Q. Serious were in the US constitution does it say no free health care? I want to know?
A. Who said there was going to be free health care.
What are some reasons as to why reconstructing and giving out free health care to all citizens is bad?
Q. What are some reasons as to why reconstructing and giving out free health care to all citizens is bad?
A. It doesn't work: some are told to die, we all go bankrupt:
Canadian doc on UHC:
"...Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system�s problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. �This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,� he fumed to the New York Times, �and in which humans can wait two to three years.�
And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day�s clinic, for instance, handles workers�-compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital�s emergency room.
This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain�s government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party�which originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as �Americanization��now openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: �The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.� Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain�s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.
Sweden�s government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm�s primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city�s largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control). It�s important to note that change in these countries is slow and gradual�market reforms remain controversial. But if the United States was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health care as essential, it is so no longer."
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
Hillarycare exists in Taxachusetts with only 6.5 million people:
"Massachusetts announced that spending on its health care plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers."
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080129/ZNYT02/801290745
Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM
Article explains why CA couldn't get it off ground.
Medicare is touted by the uninformed as THE solution:
In the US, Medicare is going bankrupt. In 1998, Medicare premiums were $43.80 and in 2008 will be $96.40--up 120%. "Medigap" insurance is common because of the 20% co-pay required for service. Medicare HMOs are common because they reduce that burden without an extra charge in many cases. HOWEVER, many procedures which used to have no or a low co-pay NOW cost the full 20% for the HMO Medicare patient. ALSO the prescription coverage they tended to offer has been REDUCED in many cases to conform to the insane "donut hole" coverage of the feds. Doctors are leaving Medicare because of the low and slow pay AND because the crazy government wants to "balance" their Ponzi scheme on the backs of doctors.
"That dark cloud lurking over the shoulder of every Massachusetts physician is Medicare. If Congress does not act, doctors' payments from Medicare will be cut by about 5 percent annually, beginning next year through 2012, creating a financial hailstorm that would wreak havoc with already strained practices.
Cumulatively, the proposed cuts represent a 31 percent reduction in Medicare reimbursement. If the cuts are adjusted for practice-cost inflation, the American Medical Association says Medicare payment rates to physicians in 2013 would be less than half of what they were in 1991."
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=vs_mar05_top&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=11037
What Canada Tells Us About Government Health Care
By Doug Wilson
Monday, February 25, 2008
Americans may not agree on much between now and November, but we have reached a consensus about the importance of at least one issue: health care.
In a recent study by the Pew Research Center, 76 percent of registered voters said that health care was very important to their vote. Democrats ranked health care their most important issue; Independents slotted it as their second most important issue. Republicans, meanwhile, positioned health care as more important than social issues such as abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research.
This public concern has prompted political action�or at least political posturing. It seems every politician has a plan to solve our health care woes. For Democrats, the silver bullet remains universal, government-funded coverage. Both Senators Obama and Clinton have proposed regulation and tax-heavy programs to offer cradle-to-grave health care for Americans.
Ironically, these proposals come at a time when some of our other entitlements�Social Security and Medicare�stand on the brink of collapse. For example, most experts agree that Social Security will be entirely bankrupt by 2041, and that the system will show serious financial strain as early as 2017. If a business faced such dire financial straits it would cut costs, but the government continues its perpetual spending spree.
Before we allow the government to burden us with another mammoth entitlement program, however, we might well consider the plight of countries currently employing socialized medicine. And we need not look very far for an example. Since the 1960s, Canada has operated a system of socialized medicine, while also forbidding the private sector from insuring medically necessary care.
The verdict: Canadians pay more for their health care and get less. That�s according to the Fraser Institute, an independent research and educational organization based in Canada. Fraser�s recently released study, �Paying More, Getting Less: Measuring the Sustainability of Government Health Spending in Canada� calls our attention to the painful realities of government-funded health care.
How, exactly, do Canadians pay more for their health care? Taxes, naturally�and higher and higher ones at that, for there is no other way to maintain such an enormous entitlement. Consider that by 2035, six of 10 Canadian provinces will spend half of their taxpayer-generated revenue on health-related expenses.
In slow economic times, health spending tends to exceed revenue. The government responds by raising existing taxes or creating new ones; to do otherwise would lead to the neglect of other government programs like schools and roads.
By restricting the market, public health care programs create long waits for specialists and often prevent patients from pursuing new treatments. Indeed, the median wait times between a referral from a family or general doctor to a specialist for further treatment increased significantly in every Canadian province between 1997 and 2006. For many treatments and procedures, Canadians are forced to wait twice as long as doctors believe is medically advisable.
Canada�s restrictive policies have also reduced the number of various types of health professionals, limited the availability of advanced equipment and severely restricted the prescription drug choices. Consider that even after Health Canada certifies a new drug, it takes over a year for that drug to actually reach the patients who need it. Between 2004 and 2005, it took an average of 439 days for provinces to receive reimbursement for drugs, forcing patients to wait months for necessary medications.
The list could go on, but it need not. We get the picture. The question is: What are we going to do about it?
The answer lies in the marketplace. Among the more promising proposals currently before Congress is the Health Care Choice Act. The Act would allow individuals to compare and purchase health insurance across state lines. This is a very important, if often misunderstood, way of reducing health care costs. Here�s a quick primer: Because health care is primarily regulated at the state level, states can force providers to cover services and procedures (e.g., chiropractic care or fertility treatments) regardless of necessity or patient demand. Insurance companies then pass these higher costs along to every consumer, regardless of whether they want or need coverage for such procedures.
A more efficient system would allow individuals to select the health care plans of their choice. Such a plan recognizes that a 20 year old male typically has very different medical needs than a 60 year old woman. Freeing consumers to select a health care plan that meets their needs and budget, even if it is in a different state, is a common sense solution that would ease the budget crunch facing man
Canadian doc on UHC:
"...Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system�s problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. �This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,� he fumed to the New York Times, �and in which humans can wait two to three years.�
And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day�s clinic, for instance, handles workers�-compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital�s emergency room.
This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain�s government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party�which originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as �Americanization��now openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: �The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.� Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain�s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.
Sweden�s government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm�s primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city�s largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control). It�s important to note that change in these countries is slow and gradual�market reforms remain controversial. But if the United States was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health care as essential, it is so no longer."
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
Hillarycare exists in Taxachusetts with only 6.5 million people:
"Massachusetts announced that spending on its health care plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers."
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080129/ZNYT02/801290745
Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM
Article explains why CA couldn't get it off ground.
Medicare is touted by the uninformed as THE solution:
In the US, Medicare is going bankrupt. In 1998, Medicare premiums were $43.80 and in 2008 will be $96.40--up 120%. "Medigap" insurance is common because of the 20% co-pay required for service. Medicare HMOs are common because they reduce that burden without an extra charge in many cases. HOWEVER, many procedures which used to have no or a low co-pay NOW cost the full 20% for the HMO Medicare patient. ALSO the prescription coverage they tended to offer has been REDUCED in many cases to conform to the insane "donut hole" coverage of the feds. Doctors are leaving Medicare because of the low and slow pay AND because the crazy government wants to "balance" their Ponzi scheme on the backs of doctors.
"That dark cloud lurking over the shoulder of every Massachusetts physician is Medicare. If Congress does not act, doctors' payments from Medicare will be cut by about 5 percent annually, beginning next year through 2012, creating a financial hailstorm that would wreak havoc with already strained practices.
Cumulatively, the proposed cuts represent a 31 percent reduction in Medicare reimbursement. If the cuts are adjusted for practice-cost inflation, the American Medical Association says Medicare payment rates to physicians in 2013 would be less than half of what they were in 1991."
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=vs_mar05_top&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=11037
What Canada Tells Us About Government Health Care
By Doug Wilson
Monday, February 25, 2008
Americans may not agree on much between now and November, but we have reached a consensus about the importance of at least one issue: health care.
In a recent study by the Pew Research Center, 76 percent of registered voters said that health care was very important to their vote. Democrats ranked health care their most important issue; Independents slotted it as their second most important issue. Republicans, meanwhile, positioned health care as more important than social issues such as abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research.
This public concern has prompted political action�or at least political posturing. It seems every politician has a plan to solve our health care woes. For Democrats, the silver bullet remains universal, government-funded coverage. Both Senators Obama and Clinton have proposed regulation and tax-heavy programs to offer cradle-to-grave health care for Americans.
Ironically, these proposals come at a time when some of our other entitlements�Social Security and Medicare�stand on the brink of collapse. For example, most experts agree that Social Security will be entirely bankrupt by 2041, and that the system will show serious financial strain as early as 2017. If a business faced such dire financial straits it would cut costs, but the government continues its perpetual spending spree.
Before we allow the government to burden us with another mammoth entitlement program, however, we might well consider the plight of countries currently employing socialized medicine. And we need not look very far for an example. Since the 1960s, Canada has operated a system of socialized medicine, while also forbidding the private sector from insuring medically necessary care.
The verdict: Canadians pay more for their health care and get less. That�s according to the Fraser Institute, an independent research and educational organization based in Canada. Fraser�s recently released study, �Paying More, Getting Less: Measuring the Sustainability of Government Health Spending in Canada� calls our attention to the painful realities of government-funded health care.
How, exactly, do Canadians pay more for their health care? Taxes, naturally�and higher and higher ones at that, for there is no other way to maintain such an enormous entitlement. Consider that by 2035, six of 10 Canadian provinces will spend half of their taxpayer-generated revenue on health-related expenses.
In slow economic times, health spending tends to exceed revenue. The government responds by raising existing taxes or creating new ones; to do otherwise would lead to the neglect of other government programs like schools and roads.
By restricting the market, public health care programs create long waits for specialists and often prevent patients from pursuing new treatments. Indeed, the median wait times between a referral from a family or general doctor to a specialist for further treatment increased significantly in every Canadian province between 1997 and 2006. For many treatments and procedures, Canadians are forced to wait twice as long as doctors believe is medically advisable.
Canada�s restrictive policies have also reduced the number of various types of health professionals, limited the availability of advanced equipment and severely restricted the prescription drug choices. Consider that even after Health Canada certifies a new drug, it takes over a year for that drug to actually reach the patients who need it. Between 2004 and 2005, it took an average of 439 days for provinces to receive reimbursement for drugs, forcing patients to wait months for necessary medications.
The list could go on, but it need not. We get the picture. The question is: What are we going to do about it?
The answer lies in the marketplace. Among the more promising proposals currently before Congress is the Health Care Choice Act. The Act would allow individuals to compare and purchase health insurance across state lines. This is a very important, if often misunderstood, way of reducing health care costs. Here�s a quick primer: Because health care is primarily regulated at the state level, states can force providers to cover services and procedures (e.g., chiropractic care or fertility treatments) regardless of necessity or patient demand. Insurance companies then pass these higher costs along to every consumer, regardless of whether they want or need coverage for such procedures.
A more efficient system would allow individuals to select the health care plans of their choice. Such a plan recognizes that a 20 year old male typically has very different medical needs than a 60 year old woman. Freeing consumers to select a health care plan that meets their needs and budget, even if it is in a different state, is a common sense solution that would ease the budget crunch facing man
What are arguments AGAINST immigration and free health care?
Q. It for my critical thinking class. My topic is should illegal immigrants be provided with free health care. I'm against it so what are some arguments that are against giving illegal immigrants free health care?
A. This is so bizarre. Nobody is proposing that illegal immigrants get free health care. Make something up, it makes as much sense.
But think. You profit from work done by people who get paid illegally low wages and no benefits. The government, in collusion with big business, has worked hard for a generation to permit them to come here so wages for citizens would be depressed. â� °)
But think. You profit from work done by people who get paid illegally low wages and no benefits. The government, in collusion with big business, has worked hard for a generation to permit them to come here so wages for citizens would be depressed. â� °)
Why are some corporations against the Free Health Care proposal?
Q. Do you think they are afraid of losing excellent employees if these were given the choice to access a free health care? Would this prevent them from competing with other Companies over the benefit of having Health Insurance?
A. There is no such thing as free. Someone will pay for it. You can say the big, evil corps will pay, but this will still come from people.
As a big evil CEO, who makes a solid 300 bucks a week, I am still against it. I offer health insurance to 18 employees, pay for 75% of the premium if they choose to except it.
What new regulations will do, is people like me, who have been expanding during a down economy (I, not the President, have created 10 jobs in the last year, and received zero government money) will stop expanding. The limits that have been tossed around are about where I am at employee and payroll wise. So no more expansion, no more new jobs.
The effective tax rate on the self employed over 100k is well over 50%, and this does not include taxes for sales, import, ect. At what point is enough enough?
If you really want "free" health care, make everyone, including the poor, children, immigrants (illegal or otherwise, people are people) pay for the cost. Just divide it up and send everyone a bill. You do not pay, you do not get to use it. Period. Too large a % of the population pays little or nothing for everything they get, and it would be interesting to see the reaction if the takers actually have to pay for something.
Finally, if an employee leaves, they leave. Over the years, several of our managers have taken what we do and started out on there own. That is just business. I have supervised well over 200 employees, and have never said, or even thought about health insurance as a carrot/stick in getting someone to do there job. Everyone, even myself is replacable.
As a big evil CEO, who makes a solid 300 bucks a week, I am still against it. I offer health insurance to 18 employees, pay for 75% of the premium if they choose to except it.
What new regulations will do, is people like me, who have been expanding during a down economy (I, not the President, have created 10 jobs in the last year, and received zero government money) will stop expanding. The limits that have been tossed around are about where I am at employee and payroll wise. So no more expansion, no more new jobs.
The effective tax rate on the self employed over 100k is well over 50%, and this does not include taxes for sales, import, ect. At what point is enough enough?
If you really want "free" health care, make everyone, including the poor, children, immigrants (illegal or otherwise, people are people) pay for the cost. Just divide it up and send everyone a bill. You do not pay, you do not get to use it. Period. Too large a % of the population pays little or nothing for everything they get, and it would be interesting to see the reaction if the takers actually have to pay for something.
Finally, if an employee leaves, they leave. Over the years, several of our managers have taken what we do and started out on there own. That is just business. I have supervised well over 200 employees, and have never said, or even thought about health insurance as a carrot/stick in getting someone to do there job. Everyone, even myself is replacable.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment