The next great entitlement

Originally posted by whodey
My only point in mentioning it is the track record of entitlement programs in this country. From my vantage point, they have a 0.000 batting average. In addition, the current entitlement program will be used as a basis for change now because it is going bust. Just like with the credit crisis, there will be no time to study the matter or debate the matter in depth, rather, the time to act is yesterday!!

So Americans can't manage universal healthcare while Europeans can? Why would that be?

Originally posted by FMF
The democratic process will decide the allocation for universal healthcare, surely? And the rest of your post sounds like you envisage private health care being abolished if universal healthcare is introduced. Do you?

Democratic process? I don't recall voting for nationalized health care. In fact, I don't recall voting for bail outs and stimulus packages and czars either. In fact, Hillary won the popular vote in her own party so I don't know what democratic process you are referring to.

Originally posted by whodey
Democratic process? I don't recall voting for nationalized health care. In fact, I don't recall voting for bail outs and stimulus packages and czars either.

Your thoughts on universal healthcare are somewhat more interesting than your bellyaching about not getting what you personally wanted from the last general election. Believe me.

Why don't American citizens and their representatives have the capacity to introduce universal healthcare when Europeans have been able to do it, with passable success?

Originally posted by FMF
How do you explain, then, that every industrialized nation in the world has pretty good, warts and all, universal healthcare except for the US? You talk of aversion etc. Is it aversion that prevents the U.S. from following suit. But as far as I know a majority of Americans want to see a universal healthcare system set up.

Come to the 'UK' if you want to wait for several months to be seen by a consultant to whom you have been referred under the NHS or pay twice as much as in the USA for prompt private treatment.

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
First off calling people who disagrre with you freaks is unnecessary. Second of all every country who instituted nationalized healthcare is regretting moving away from a free market system. Who will pay for this? Services will be rationed. Perhaps if the left were not known as the party of death then us "freaks" would not mistrust them as much as how th ...[text shortened]... anyone? Next we'll have the obesity police. We already have the thought police in full swing.

The American healthcare system ALREADY has rationing in it -- unless you're wealthy enough to cover all possible costs, an insurance company will determine whether or not you can get the care you need. So the real question now is whether you trust "corrupt" government bureaucrats or "greedy" insurance bureaucrats to make these decisions.

The core problem is that everyone wants access to the best possible care, but there's only a limited supply. Some people will have to make do with lower level care, others will have to accept delays, and some will have to go without. The best way to resolve this is to greatly increase the SUPPLY of healthcare providers & medicines. Beyond that, we have to figure out the fairest way to ration care.

Another problem is that health research focuses mainly on finding groundbreaking cures and treatments. But what about research into finding less costly ways to carry out the treatments we're already doing? So boring.

Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
Come to the 'UK' if you want to wait for several months to be seen by a consultant to whom you have been referred under the NHS or pay twice as much as in the USA for prompt private treatment.

What is the U.K. like?

Originally posted by whodey
It is the same aversion I have with Welfare dollars from which only about 9 cents on the dollar goes to the poor and the rest goes to government over head.

what is your source for this?

Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
Come to the 'UK' if you want to wait for several months to be seen by a consultant to whom you have been referred under the NHS or pay twice as much as in the USA for prompt private treatment.

That's a scary thought.

I know our healthcare system isn't perfect; but anyone in my family can see a doctor the same day as getting sick any time and appointments with specialists can be set up, usually within a few days. Yes, getting a referral is a bit of a pain; but it's no big deal and can be done within minutes or hours in most cases. Doctor visits cost me a $20 copay, but that's it. And, I have an HMO, which, relatively speaking, is low grade health insurance.

No one in my family has ever had to wait more than a few days (maybe a week or two on occasion) to see a doctor or specialist. Furthermore, I have a choice of scores of doctors that I can choose from that are within a few miles of where I live.

Yes, there are some problems. When my wife needed zofran (an anti-nausea pill) during pregnancy, the insurance made her try a cheaper version instead (well, they didn't make her to anything- they just wouldn't pay for the more expensive one). But, by and large, I can't complain with the healthcare I get.

I saw "Sicko." I'm sure those horror stories occur (every system has people who slip through the cracks), but I don't know anyone who had a problem like those. I guess the biggest problem is for the people who are uninsured. Based on what I know about Medicaid and Medicaid eligibility (which is a lot, by the way), I have trouble understanding why so many people don't have health insurance. My guess is that many people who could get Medicaid simply don't know how to apply or may not even know of Medicaid's existence.

Originally posted by whodey
I got to thinking the other day, after Obama and his cronies force a nationalized health care plan down our throats, what will be the next great entitltment push.....or will they be content? But then I thought, LBJ achieved his "Great Society" and that wans't good enough so I 'm sure Obama and company won't be satisfied either. Perhaps after nationalizing t ...[text shortened]... it will be the end of conservatism altogether? If so, what will take its place?

I got to thinking the other day, after Obama and his cronies force a nationalized health care plan down our throats

you people voted for him, every country has the leader it deserves.
plus, don't you think there should be some reform?

Perhaps after nationalizing the banks and auto makers, they will attempt to nationalize ALL insursurance companies.

Would you rather have the banks and car makers bankrupt?
Surely Obama will decrease govt. intervention as the situation improves.

Don't laugh, the government now has the auto makers in their back pockets so it may be more realistic than it sounds.

Thats true, it would be disappointing to see Obama putting ideology before country.

Wherever there is fear, we will be there, whenever somethings not "fair", we will care, just give us a call and the next thing you know you will have a law".

good one.

Seriously though, once health care is nationalized, what will be the role of the "conservative"?

prevent further intervention.

Or perhaps it will be the end of conservatism altogether?

no, thats sounds too paranoid. changes happen all the time, it is probable that after Obama, America will have a republican president.

Originally posted by FMF
So Americans can't manage universal healthcare while Europeans can? Why would that be?

Too much taxation.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
what is your source for this?

I can't remember where I heard it, but I found this article which states, "So for every one of your tax dollars to the Federal Government, about 7.5 cents goes to these programs." The author writes that in 2006 about $354.3 bilion went to Welfare which is about 2.7% of the total GDP. Of course, as a critique of the article states, this fails to include bureaucratic costs of administraing all of these programs, all across the US. For example, what does it cost for the office spaces, the utilities, the administration staff, benefits, etc.? In addition, it often seems that the ones yelling the loudest for the needy are those who give the least to charitable causes or don't even pay their taxes. In addition, don't forget the cost of paying down the interest in the national debt. The more the government pays for other things, the greater cost in the mounting interest on the debt. And lastly, a poster in the aritcle provided said that the UN proposed a global tax on everyone to help the "poor". If so, that would mean that the "poor" in the US would be paying along side the "rich" because the average "poor" person in the US is head and shoulders better off than someone say in the Sudan.

So how about it liberals, should the UN impose a global welfare state? If not, then why should the US? If so, then the poor in the US should be paying money, not receiving any.

Originally posted by generalissimo
you people voted for him, every country has the leader it deserves.
plus, don't you think there should be some reform?

We have the leader we deserve? Really? I thought Hillary won the popular vote her party?

Originally posted by generalissimo
[Would you rather have the banks and car makers bankrupt?
Surely Obama will decrease govt. intervention as the situation improves.

Obviously you support the bail outs and the nationilzation of corporations. Either way we pay for them so the question remains, what will it cost us later compared to just letting them go belly up now? Will we regret this in the future? What say you?

We have all known the risk of a capitalistic economy such as a possible depression. You have peaks and troughs, only it seems we are no longer willing to forgo them. Now that we are no longer willing to stomach the bad along with good we have now altered capitalism and entered a new form of economic system. Some would call it socialism as where Obama I think is willing to call it anything but the "S" wrord. LOL.

Originally posted by generalissimo

Seriously though, once health care is nationalized, what will be the role of the "conservative"?

prevent further intervention.

Agreed. I would even go further and say that the recent UN proposal to institute a global tax to help the worlds poor is the next issue at hand. The now liberals may turn into conservatives of the future if they begin to oppose such a plan, but then again, why should they? Are we going to discriminate against the poor simply based upon their nationality? That means that the "poor" in the US would also be taxed along with the "rich". It would be ironic to say the least.

In additon, we can once and for all make universal health care truly universal via the UN. Of course this would also include any free loading aliens who might stop in for a visit. After all, we wouldn't want to discrininate against them either!!

Originally posted by generalissimo
Too much taxation.

Pay your "fair" share and button it spanky!! 😛