the link because my search on factcheck drew a blank.

As there is no actual bill up for a vote yet the figures are pure speculation anyway. Either way the statement you make is a little misleading, I did like the way all the other taxes were lumped in for dramatic effect but in reality the rate would be 1-2% for the top 2% earners of the country.

Even if the claim is accurate only a tiny amount of people would actually have those rates.

On your point about other systems, as I've said before, for every horror story that is told about other systems the same stories are there with our system.

Find for me if you will a normally-occurring "horror story" in the American medical system that equates to the semi-frequent situation in socially-democratic countries wherein a patient dies because a procedure or specialist is unavailable for months or years on end, a situation which is endemic under socialist systems.

[devilsadvocate]

Find for me if you will a normally-occurring "horror story" in the American medical system that equates to the semi-frequent situation in socially-democratic countries wherein a patient dies because a procedure or specialist is unavailable for months or years on end, a situation which is endemic under socialist systems.
Prove to me that people are frequently or even "semi" frequently dying from lack of care in countries with social medicine any greater than they are in the USA.

Prove to me that insurance companies don't drop coverage or refuse to pay for treatment.

DNHNCScYpX8

Here's one where the specialist is denied
Wh0mgiwXzGM

Here's one where hospital care is rationed
b4kEvdyIcBk


I've heard a lot about rationing by government, doesn't rationing by insurance count? Is rationing by insurance a lesser evil?

If your insurance company refuses to pay you have the option to pay yourself, if you don't have that ability then you are at the mercy of charity or the bankruptcy courts.

Explain how those options would be any different if a government health system refuses to pay.

[j2k4]

The difference would be that a wrongful death has occurred.

This line of reasoning works for people like you when arguing against the death penalty, right?

You know, the "even one wrongful death is too many..."

Like that.

[clocker]

I'm amazed by the "USA! USA! We're #1!" mentality that those opposed to health care reform exhibit.
According to the World Health Organization, despite far outspending the rest of the world (percentage of GNP), the US ranks far below most of the developed world in almost every conceivable metric...lifespan, live births per 100k, etc.
Who do they rank as the #1 healthcare system in the world?
France.

Yeah, one of those awful "socialized medicine" countries.

My parents have extensive experience with Canada's dreaded socialized system and have nothing but praise for it.
My mother, one of Colorado's longest serving hospital volunteers (just passed the 20 year mark), is appalled by the charges imposed by American insurance companies. The volunteers council patients and their visitors about how to avoid some of the egregious examples...at her hospital for instance, if you open the box of Kleenex on the bedside table- there's a lot of crying in hospitals- you get charged $22.

This is the system you guys want to defend?

My car buddy who just had back surgery has been flooded with denials from his insurance company.
They are refusing to cover any of the post-surgery physical rehab...so far, to the tune of $11K.

This is the system that you want to keep?

I think that the opposition by conservatives to health care reform has less to do with the realities of the current system than with politics in general.
Since the primary conservative mantra is that government is inept and bad, if the government took a larger part in health care and it worked, the whole basis of the conservative outlook would be exposed as the sham it is.

Better to propagate the current corporate domination of US health care than to admit your political worldview is fallacious.

[devilsadvocate]

The difference would be that a wrongful death has occurred.

This line of reasoning works for people like you when arguing against the death penalty, right?

You know, the "even one wrongful death is too many..."

Like that.
"People like me"?

Are you saying that denial or delay of treatment choice by government is (could lead to) wrongful death, but the same denial or delay by insurance isn't (couldn't)? I really don't follow your argument.

Tell me.

If someone had posted about horror stories in the US to argue for socialized medicine and I had pointed out that for every horror story in the US there is the same in countries with social medicine, which is exactly what I am saying, would you be so offended?

I would appreciate when you can get round to it if you could prove to me that people are frequently or even "semi" frequently dying from lack of care in countries with social medicine any greater than they are in the USA and that insurance companies don't drop coverage or refuse to pay for treatment as I asked.

I'm able to accept that no system is perfect.

[Rat Faced]

:dabs:

What will it cost Americans?

If your average yearly income is:

$80K:

Health care tax penalty (for not subscribing to health care, you get fined): $2,000
Federal income tax on wages: $16,187
NY state income tax: $5,083
Misc taxes: $5,210
35.48% of income to taxes

$235K

Federal income tax: $$79,191
NY state tax: $19,976
Healthcare tax hike (courtesy of the Dems): $2,850
Misc taxes: $13,237
40.44% of income to taxes

Couple earning $1.5 million

Federal income tax: $455,153
NY state tax: $125,153
Healthcare tax hike of 5.4%: $81K
(fork over a whopping!!)56.92% in income taxes

If Obamacare is passed, 39 states would exceed 50% of peoples income going toward paying for taxes.

The list of reason to vote again this is huge.

Is there anyone who believes this is a good idea?

We've been through this before..

USA spends a greater % of GDP on healthcare than just about everywhere else, and still doesnt have a Universal Healthcare system.

This is because the Drug Companies and Medical Companies charge so much that they are 16% of your total GDP and wish to keep it that way.

If you lot want them to rip you off to such an extent, that is your privelage, however why the hell should the poor have to suffer because you allow that to happen?

[bigboab]

Here is a circular I received this morning from my brother-in-law in Ohio;

***************

SENIOR DEATH WARRANTS:

The actress Natasha Richardson died after falling skiing in Canada . It took eight hours to drive her to a hospital. If Canada had our healthcare she might be alive today. In the United States , we have medical evacuation helicopters that would have gotten her to the hospital in 30 minutes.

In England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed.

Obama wants to have a healthcare system just like Canada 's and England 's.

I got this today and am sending it on. If Obama's plans in other areas don't scare you, this should. Please do not let Obama sign senior death warrants. Everybody that is on this mailing list is either a senior citizen, is getting close or knows somebody that is.

Most of you know by now that the Senate version (at least) of the "stimulus" Bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens. The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by Bloomberg with the following statement:

Bloomberg: Daschle says "health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that
come with age instead of treating them."

If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that our esteemed Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.

Please use the power of the Internet to get this message out. Talk it up at the grassroots level. We have an election coming up in one year and nine months. And we have the ability to address and reverse the dangerous direction the Obama administration and its allies have begun and in the interim, we can make their lives miserable. Let's do this!

***********
My brother-in-law thinks that this circular is very scary considering his knowledge of how good the British National Health service is.

[clocker]

The actress Natasha Richardson died after falling skiing in Canada . It took eight hours to drive her to a hospital. If Canada had our healthcare she might be alive today. In the United States , we have medical evacuation helicopters that would have gotten her to the hospital in 30 minutes.

If your brother-in-law believes this crap, he's an idiot.

On 16 March 2009, Richardson sustained a head injury, when she fell while taking a skiing lesson at the Mont Tremblant Resort in Quebec, about 130 km from Montreal. The injury was followed by a lucid interval, when Richardson seemed to be fine and was able to talk and act normally. Paramedics and an ambulance which initially responded to the accident were told they were not needed and left.[16] Refusing medical attention, she returned to her hotel room and about three hours later was taken to a local hospital in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts after complaining of a headache.
So let's see...
Initial responders were turned away and medical attention was refused.

This somehow translates into proof of a system-wide Canadian failure and the speculation that Richardson would have survived had she refused care in the USA.

I'm pretty sure that Canada has medivac helicopters just like we do, although unless they are actually summoned to the scene, they probably aren't too effective.

This kind of willful distortion of fact is typical of the anti-healthcare reform platform.

[devilsadvocate]

Here is a circular I received this morning from my brother-in-law in Ohio;

***************

SENIOR DEATH WARRANTS:

The actress Natasha Richardson died after falling skiing in Canada . It took eight hours to drive her to a hospital. If Canada had our healthcare she might be alive today. In the United States , we have medical evacuation helicopters that would have gotten her to the hospital in 30 minutes.

In England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed.

Obama wants to have a healthcare system just like Canada 's and England 's.

I got this today and am sending it on. If Obama's plans in other areas don't scare you, this should. Please do not let Obama sign senior death warrants. Everybody that is on this mailing list is either a senior citizen, is getting close or knows somebody that is.

Most of you know by now that the Senate version (at least) of the "stimulus" Bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens. The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by Bloomberg with the following statement:

Bloomberg: Daschle says "health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that
come with age instead of treating them."

If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that our esteemed Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.

Please use the power of the Internet to get this message out. Talk it up at the grassroots level. We have an election coming up in one year and nine months. And we have the ability to address and reverse the dangerous direction the Obama administration and its allies have begun and in the interim, we can make their lives miserable. Let's do this!

***********
My brother-in-law thinks that this circular is very scary considering his knowledge of how good the British National Health service is.

Does your brother in law think it scary because he knows some will actually believe the chain email when he knows it's a pile of bullcrap or does he think it's scary because he thinks it's true?.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_that_persons_older_than.html

[bigboab]

Here is a circular I received this morning from my brother-in-law in Ohio;

***************

SENIOR DEATH WARRANTS:

The actress Natasha Richardson died after falling skiing in Canada . It took eight hours to drive her to a hospital. If Canada had our healthcare she might be alive today. In the United States , we have medical evacuation helicopters that would have gotten her to the hospital in 30 minutes.

In England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed.

Obama wants to have a healthcare system just like Canada 's and England 's.

I got this today and am sending it on. If Obama's plans in other areas don't scare you, this should. Please do not let Obama sign senior death warrants. Everybody that is on this mailing list is either a senior citizen, is getting close or knows somebody that is.

Most of you know by now that the Senate version (at least) of the "stimulus" Bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens. The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by Bloomberg with the following statement:

Bloomberg: Daschle says "health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that
come with age instead of treating them."

If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that our esteemed Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.

Please use the power of the Internet to get this message out. Talk it up at the grassroots level. We have an election coming up in one year and nine months. And we have the ability to address and reverse the dangerous direction the Obama administration and its allies have begun and in the interim, we can make their lives miserable. Let's do this!

***********
My brother-in-law thinks that this circular is very scary considering his knowledge of how good the British National Health service is.

Does your brother in law think it scary because he knows some will actually believe the chain email when he knows it's a pile of bullcrap or does he think it's scary because he thinks it's true?.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_that_persons_older_than.html

I haven't asked him yet. Probably thinks it is scary. One of the hard line Republicans.:)

Clocker! That proves your theory.:lol:

[j2k4]

The American people would doubtless welcome a mechanism by which the high costs of medical care and the mind-numbed bureaucracy of the insurance industry could be throttled, but their lack of enthusiasm for a government-run solution is understandable.

NASA was mentioned recently as a paradigm of government oversight, yet it is riddled with inefficiency and has a safety record OSHA would surely frown on, if such were allowed (government doesn't really look after itself too well in the US, and, anecdotally, other countries aren't any different).

The fact is, NASA did land men on the Moon, it's efforts have lent hugely to medical breakthroughs and avenues of scientific endeavor.

I believe we can set that aside and throw a blanket over the rest of Uncle Sam's little projects to cover the accompanying shame.

Okay, so France is #1, eh?

By whose standards?

The WHO/UN?

Other annoying facts about France-

She's flipping broke, primarily due to her nanny-state tendencies, national health-care chief amongst them on the debit side, and, while she makes some nice military hardware, she doesn't care to deploy any of it in her own interests, preferring to leave that particular job to others.

She's also well down the road to civil difficulties manifesting along racial lines, and such other questions as "Oh, combien de temps est de notre semaine de travail est?"

As to the Canadian version of national health care, I know NikkiD had to wait, oh, like a year or something for a lousy arthroscopic exam.

I would really like to have some member of the board (after all, we are rife with members who call Canada, or the U.K., home - I know as well there are a few Gaullists in attendance) take our concerns as a head-on proposition and assuage our fears with a big, non-government-financed dose of the truth.

Btw:

Rat- you can't keep comparing the US to any other country, 'cuz we aren't just any other country, okay?

Trying to do it with numbers doesn't cut it, either.

We can't just up and be Canada, France, or the U.K., and you damn well know it.

[clocker]

The American people would doubtless welcome a mechanism by which the high costs of medical care and the mind-numbed bureaucracy of the insurance industry could be throttled, but their lack of enthusiasm for a government-run solution is understandable.
For every poll you have that shows a "lack of support" for a government run health system, I can find one that shows the exact opposite.
You're qualms do not automatically translate into wide spread agreement.


NASA was mentioned recently as a paradigm of government oversight, yet it is riddled with inefficiency and has a safety record OSHA would surely frown on, if such were allowed (government doesn't really look after itself too well in the US, and, anecdotally, other countries aren't any different).

The fact is, NASA did land men on the Moon, it's efforts have lent hugely to medical breakthroughs and avenues of scientific endeavor.

I believe we can set that aside and throw a blanket over the rest of Uncle Sam's little projects to cover the accompanying shame.
Fine.
We'll just conveniently ignore such "little projects" as the interstate highway system, the Hoover Dam, etc.
Oh yeah, and the armed forces.
Isn't the military the pride and joy of the conservative movement?


Okay, so France is #1, eh?

By whose standards?

The WHO/UN?
I wasn't aware that such data as life expectancy, live births, teen pregnancy et al was arguable, no matter the reporting organization.
The WHO gets it's data from the government, so either we're lying to them- to make ourselves look worse, apparently- or we are in as bad a shape as they say.


Other annoying facts about France-

She's flipping broke, primarily due to her nanny-state tendencies, national health-care chief amongst them on the debit side...
.
And our economy is doing any better?
We're broke, owe the Chinese everything we'll ever make for the next few generations and have crap health care, so it would seem that the French win out in that regard.

And...
Exactly why can't we be compared to any other country...even with numbers?
What makes the US so special that it's merits and faults are beyond examination?

[j2k4]

For every poll you have that shows a "lack of support" for a government run health system, I can find one that shows the exact opposite.
You're qualms do not automatically translate into wide spread agreement.

So we've got a 50/50 split in opinion?

Great - let the debate commence, rather than allowing this neophyte to run roughshod over process, not even having read his own fucking bill.


NASA was mentioned recently as a paradigm of government oversight, yet it is riddled with inefficiency and has a safety record OSHA would surely frown on, if such were allowed (government doesn't really look after itself too well in the US, and, anecdotally, other countries aren't any different).

The fact is, NASA did land men on the Moon, it's efforts have lent hugely to medical breakthroughs and avenues of scientific endeavor.

I believe we can set that aside and throw a blanket over the rest of Uncle Sam's little projects to cover the accompanying shame.


Fine.
We'll just conveniently ignore such "little projects" as the interstate highway system, the Hoover Dam, etc.
Oh yeah, and the armed forces.
Isn't the military the pride and joy of the conservative movement?

Oh, the Interstate highway system - do you want to do chapter-and-verse about waste?

In any case, big deal - the government can throw taxpayer money into a huge concrete-pouring project - impressive, that.

Hoover Dam?

Same thing...real hi-tech achievement.

By the way, neither of them qualifies as an on-going business operation, so why don't we talk about, oh, AMTRAK, or Fannie, or Freddie, instead?

As to the military, it is absolutely rife with waste, as well you know...sort of like the health care system.


Okay, so France is #1, eh?

By whose standards?

The WHO/UN?


I wasn't aware that such data as life expectancy, live births, teen pregnancy et al was arguable, no matter the reporting organization.
The WHO gets it's data from the government, so either we're lying to them- to make ourselves look worse, apparently- or we are in as bad a shape as they say.


Other annoying facts about France-

She's flipping broke, primarily due to her nanny-state tendencies, national health-care chief amongst them on the debit side...
.

And our economy is doing any better?
We're broke, owe the Chinese everything we'll ever make for the next few generations and have crap health care, so it would seem that the French win out in that regard.

So we should be sure to include the financial ruin of France on our to-do agenda?

You miss my point, which is that while the questionable upside of socialism is being praised here, we can look at the same table that cites France as #1 to note that the UK and Canada (both of whom possess - anecdotally - systems "far superior to that of the US") are far enough down that particular list as to be touted as under-achieving.

Our critics hammer costs as the root of our problem, and they are correct, so...since the problem with every government project/endeavor is incredible and endemic waste, how could anyone suppose they might do health-care with less expense?

So, to capsulize:

The problems with the US health care system are rooted in it's cost, yet you advocate the government assume control.


And...
Exactly why can't we be compared to any other country...even with numbers?
What makes the US so special that it's merits and faults are beyond examination?

None of your numbers mean a frigging thing until the US withdraws all of it's military personnel and hardware to US territory; not until we know how all those who bitch about US military spending feel about giving up their share of it's benefit; when they've absorbed the ramifications of providing their own protection.

Which plan I'm all for, by the way.

[clocker]

AFAIK, no one has advocated the government "assume control" over health care.
All the plans I've seen offer the option of a government run plan, NOT the exclusion of private insurance.

Should you prefer to feed the corporate maw of the same friendly for-profit insurance companies we have today you'll be free to do so.

So what's your problem?

No one is forcing you to change a damn thing, but people without options today will gain some.

[j2k4]

AFAIK, no one has advocated the government "assume control" over health care.
All the plans I've seen offer the option of a government run plan, NOT the exclusion of private insurance.

Should you prefer to feed the corporate maw of the same friendly for-profit insurance companies we have today you'll be free to do so.

So what's your problem?

No one is forcing you to change a damn thing, but people without options today will gain some.

No, I don't "prefer to feed the corporate maw of the same friendly for-profit insurance companies we have today", but I don't want to trade it for a GSE.

Those health-care options you see will be eliminated over time.

[clocker]

Why and sez who?

[j2k4]

Why and sez who?

History says.

[devilsadvocate]

Europe has a thriving private health insurance industry despite having social systems.

According to this they can even get "no claims" discounts on their premiums

http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/healthinsurance/special-offers/

We don't get that for auto insurance let alone health insurance.

[clocker]

Those health-care options you see will be eliminated over time.


Why and sez who?




History says.
So you're simply saying that as a scare tactic...no proof.

[devilsadvocate]

It appears Americans are flocking to other countries for treatment


BANGALORE — Lying in a hospital bed in Bangalore’s immaculate Wockhardt Hospital recuperating from a knee replacement surgery on his right knee, Les Seaver-Davis counts off on his fingers the number of times he has been in and out of hospitals back home in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Seven? Eight? He gives up after a few moments, pauses to survey his pristine room, and declares, “For the first time in my life, I feel like I’m cared for by the best people in the world.”
Earlier this month Seaver-Davis, a family mediator and teacher, traveled halfway across the world from Greensboro to Bangalore, where Wockhardt’s surgeons removed the loose implants from a previous surgery in his knee and replaced them with fresh implants.
The surgery cost $11,000, a bargain-basement price that was a quarter of what hospitals in North Carolina were quoting. “If more people knew about the quality of medical care here, American hospitals would go out of business,” said Seaver-Davis.
With the debate raging over health care reform, growing numbers of Americans like Seaver-Davis aren't waiting for Washington: They are outsourcing themselves, or are being outsourced by their employers, to India for medical treatments. Superior care coupled with low costs in internationally accredited hospitals like Wockhardt is proving a hard-to-beat attraction for Westerners.
The global economic downturn is only accelerating the trend. Many U.S. corporations looking to slash employees’ medical bills are making India a medical refuge, as are under-insured and uninsured Americans.
This year Wockhardt has already received 580 American patients for treatments ranging from cardiac bypass surgeries, organ transplants and complex spinal surgeries. That's more than triple the number for the same period last year, the hospital says.

The whole article is here http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/india/090724/medical-outsourcing-india?page=0,0

I have to wonder if these hospitals in other nations are providing this first rate cheap medical service while their own nationals go wanting. Is the same service available to all their own citizens or is this just a "millionaires playground" fenced off from the surrounding poverty?

[Barbarossa]

Is there anyone who believes this is a good idea?

Sick people who can't afford treatment currently? :unsure:

Personally I believe basic healthcare is a right not a privilege.

[Rat Faced]

Who says you have to give up Private Healthcare?

It runs in tandem with the NHS here, its upto you if you want to take out the Insurance. One thing though; the Private Insurance here is much cheaper for the same thing in the US possibly, because we dont let the Insurance/Medical professions dictate the terms.

You can also see this when we get Travel Insurance... worldwide Travel Insurance excludes the USA and is low cost, put the USA in there and the cost of it triples.

[j2k4]

Who says you have to give up Private Healthcare?

It runs in tandem with the NHS here, its upto you if you want to take out the Insurance. One thing though; the Private Insurance here is much cheaper for the same thing in the US possibly, because we dont let the Insurance/Medical professions dictate the terms.

You can also see this when we get Travel Insurance... worldwide Travel Insurance excludes the USA and is low cost, put the USA in there and the cost of it triples.

Well, maybe the U.K.'s version might be preferable; perhaps you can help me out on this point:

I found out today that, under the Obama plan, my share of an unmarried employee's "free" health-care costs would be 78%, and that of a married employee would be 65%.

This is assessed regardless of either's insurance situation otherwise, this is to say, whether or not they have any, or whether a spouse qualifies under another employer or plan.

That'll put me out of business, and idle my (anticipated) payroll of 30.

I guess this is where I say, c'est la guerre.

[lynx]

Who says you have to give up Private Healthcare?

It runs in tandem with the NHS here, its upto you if you want to take out the Insurance. One thing though; the Private Insurance here is much cheaper for the same thing in the US possibly, because we dont let the Insurance/Medical professions dictate the terms.

You can also see this when we get Travel Insurance... worldwide Travel Insurance excludes the USA and is low cost, put the USA in there and the cost of it triples.

Well, maybe the U.K.'s version might be preferable; perhaps you can help me out on this point:

I found out today that, under the Obama plan, my share of an unmarried employee's "free" health-care costs would be 78%, and that of a married employee would be 65%.

This is assessed regardless of either's insurance situation otherwise, this is to say, whether or not they have any, or whether a spouse qualifies under another employer or plan.

That'll put me out of business, and idle my (anticipated) payroll of 30.

I guess this is where I say, c'est la guerre.
I assume you are expecting to have to pay 78%/65% of the costs of private health insurance. I'd find such a prospect very daunting too.

If instead one of the European models is followed the overall costs should be a fraction of the sums you are predicting, and consequently your "share" much lower too.

I'm well aware of the conservative idea that the state should not operate where the private sector can do a better job, but I have to confess that healthcare is one of the few areas where state intervention seems to produce better results.

[j2k4]

Well, maybe the U.K.'s version might be preferable; perhaps you can help me out on this point:

I found out today that, under the Obama plan, my share of an unmarried employee's "free" health-care costs would be 78%, and that of a married employee would be 65%.

This is assessed regardless of either's insurance situation otherwise, this is to say, whether or not they have any, or whether a spouse qualifies under another employer or plan.

That'll put me out of business, and idle my (anticipated) payroll of 30.

I guess this is where I say, c'est la guerre.
I assume you are expecting to have to pay 78%/65% of the costs of private health insurance. I'd find such a prospect very daunting too.

If instead one of the European models is followed the overall costs should be a fraction of the sums you are predicting, and consequently your "share" much lower too.

I'm well aware of the conservative idea that the state should not operate where the private sector can do a better job, but I have to confess that healthcare is one of the few areas where state intervention seems to produce better results.

All right, then - let's capsulize:

We Americans have a health system that is too expensive...accessibility is not the problem.

We are urged here to model ourselves after any of several Canadian/European systems that have myriad problems relative to public cost and accessibility.

We have a President touting the ideal of government-run healthcare, and insisting his program be instituted as soon as possible, so we can begin to enjoy the benefits as I have outlined above.

To reiterate, and clarify - I will (according to B.O.'s plan) assume costs of 78%/65% per unmarried/married employee.

These costs are assessed in aid of supporting the government-administered program.

These costs will be assessed even if the employee in question is covered by a spouse's private plan, or if the employee has a private plan he/she pays for.

[devilsadvocate]

All right, then - let's capsulize:

We Americans have a health system that is too expensive...accessibility is not the problem.





I disagree, the expense makes it unaccessible to far too many.

[clocker]

All right, then - let's capsulize:

We Americans have a health system that is too expensive...accessibility is not the problem.

"Accessibilty is not the problem"?
Says who?

Denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, age or other risk factors is very common.

Out of curiousity...how did you "find out today" what your costs will be under a plan that doesn't yet exist?

[j2k4]

All right, then - let's capsulize:

We Americans have a health system that is too expensive...accessibility is not the problem.





I disagree, the expense makes it unaccessible to far too many.

You disagree?

Expense has nothing whatsoever to do with access to healthcare; you are referring to the insurance, and your failure to maintain even cursory intellectual honesty about that particular item cements the fact that you have absorbed naught but what you've been told, sheep-breath.





All right, then - let's capsulize:

We Americans have a health system that is too expensive...accessibility is not the problem.

"Accessibilty is not the problem"?
Says who?

Denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, age or other risk factors is very common.

Out of curiousity...how did you "find out today" what your costs will be under a plan that doesn't yet exist?

Thank you for not missing the same point as the other fellow, and congratulations for missing a different one - that I was talking about health-care, not insurance.

As to the other, look at H.R. 3200 (which I believe does "exist"), the relevant facts I read about here:

http://www.nfib.com/tabid/60/tabid/739/Default.aspx?cmsid=49542&v=1

[devilsadvocate]

I disagree, the expense makes it unaccessible to far too many.

You disagree?

Expense has nothing whatsoever to do with access to healthcare; you are referring to the insurance, and your failure to maintain even cursory intellectual honesty about that particular item cements the fact that you have absorbed naught but what you've been told, sheep-breath.



I'm referring to anyone who lacks ability to pay for whatever reason. Keep your narrow one dimension vision to yourself, don't project it onto others and don't presume to tell me what I am referring to.

I could do the same to you and suggest that you are confusing accessibility with availability

There are plenty of Lamborghinis in the dealership down the road, I can't afford to buy one. They are available, but I don't have access.

[j2k4]

You disagree?

Expense has nothing whatsoever to do with access to healthcare; you are referring to the insurance, and your failure to maintain even cursory intellectual honesty about that particular item cements the fact that you have absorbed naught but what you've been told, sheep-breath.



I'm referring to anyone who lacks ability to pay for whatever reason. Keep your narrow one dimension vision to yourself, don't project it onto others and don't presume to tell me what I am referring to.

I could do the same to you and suggest that you are confusing accessibility with availability

There are plenty of Lamborghinis in the dealership down the road, I can't afford to buy one. They are available, but I don't have access.

No, you do have access, you just don't have the money.

What you refer to as "your narrow one dimension vision" is actually a dictionary, wherein can be found the means to relieve your ignorance of the meanings of the words in question.

While you may come up a bit short in the quest for a Lambo, you might find a dictionary downright affordable, and it's benefit to you undeniable.

[devilsadvocate]

Okay I'll dumb it down even more so you might understand.

John wants to go watch a movie. The only way he can do this is to go to the theater. The entrance fee is $10 but unfortunately the content of john's wallet matches your IQ so he only has $1. The movie is available for all who have $10 but John doesn't have that so his access to the movie is rather limited. The best he can do is look at the poster and imagine.

If you think there is no accessibility problem in the US because of cost you really haven't got a clue.

[clocker]

... look at H.R. 3200 (which I believe does "exist"), the relevant facts I read about here:

http://www.nfib.com/tabid/60/tabid/739/Default.aspx?cmsid=49542&v=1
Seems to me that you would be at the head of the line, clamoring for lower cost health plans then.

Instead, you want to perpetuate the existing system which leaves you at the mercy of the corporate, for-profit health care providers and insurers.

Tell me, does your company currently offer any health care plan for the employees?
If not, why?
If so, what is the corporate contribution- if any- to the cost and what would you consider to be equitable/fair?

[j2k4]

Okay I'll dumb it down even more so you might understand.

John wants to go watch a movie. The only way he can do this is to go to the theater. The entrance fee is $10 but unfortunately the content of john's wallet matches your IQ so he only has $1. The movie is available for all who have $10 but John doesn't have that so his access to the movie is rather limited. The best he can do is look at the poster and imagine.

If you think there is no accessibility problem in the US because of cost you really haven't got a clue.

There you go again.

Affordability and accessibility are not the same thing, and you haven't the semantic creativity to make movies analogous to health-care.

Put down your shovel and admit defeat.



... look at H.R. 3200 (which I believe does "exist"), the relevant facts I read about here:

http://www.nfib.com/tabid/60/tabid/739/Default.aspx?cmsid=49542&v=1
Seems to me that you would be at the head of the line, clamoring for lower cost health plans then.

Instead, you want to perpetuate the existing system which leaves you at the mercy of the corporate, for-profit health care providers and insurers.

Tell me, does your company currently offer any health care plan for the employees?
If not, why?
If so, what is the corporate contribution- if any- to the cost and what would you consider to be equitable/fair?

How did you leap to the conclusion that I am not "for" lower health-care costs?

I want no part of perpetuating the current situation, and I am fully cognizant of the need to fix it.

A good start would be the elimination of health insurance of any type (any/all third payer) and an immediate end to the lucrative nature of that end of the business...sort of bring the health profession back toward reality.

Tell me this:

If medical care could be had at real-world prices, what would be the difference if I paid a premium for the employee, or paid the employee the money so he could pay it himself?

Why the onus on the employer to handle it when that impulse (third-party payer) is the root of the problem?

[clocker]

So do you or do you not offer a health care plan for the employees?

[j2k4]

So do you or do you not offer a health care plan for the employees?

I do not.

What's your point.

[clocker]

That going from paying zero percent of employee health insurance cost to anything percent might seem excessive to you.

[j2k4]

That going from paying zero percent of employee health insurance cost to anything percent might seem excessive to you.

Yet another leap...I went from looking for an affordable plan for my employees to on-the-hook-for-most-of-it-unto-it-putting-me-out-of-business, and you're rooting for the latter.

As I've already said:

C'est la guerre.

[clocker]

You're leaping as well...I never said I was rooting for you to be put out of business.
I asked what percentage of the health plan you thought was fair for you to pay.

[j2k4]

You're leaping as well...I never said I was rooting for you to be put out of business.
I asked what percentage of the health plan you thought was fair for you to pay.

What do you think would be fair?

[clocker]

I asked first.

[j2k4]

I asked first.

Then I will answer my way.

Health care is unfailingly mentioned as a right...not a God-given one, either; that would just be unpalatable...so it must be human-given, because that is all that is allowed.

Right?

But never mind that just now.

Given also, somehow - I don't know how - is this silly caveat that says this right to health-care granted by the...commonweal, I guess you'd call it - is to be provided in whole or part by the employer.

My reasoning is easy enough for fifth-graders (American specie), but I don't know about the rest of you, because of the international cohort here.

It comes down to this:

Health-care of any sort cannot be provided for free.

Neither can it be provided without account; things need to be costed-out and paid for.

It must also be accepted that the monies for this purpose emerge from the public trough, as all money does.

The public (that means ALL of us) has "title" to these monies, and has the individual and collective right and DUTY to supervise - at some remove - their expenditure.


At this point, I will point out the all-encompassing and downright altruistic inclination we all have to respect the rights of the individual.

One would think it of utmost importance to hold the selection of one's health-care provision rather closely, yet the liberal/progressive mindset chooses to forego this, preferring instead to meekly (yet insistently) entrust this most important of all issues to an entity whose natural (human!) motivations (profit, primarily) are diametrically opposed.

In order to bolster my argument, allow me also to grant an absurd advantage to the opposition by stipulating that individual pay levels should be subject to some sort of inflated proportion in order to ease the financial pain associated with paying for health-care - given all of this, what possible rationale could be concocted for the employer's being charged with the responsibility for choosing (and thus establishing the worth of) one's health insurance?

I would like to say the following to all of you who would prefer this scenario:

























WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU STUPID FUCKS?

What on Earth would, could, or should cause you to abdicate this...right?

[clocker]

So, as an employer, paying 78% of a health care plan premium would put you out of business and paying anything at all offends your political sensibilities.
Does that about sum it up?

[j2k4]

So, as an employer, paying 78% of a health care plan premium would put you out of business and paying anything at all offends your political sensibilities.
Does that about sum it up?

No, it does not.

Did you read my post at all.

[bigboab]

I would like to ask how private health care in U.S.A. Pays for or gets organs for transplant? I know they pay for blood.

I would also like to know if transplant surgery is available in the U.K. and if so do they jump the queue to get the freely donated organs?*

* This question has just been answered in an item posted yesterday.

It appears that private transplant, except living donors, is going to be banned in the U.K.:)

http://www.physorg.com/news168255290.html

[j2k4]

It appears that private transplant, except living donors, is going to be banned in the U.K.:)

http://www.physorg.com/news168255290.html

To "allay fears"?

One would think a nice dose of Socialist transparency sufficient to counter, eh?

Ah!

I've spotted the problem...you-all don't have any B.O. to do the job right.

Lucky bar-stewards.

[bigboab]

It appears that private transplant, except living donors, is going to be banned in the U.K.:)

http://www.physorg.com/news168255290.html

To "allay fears"?

One would think a nice dose of Socialist transparency sufficient to counter, eh?

Ah!

I've spotted the problem...you-all don't have any B.O. to do the job right.

Lucky bar-stewards.Yes. Just ban any operating procedures not carried out by the NHS. If they can afford private treatment they can go to the U.S.A. and get it.:)

[j2k4]

To "allay fears"?

One would think a nice dose of Socialist transparency sufficient to counter, eh?

Ah!

I've spotted the problem...you-all don't have any B.O. to do the job right.

Lucky bar-stewards.Yes. Just ban any operating procedures not carried out by the NHS. If they can afford private treatment they can go to the U.S.A. and get it.:)

If you can find a way to make passage but land indigent, you can likely have it done for free, too.

Unlike our citizens.



Hey, here's an idea:

Lets have the Brits clone B.O. (on a state visit, like, so it'll be a naturalized citizen) so they can fully realize the benefits of...um...to be derived.

[bigboab]

Yes. Just ban any operating procedures not carried out by the NHS. If they can afford private treatment they can go to the U.S.A. and get it.:)

If you can find a way to make passage but land indigent, you can likely have it done for free, too.

Unlike our citizens.



Hey, here's an idea:

Lets have the Brits clone B.O. (on a state visit, like, so it'll be a naturalized citizen) so they can fully realize the benefits of...um...to be derived.
It is unusual for you to make a spelling mistake Kev.:whistling

[j2k4]

If you can find a way to make passage but land indigent, you can likely have it done for free, too.

Unlike our citizens.



Hey, here's an idea:

Lets have the Brits clone B.O. (on a state visit, like, so it'll be a naturalized citizen) so they can fully realize the benefits of...um...to be derived.
It is unusual for you to make a spelling mistake Kev.:whistling

Yes, that would be unusual.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

In danger of being called a racist or political terrorist, I would like to ask if any lib can explain to me exactly why the Democrats were so against the Heller Admendment?

[bigboab]

In danger of being called a racist or political terrorist, I would like to ask if any lib can explain to me exactly why the Democrats were so against the Heller Admendment?

What did that have to do with Obamacare? It looks as if, at last, Kev has an ally.:)

[j2k4]

In danger of being called a racist or political terrorist, I would like to ask if any lib can explain to me exactly why the Democrats were so against the Heller Admendment?

What did that have to do with Obamacare? It looks as if, at last, Kev has an ally.:)

Oh, I've got lots of allies, Bob, that isn't the half of it.


There're two other guys.


True story.



Oh, and by the way, we're all, uh...racists, too.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

[QUOTE=bigboab;3273488]What did that have to do with Obamacare?[QUOTE]

Seeing as it was meant to be an amendment to the big "0"'s healthcare plan I would assume that even you could figure this out...

But I will help you out a little here. See, your obamessiah and serveral of his little cronies specifically stated that illegal aliens will not be covered by his helthcare plan. So why did they then strike down the provision in the plan that insures they live up to their word?