on any measure?
(http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/4575/chartone.jpg)
Why do we keep voting in people who try to justify the unjustifiable?
Medicare was created in 1965...........it is high time we extended it to everyone: Medicare for ALL!!!
Faye, what would be the cost of extending Medicare to every US citizen? How about everyone that resides here?
Quote from: NotNow on April 23, 2011, 01:18:18 PM
Faye, what would be the cost of extending Medicare to every US citizen? How about everyone that resides here?
Thank you for asking NotNow!
The answer is: NOTHING, enrollees would pay the cost of their Medicare coverage.
Here is one of our very own Florida Congressmen with the courage to introduce an amendment with absolutely no pricetag..........ie budget neutral:
QuoteGrayson Introduces the Medicare You Can Buy Into Act
Congressman Alan Grayson
Press Release
March 9, 2010
Congressman Alan Grayson, D-Fla., today introduced a bill (H.R. 4789) which would give the option to buy into Medicare to every citizen of the United States. The “Public Option Act,†also known as the “Medicare You Can Buy Into Act,†would open up the Medicare network to anyone who can pay for it.
Congressman Grayson said, “Obviously, America wants and needs more competition in health coverage, and a public option offers that. But it’s just as important that we offer people not just another choice, but another kind of choice. A lot of people don’t want to be at the mercy of greedy insurance companies that will make money by denying them the care that they need to stay healthy, or to stay alive. We deserve to have a real alternative.â€
The bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish enrollment periods, coverage guidelines, and premiums for the program. Because premiums would be equal to cost, the program would pay for itself.
“The government spent billions of dollars creating a Medicare network of providers that is only open to one-eighth of the population. That’s like saying, ‘Only people 65 and over can use federal highways.’ It is a waste of a very valuable resource and it is not fair. This idea is simple, it makes sense, and it deserves an up-or-down vote,†Congressman Grayson said.
http://grayson.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=175363
H.R. 4789 â€" “Public Option Act†or “Medicare You Can Buy Into Actâ€:
http://thomas.loc.gov/ Click Bill Number. Enter H.R. 4789. Click Search. From there you can access the text of the legislation (very short bill), cosponsors, and other information.
Video of Grayson’s introduction of H.R. 4789 to House (5 minutes):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/grayson-offers-medicare-b_n_492831.html
Article XVIII, Sec. 1818
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1818.htm
Article XVIII, Sec. 1818A
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1818A.htm
Medicare premiums for 2010
http://questions.medicare.gov/cgi-bin/medicare.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2260
http://pnhp.org/blog/2010/03/12/graysons-public-option-act-or-medicare-you-can-buy-into-act/
Thanks Faye!
So would they take the total annual outlays for Medicare and divide that by the total number of people currently on Medicare to get the annual premium they would charge?
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 23, 2011, 04:04:48 PM
So would they take the total annual outlays for Medicare and divide that by the total number of people currently on Medicare to get the annual premium they would charge?
No, the way the Medicare You Can Buy Into Act was set up, you will be age rated:
QuoteAccording to Congressman Alan Grayson, the Medicare You Can Buy Into Act scores at zero or better by the Congressional Budget Office because the bill “specifically says that it has to pay for itself.†Grayson says the premiums are “very reasonable â€" barely $500 month for people in their 60s, down to $100 a month for children.â€
As health insurance premiums in California and around the nation increase more people will be dropped from private insurance coverage for failure to pay their premiums â€" which means a bigger burden to society when people become ill and appear at hospital emergency rooms.
Grayson’s simple public option plan is more cost-effective for many individual’s who are held hostage now by the BIG Four. Buying into Medicare’s larger insurance risk pool brings down individual premiums.
The BIG Four acts similar to an Oil Cartel that controls supply and profit. With insurance companies, the profit comes in the form of higher insurance premiums and from limiting and excluding treatments.
QuoteThe BIG Four’s double-digit rate hikes in CA are:
■19-29 % for Blue Shield’s 250,000 customers;
■14-20 % for Anthem Blue Cross’s 800,000 individual policy holders;
■An average 19 % for 65,000 Aetna policy holders; and
■16-25 % for Health Net’s 38,000 individuals.
http://www.laprogressive.com/political-issues/healthcare-issues/congress-pass-medicare-act/
QuoteColombia’s health insurance reform: Is managed competition for the poor working?
February 22, 2006 in International Health Care Systems | Permalink
In 1993, Colombia enacted ‘la Ley 100′ (law 100) transformed the way in which the poor are able to access health care. Previously, the poor could go to public hospitals and receive free or inexpensive care if the hospital would accept them This was financed through higher prices for customers who were able to pay for medical procedures. La Ley 100, gave local authorities the funds to finance a system of competitive private managed care organizations. The local authorities would compensate the health insurance organizations with risk adjusted premiums for every individual covered. Because Colombia mandated a strict benefit package (with an emphasis on primary and preventative care) for each insurance company to provide, competition in this sector was based mostly on quality and not on price.
In their 2001 article in Health Policy and Planning, Beatriz Plaza, Ana Beatriz Barona and Norman Hearst examine the implementation of la Ley 100 and its effectiveness using anecdotal and statistical evidence. The authors found that the percentage of Colombians covered by any type of insurance rose from 28% to 57% between 1992 and 1997. In 1996, the Colombian government added catastrophic illness (such as AIDS, cancer, major trauma, cardiovascular disease, etc.) to the package covered by the managed care organizations.
The authors cite three problems with the implementation of la Ley 100. The first is a lack of institutional capacity. Many hospitals did not have accounting procedures or satisfactory IT systems to administer this program. Further, there was evidence of fraud. Some managed care organizations would charge the local government for people to whom an insurance card was never issued. Secondly, spreading information regarding la Ley 100 was a slow process. While 94% of Bogota’s poor were enrolled in the program, smaller cities and rural areas experienced enrollment rates generally between 20% and 70%. Finally, the implementation of the program was often delayed in many areas due to administrative problems.
While it has it's detractors, I have never experienced anything as good ANYWHERE... Care is excellent, in fact it is now considered the best in Latin America (which is already better then ours). Honest I went in as a caustic totally private US style medical trooper and came out convinced there IS a better way. Though they never were able to take care of the caustic part!OCKLAWAHA
Thank you Ock. They saved my life in Colombia when I was six years old and hit by a car put into coma, with a broken hip. I had to learn to walk all over again!
Excellent care even back in the 60's.
Yet my son collides with another soccer player in the US in the weekend and he gets passed around to 3 different hospitals in the first 24 hours getting just labs and a CT.........no MRI/MRA, ending up quadriplegic at age 7.
I found the exact same soccer injury in a boy in Istanbul described in the medical literature, and that boy is walking around after an emergency procedure successfully implemented in a timely fashion.
BTW, my son had a blood clot in the basilar artery that could have been easily been remedied by a simple clot buster like intra-arterial urokinase.
A YOUNG life could have been saved.
Yearly 100,000 people die in the US due to poor medical care according to old 2000 stats from the Institute of Medicine.
Another 40,000 people die in the US from lack of Healthcare insurance.
We should all bow our heads in shame for such a prosperous country not taking good care of their own.
You can't get everyone to pay their taxes, what makes you think you can get everyone to buy in to healthcare? You will have the Constitutional zealots after you soon. How does someone find a way to pay for the high cost surgeries? Proton Therapy here in Jax, takes adult cases and uses the funds to treat children. How do children pay for cancer treatments?
Until the ERs shut down for people without coverage, cold-hearted, I don't see any way to ween people off this stop gap solution.
Well, if you don't pay your car insurance and get caught, what happens? Require folks to have health insurance and then provide an affordable non-profit option like Medicare Part E (for Everyone). It will also have an immediate impact on the unemployment rate as many folks 55-65 have jobs only to get the healthcare that comes with it. If they had an affordable option then many would retire earlier freeing up millions of job openings for the younger generation.
You are all on glue.
There is no cure for that.
Quote from: buckethead on April 26, 2011, 02:51:40 PM
You are all on glue.
There is no cure for that.
I'd rather be stoned on glue than tea any day...
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 26, 2011, 03:34:48 PM
Quote from: buckethead on April 26, 2011, 02:51:40 PM
You are all on glue.
There is no cure for that.
I'd rather be stoned on glue than tea any day...
What tea? -looks around and see a nice pile of "herbs"- There! I found my solution to the Healthcare crisis.
-Josh
My distributor in Germany pays an overall tax rate of about 55%. Sounds horrible until you realize that he pays NOTHING for healthcare and NOTHING for his kids university education and NOTHING for his parent's nursing home care and medicines.
What is your overall burden for the same things when you add them all up? I'll bet it's more than 55% of your income.
It's really cheaper to buy these things wholesale through the government than retail as we are required to do.
Quote from: Dog Walker on April 26, 2011, 06:03:00 PM
My distributor in Germany pays an overall tax rate of about 55%. Sounds horrible until you realize that he pays NOTHING for healthcare and NOTHING for his kids university education and NOTHING for his parent's nursing home care and medicines.
What is your overall burden for the same things when you add them all up? I'll bet it's more than 55% of your income.
It's really cheaper to buy these things wholesale through the government than retail as we are required to do.
+1
The reason the healthcare (well, and every other business) lobby fights this tooth and nail is simple business economics, they want to keep as many people as possible from gaining any real negotiating power.
and the funny thing I find is this is why our county hates our government so much. They don't care for us. They let the private sector take care of us and oh they do :'(
I feel if there was a medical care for everyone deal- If the government tried to take it away there would be a revolution on their hands. I'm loving these Florida uprisings about their fear of Medicare being taken away. Good for them. The people will win.
How about this measure?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110426/D9MRJH1G1.html
QuoteNumber of 100-year-olds is booming in US
Apr 26, 5:26 PM (ET)
By MATT SEDENSKY
BOCA RATON, Fla. (AP) - Not too long ago, Lonny Fried's achievement would have dropped jaws. TV and newspaper reporters would have showed up at her door. She would have been fussed over and given a big party.
But turning 100 isn't such a big deal anymore.
America's population of centenarians - already the largest in the world - has roughly doubled in the past 20 years to around 72,000 and is projected to at least double again by 2020, perhaps even increase seven-fold, according to the Census Bureau......
Bridge, this is a pattern that is occurring throughout the developed world, not just in the US.
We still lag way behind in the other measures of "health" like infant mortality, teen pregnancy and death from "lifestyle" diseases like diabetes and early death from heart disease and cancer.
We do not have "The Best Healthcare System in the World" by any measure despite what some of our politicians say.
The title says... "any measure". Longevity would seem to be at least one of, if not the most important measure of health. Perhaps the title of the thread is ... perhaps exaggerated?
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on April 26, 2011, 08:46:48 PM
and the funny thing I find is this is why our county hates our government so much. They don't care for us. They let the private sector take care of us and oh they do :'(
I feel if there was a medical care for everyone deal- If the government tried to take it away there would be a revolution on their hands. I'm loving these Florida uprisings about their fear of Medicare being taken away. Good for them. The people will win.
The American health care system is much worse then private vs public sector. It's more like, forced privatization though specific entities with enforcement by the government. What we have in the US is the worst of the private sector muddled with the worst of the public sector working together as a system to take every dollar we have.
When people say government isn't the answer, they are sort of right from what they see from our system. Government makes the health care process awful. At the same time, when people say private corporations isn't the answer, they are right too from what they see from our system. Our system somehow makes both public and private health care look bad.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 27, 2011, 10:11:39 AM
The title says... "any measure". Longevity would seem to be at least one of, if not the most important measure of health. Perhaps the title of the thread is ... perhaps exaggerated?
Actually on longevity the US rates only 49th in life expectancy!!!
QuoteInefficiency Hurts U.S. in Longevity RankingsBy NICHOLAS BAKALAR
Published: November 29, 2010
By any measure, the United States spends more on health care than any other nation. Yet according to the World Fact Book (published by the Central Intelligence Agency), it ranks 49th in life expectancy.
Why?
Researchers writing in the November issue of the journal Health Affairs say they know the answer. After citing statistical evidence showing that American patterns of obesity, smoking, traffic accidents and homicide are not the cause of lower life expectancy, they conclude that the problem is the health care system.
Peter A. Muennig and Sherry A. Glied, researchers at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, compared the performance of the United States and 12 other industrialized nations: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. In addition to health care expenditures in each country, they focused on two other important statistics: 15-year survival for people at 45 years and for those at 65 years.
The researchers say those numbers present an accurate picture of public health because they measure a country’s success in preventing and treating the most common causes of death â€" cardiovascular disease, stroke and diabetes â€" which are more likely to occur at these ages. Their data come from the World Health Organization and cover 1975 to 2005.
Life expectancy increased over those years in all 13 countries, and so did health care costs. But the United States had the lowest increase in life expectancy and the highest increase in costs.
In 1975 the United States was close to the average in health care costs, and last in 15-year survival for 45-year-old men. By 2005 its costs had more than tripled, far surpassing increases elsewhere, but the survival number was still last â€" a little over 90 percent, compared with more than 94 percent for Swedes, Swiss and Australians. For women, it was 94 percent in the United States, versus 97 percent in Switzerland, Australia and Japan.
The numbers for 65-year-olds in 2005 were similar: about 58 percent of American men could be expected to survive 15 years, compared with more than 65 percent of Australians, Japanese and Swiss. While more than 80 percent of 65-year-old women in France, Switzerland, and Japan would survive 15 years, only about 70 percent of American women could be expected to live that long.
In narrowing the blame to the American health care system, the researchers first eliminated several other factors. Obesity and smoking are the most important behavior-related causes of death, but obesity increased more slowly in the United States than in the other countries and smoking declined more rapidly, so neither can explain the differences in survival rates. Homicide and traffic fatality rates have remained steady over time, and social, economic and educational factors do not vary greatly among these countries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/health/30life.html
BTW BT, that doesn't contradict your article if you consider that the Netherlands with a population of 16 million obviously has less centenarians than the US with its over 300 million population. For longevity, what matters is what percentage of the population reaches 100 years old.............and according to the World Fact Book of the CIA, 49 countries have a higher percentage of people reach 100 years old than the US.
NO BT, you've been lied to when people told you the US has the best healthcare system in the world.
It plain and simple doesn't.......not on ANY measure!!
Like many things... I guess it comes down to who is presenting the data, and what point they are trying to make. Using your suggestion... I went to the World Fact Book. It appears the US death rate(8.38 per 1000) is better than nearly all those countries you listed... including the Netherlands(8.85 per 1000).
I'm not here to praise our health system... but I am certainly not going listen to your bumper stickers. Yep... it has warts... yep... it should be improved... but it certainly is not the monstrosity preached by you and yours...
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2066rank.html
Quote from: FayeforCure on April 27, 2011, 11:51:35 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 27, 2011, 10:11:39 AM
The title says... "any measure". Longevity would seem to be at least one of, if not the most important measure of health. Perhaps the title of the thread is ... perhaps exaggerated?
Actually on longevity the US rates only 49th in life expectancy!!!
QuoteInefficiency Hurts U.S. in Longevity RankingsBy NICHOLAS BAKALAR
Published: November 29, 2010
By any measure, the United States spends more on health care than any other nation. Yet according to the World Fact Book (published by the Central Intelligence Agency), it ranks 49th in life expectancy.
Why?
Researchers writing in the November issue of the journal Health Affairs say they know the answer. After citing statistical evidence showing that American patterns of obesity, smoking, traffic accidents and homicide are not the cause of lower life expectancy, they conclude that the problem is the health care system.
Peter A. Muennig and Sherry A. Glied, researchers at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, compared the performance of the United States and 12 other industrialized nations: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. In addition to health care expenditures in each country, they focused on two other important statistics: 15-year survival for people at 45 years and for those at 65 years.
The researchers say those numbers present an accurate picture of public health because they measure a country’s success in preventing and treating the most common causes of death â€" cardiovascular disease, stroke and diabetes â€" which are more likely to occur at these ages. Their data come from the World Health Organization and cover 1975 to 2005.
Life expectancy increased over those years in all 13 countries, and so did health care costs. But the United States had the lowest increase in life expectancy and the highest increase in costs.
In 1975 the United States was close to the average in health care costs, and last in 15-year survival for 45-year-old men. By 2005 its costs had more than tripled, far surpassing increases elsewhere, but the survival number was still last â€" a little over 90 percent, compared with more than 94 percent for Swedes, Swiss and Australians. For women, it was 94 percent in the United States, versus 97 percent in Switzerland, Australia and Japan.
The numbers for 65-year-olds in 2005 were similar: about 58 percent of American men could be expected to survive 15 years, compared with more than 65 percent of Australians, Japanese and Swiss. While more than 80 percent of 65-year-old women in France, Switzerland, and Japan would survive 15 years, only about 70 percent of American women could be expected to live that long.
In narrowing the blame to the American health care system, the researchers first eliminated several other factors. Obesity and smoking are the most important behavior-related causes of death, but obesity increased more slowly in the United States than in the other countries and smoking declined more rapidly, so neither can explain the differences in survival rates. Homicide and traffic fatality rates have remained steady over time, and social, economic and educational factors do not vary greatly among these countries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/health/30life.html
BTW BT, that doesn't contradict your article if you consider that the Netherlands with a population of 16 million obviously has less centenarians than the US with its over 300 million population. For longevity, what matters is what percentage of the population reaches 100 years old.............and according to the World Fact Book of the CIA, 49 countries have a higher percentage of people reach 100 years old than the US.
NO BT, you've been lied to when people told you the US has the best healthcare system in the world.
It plain and simple doesn't.......not on ANY measure!!
Lot of thoughts has gone into this simple answer.
The root of all the lifestyle and health issues in America:
High Fructose Corn Syrup.
-Josh
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 27, 2011, 12:57:25 PM
Like many things... I guess it comes down to who is presenting the data, and what point they are trying to make. Using your suggestion... I went to the World Fact Book. It appears the US death rate(8.38 per 1000) is better than nearly all those countries you listed... including the Netherlands(8.85 per 1000).
I'm not here to praise our health system... but I am certainly not going listen to your bumper stickers. Yep... it has warts... yep... it should be improved... but it certainly is not the monstrosity preached by you and yours...
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2066rank.html
Aside from the opening article of this thread and going back to what the average person thinks. I don't think people are too worried about our health care as in our doctors, nurses, etc. They are worried about how our health care as it's distributed to people works.
As an analogy, our health care system can be like those JEA horror stories told in the other part of this board. JEA provides good power that runs our homes and such. I don't think anyone is complaining about that. It's the billing, rates, customer service, etc that everyone has issues with. The middleman between you and your power.
In Healthcare, it's the stuff that's between you and your doctor that I hear the most complaints about. I think the US has some of the best doctors, researches, etc in the world. You can get some type of useful care in the US. You can probably get some really great care here. The question is how much hassle, red tape, and borrowed money are you willing to be flocked with to get there? Health care is the #1 cause of bankruptcy here in the US. You get the healthcare but in exchange, you must give up everything you ever owned to obtain it.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 27, 2011, 12:57:25 PM
Like many things... I guess it comes down to who is presenting the data, and what point they are trying to make. Using your suggestion... I went to the World Fact Book. It appears the US death rate(8.38 per 1000) is better than nearly all those countries you listed... including the Netherlands(8.85 per 1000).
I'm not here to praise our health system... but I am certainly not going listen to your bumper stickers. Yep... it has warts... yep... it should be improved... but it certainly is not the monstrosity preached by you and yours...
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2066rank.html
Wow, death rate:
QuoteThis indicator is significantly affected by age distribution, and most countries will eventually show a rise in the overall death rate, in spite of continued decline in mortality at all ages, as declining fertility results in an aging population.
The death rate accurately indicates the current mortality impact on population growth.
Hmmm, it's probably due to an aging population in the Netherlands and their very low teenage pregnancy rates in the Netherlands vs the US where teenage pregnancy significantly contributes to population growth. The US therefor has a younger average population than the Netherlands hence the lower death rate in the US.
It says absolutely nothing about the healthcare system in the US.
On all meaningful measures therefor the US healthcare system continues to be the monstrosity that is indicated by the 49th place for mortality.
The quality healthcare is for the few well-heeled folks, but there is no liberty and justice for all in healthcare in the US.
Most people who go in for routine colds may never find out, but if you are unfortunate enough to get cancer or another life threatening condition, you will likely have to deal with private insurance rationing or recission of coverage, or jacked up rates that make you loose coverage.
It is no wonder many Americans are relegated to collection jar healthcare.
It is a crying shame and borderline criminal.
Quote from: buckethead on April 26, 2011, 02:51:40 PM
You are all on glue.
There is no cure for that.
No it's OPIUM actually, because the coca leaves don't do a damn thing!OCKLAWAHA ;D
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000017902
NotNow and BT, here some interesting facts:
David Blitzer, Chairman of the S&P 500 Index committee says single payer holds down costs................BT, the truth shall set you free. ;)
QuoteS&P's latest health care costs, report from february 2010 through february of this year shows health care costs rose 6.2%. That's good in a sense that it's down slightly from 6.3% in the previous 12-month period, but obviously way above the rate of inflation for everything else. Here first on cnbc, David Blitzer, chairman of the s&p 500 index committee. Thanks for being with us.
Good morning mark.
What do you have for us?
Health care costs continue to rise but the rate of increase continues to creep down a little bit. so the news isn't good but it's not getting worse. maybe a touch better. Why are costs escalating at -- i don't know -- three four times the rate of overall inflation? What's going on here?
Health care, despite the excitement about technology and drugs, health care is a labor intensive activity and people, labor costs a lot of money which seems to be the key factor driving it up. so, if i may, logically then you wouldle find the worst or the most inflation occurring in hospitals.
You would. Indeed on the commercial side you do. On the medicare side, you don't. I think that brings up a different aspect. Over the last few years we have heard a lot of arguments about single payer plans versus other kinds of plans. Single payer means uncle sam pays for the health care.
We pay him.
Right.
Medicare for people over 65 is a single payer plan and, indeed, we consistently see smaller rates of increase in medicare items than we do in commercial insurance, the kind of insurance that employers provide for employees.
Okay. I'm going to leave that lying there because some of our viewers now are going apoplectic thinking you have just endorsed single payer health care. I just reported the numbers. Believe me, I understand. you're quoting the facts. Some people think facts are partisan. I don't know how they get there, but they do. David, thank you very much. Appreciate your input. Thank you.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000017902
Glad to see that in this case there is no wilfull misinformation allowed to infect the poorly informed.
Yeah... but people die at a faster rate in the Netherlands than they do here... :o
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 28, 2011, 09:44:52 AM
Yeah... but people die at a faster rate in the Netherlands than they do here... :o
BT, the death rate in the Netherlands is higher due to a more aged population.
Remember people in the Netherlands don't breed as prolific as in the US.
Hey, even I had my 5 children in the US, helping reduce the US death rate ;)
QuoteAs the birthrate in European countries drops well below the "replacement rate" â€" that is, an average of 2.1 children born to every woman â€" the declining population will first be felt in the playgrounds.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html
Single payer holds down cost......... maybe but our system would screw it up.
My dad got into the doughnut hole on his perscription drugs plan by $124. The Government decided to issue checks to Medicare folks in the amount of $250 to help with the doughnut hole. He got the $250 check to cover his $124.
Be careful of mortality statistics for European countries. Don't forget that most of them, especially Germany, lost a large portion of an entire generation that would just be coming into their '70's, 80's and 90's right now. The number of potential centenarians is greatly reduced.
Germany had millions killed of all ages during the war. Russia has never recovered from some 20 million killed during the war and millions killed by Stalin's induced famines and purges before the war.
The Netherlands lost a large number of people of these age ranges too due to the bombing of civilians by both Germany and the Allies. Rotterdam alone was completely flattened and tens of thousands of people were killed. The entire Jewish population was eliminated in the Netherlands and several other countries.
There is simply a smaller group of people who might become over 100 years old.
Quote from: Overstreet on April 28, 2011, 09:58:14 AM
Single payer holds down cost......... maybe but our system would screw it up.
My dad got into the doughnut hole on his perscription drugs plan by $124. The Government decided to issue checks to Medicare folks in the amount of $250 to help with the doughnut hole. He got the $250 check to cover his $124.
I agree Overstreet, our system is too fragmented and difficult to administer.
That's why the expanded Medicare system people can buy into still would be cumbersome, as rates would vary by age, the way it was proposed.
It would just be easier to be automatically covered for basic care by virtue of being born in the US as it is in most civilized nations.
Then if people want additional "luxury" coverage, they can buy their own additional insurance as is possible even in Canada.
Britain's National Health Service begins rationing surgeries to cut costs:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cataracts-hips-knees-and-tonsils-nhs-begins-rationing-operations-2327268.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cataracts-hips-knees-and-tonsils-nhs-begins-rationing-operations-2327268.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
So he just woke up one morning and said "screw it! I'm cutting funds for no reason - except that Murdock told me to"?
well, at least its not Bush's fault.
oh, and do you have any facts to back up that claim? not that I don't believe you or anything, I just want to be sure in case someone asks me.
EVERYTHING that has happened since 2000 is Bush's fault.
Surely there's some blame left over for Cheney.
Quote from: stephendare on July 31, 2011, 04:21:53 PM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on July 31, 2011, 04:13:07 PM
Britain's National Health Service begins rationing surgeries to cut costs:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cataracts-hips-knees-and-tonsils-nhs-begins-rationing-operations-2327268.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cataracts-hips-knees-and-tonsils-nhs-begins-rationing-operations-2327268.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
Directly in response to Rupert Murdock backed Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron's arbitrary cutting of funds to the service.
Come on urban libertarian, you are quicker on the uptake than this. You can't half fund something and then point to it as a failure.
You could do the same thing with the military and the postal service as well.
That's kinda the point. When you have a government monopoly the level of service will change depending on who's in power. When a service is provided by the marketplace the quality and the cost is determined by supply, demand and competition.
From The Atlantic, 11th Circuit rules against individual mandate:
QuoteThe 11th Circuit vs. the Health Care Law: A Manifesto
By Andrew Cohen
Aug 13 2011, 10:23 AM ET 28
A bad week for the White House got worse Friday when a federal appeals court in Atlanta struck down the "individual mandate" portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Whatever else it portends, the 2-1 decision by a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals guarantees that the United States Supreme Court will have to resolve this legal dispute on its merits, probably by next spring. Even if they want to, the justices in Washington won't be able to duck this one.
It took the 11th Circuit 304 pages to announce its findings and conclusions in Florida et al. v. Dept of Health and Human Services: The "individual mandate" provision of the law, which requires the uninsured to buy health insurance, violates the Constitution because it is beyond Congress' power to regulate such activity. But other provisions of the new law, including its expansion of Medicaid coverage, which also were struck down by a Florida trial judge in January, are permissible. In other words, as bad as this ruling may be for supporters of the Affordable Care Act, it could have been much worse.
Whole article here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/the-11th-circuit-vs-the-health-care-law-a-manifesto/243531/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/the-11th-circuit-vs-the-health-care-law-a-manifesto/243531/)