Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?  
User currently offlineAA7295 From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 622 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3942 times:

This has probably been discussed to death but....my best friend is moving to the United States as an entrepreneur. As an entrepreneur, he obviously will not have "employer health insurance". We have been looking at Individual health insurance plans in the State of New York and we cannot believe how little you get for what you spend.

For example, for $372 a month (almost $100 a week!!) he will still have to co-pay ALL of his medical appointments, and in the event of hospital visit, he will have to pay $500 per night!!! Also, this $372 doesn't cover, dental, physiotherapist, or alternative medicine. It seems it only covers you if you have a massive medical issue such as knee operation or organ transplant.

I cannot believe how little Americans get for what they spend!!! There is no logic to it!!

In Australia, we are taxed what is called a Medicare levy. (Medicare is the name given to Universal Health Care in Australia). The levy is generally 1.5% of your salary, however people who are on lower incomes generally do not pay it.

Why can't the US introduce something similar in their tax system to provide similar Universal Health Care for it's citizens? I understand some people's reluctance to pay it, however I was in their boat until I had an injury in May last year. I hated paying around $500 a year (which is around $10 a week in retrospect) for something I never used. Then I broke my arm in a football injury. I had to be taken by ambulance to the emergency room. I had to to have an ER doctor look at my arm. He couldn't diagnose so a physiotherapist had to look at it and then I required x-ray and then I was put in a cast. 1 week later had surgery with 5 screws permanently implanted in my arm. 7 weeks later had the cast taken off. Total Cost = ZERO! That $500 a year...... will never complain about paying it again. Also, I had 6 months of bi-monthly physio which was subsidized by Medicare.

How can the US not have a similar program. It's fellow members of the UKUSA Alliance all have it - Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK and our economies aren't doing so bad!

??

218 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1667 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3934 times:

For some reason when I bring up the subject of universal healthcare in the Netherlands to my American friends I often get a reply like "yes but you pay a lot more taxes" or even "that's because you live in a socialist care state". Both of these statements are quite wrong (The Netherlands is actually one of the most open and capitalistic countries, hell, we INVENTED modern day capitalism), and our universal healthcare is not government run, like a lot of people think.

There are no fixed prices and most of the insurers are commercial capitalist for-profit companies.

Maybe an interesting read, an American living in the Dutch care system (NY Times);

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/ma...e/03european-t.html?pagewanted=all

In short our system works like this;

- All individuals must be insured

- All individuals purchase health insurance on the private market

- Individuals can choose to get their health insurance through their employer–if the option is available–but the employer does not have to offer health insurance. If the employer does not offer health insurance or if an individual is unemployed, then they must purchase health insurance on the private market.

- Health insurers are free to charge each individual any price they please for health insurance. Of course, market forces limit the price that the insurers can charge the consumers before they switch to another plan. After the reform was implemented, however, there was significant consolidation in the health insurance market and now there are only four or five large plans. This may reduce the amount of price competition in the market.

- The cost of health care is more transparent to consumers since they see the price they are charged for health care. In most national social health insurance programs, individuals do not know the value of health care they receive since the amount of money they pay into the system is proportional to their income and thus unrelated to actuarially fair value of health insurance.
- Health insurance is subsidized by the state. “Insurers get risk-equalization payments for patients with about 30 major diseases.” Thus, people who are sicker receive a larger state subsidy than healthy individuals.

I think the gest of all of this can be summarized by the last sentence of the NY Times article;

“One problem with the American system,” he said, “is that if you lose your job and are without an income, that’s not just bad for you but for the economy. Our system has more security. And I think it makes our quality of life better. My American friends say they live in the best country in the world, and in a lot of ways they are right. But they always have to worry: ‘What happens to my family if I have a heart attack? What happens when I turn 65 or 70?’ America is the land of the free. But I think we are freer.”



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlinelowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3931 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
Why can't the US introduce something similar in their tax system to provide similar Universal Health Care for it's citizens?

Because there are many of us who believe it is not a valid function of the federal government, as currently defined by the founding documents.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1667 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3921 times:

Quoting lowrider (Reply 2):
Because there are many of us who believe it is not a valid function of the federal government, as currently defined by the founding documents.

But in most countries healthcare is seen as important as the police force, fire brigade, infrastructure, etc. If you don't think healthcare is a valid function of the federal government, than why is the police force a valid function?

[Edited 2011-02-10 04:41:38]


Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineAA7295 From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3912 times:

Quoting lowrider (Reply 2):
Because there are many of us who believe it is not a valid function of the federal government, as currently defined by the founding documents.

Be that as it may. It is certainly not defined by the founding documents of Australia. Also, the role of FAA was not defined by the founding documents but aviation regulation is administered by the federal government??

Is it an issue Americans feel that they should not carry the burden of paying for their fellow countrymen' medical costs?

[Edited 2011-02-10 04:45:19]

User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8289 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3903 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 1):
My American friends say they live in the best country in the world, and in a lot of ways they are right. But they always have to worry: ‘What happens to my family if I have a heart attack? What happens when I turn 65 or 70?’ America is the land of the free. But I think we are freer.”

I would agree with that statement. Even with existing insurance it isn't always enough. My dad took care of my grandmother at home for the final six months of her terminal cancer. Even with her coverage by Medicare, there were still $43,000 in out of pocket costs when she died her savings couldn't cover. How long do you think it took before those bills started arriving??

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
I cannot believe how little Americans get for what they spend!!! There is no logic to it!!

It's illogical but so is our cost structure - much of it to cover administrative overhead and high insurance premiums for malpractice to protect against unfair litigation.

I had an echocardiogram done a couple years ago when living in Japan and under their NHS the co-pay is 30% of any kind of routine testing service. My co-pay was around $70 which would suggest the overall cost of the service was $250 or so. I recently had the same test here in the US and was shocked when the claim summary came. The total billing for the identical service was $1,300. Clearly we are doing something wrong here.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinelowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3897 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 3):
If you don't think healthcare is a valid function of the federal government, than why is the police force a valid function?

What is the purpose of federal law enforcement? At the risk of using a term in its own definition; to enforce federal laws. What is the value of a law you cannot or will not enforce? If the federal government does not have the power of enforcing its laws, does it actually have any power? Healthcare has absolutely no bearing on this.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1667 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3897 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Reply 4):
Is it an issue Americans feel that they should not carry the burden of paying for their fellow countrymen' medical costs?



I pay 150 euro's a month for my insurance, but that covers everything. No co-pays, including dental, home visits by my GP, the works. A big part of this money will go to people with serious illness like cancer, heart conditions, etc. I don't mind this at all. Because of the very simple reason that IF something happens to me I don't have to worry about my income, job, family, etc



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8289 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3894 times:

Quoting lowrider (Reply 2):
Because there are many of us who believe it is not a valid function of the federal government, as currently defined by the founding documents.

If all services were rendered by government hospitals with government-employed doctors under government-run insurance, that would be one thing, but that's not even remotely the case in the current or any other proposal. Stop dreaming.

Quoting AA7295 (Reply 4):
Is it an issue Americans feel that they should not carry the burden of paying for their fellow countrymen' medical costs?

Even if they feel that way, they're still doing it, which is why the ignorance on this issue is profound. The standard of care in this country involves hospitals not turning people away. Which means if an individual is underinsured or not at all insured, someone ends up footing the bill, usually a local government. We double-pay for this standard via higher premiums and taxes. It's totally illogical and idiotic that so many people prefer to do things this way, but whatever, that's what we've got.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinelowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3892 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Reply 4):
Also, the role of FAA was not defined by the founding documents but aviation regulation is administered by the federal government??

Not directly, but it would be cumbersome for the President to administer this function directly. As in many corporate structures, this function and the authority to carry it out has been delegated to a subordinate. In this case the Administrator of the FAA. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the Federal level of government is the correct jurisdiction for the administration of the National Air Space System.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1667 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3891 times:

Quoting lowrider (Reply 6):
What is the purpose of federal law enforcement? At the risk of using a term in its own definition; to enforce federal laws. What is the value of a law you cannot or will not enforce? If the federal government does not have the power of enforcing its laws, does it actually have any power? Healthcare has absolutely no bearing on this.

Granted, but laws can be changed. I think that the purpose of a government is providing a safe country with an infrastructure in which the people can live happily, work and contribute to society. Having a good universal healhcare system is a prerequisite for that.



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1667 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3885 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 8):
If all services were rendered by government hospitals with government-employed doctors under government-run insurance, that would be one thing, but that's not even remotely the case in the current or any other proposal. Stop dreaming.

Also not the case in the Netherlands, the majority of the hospitals and insurance companies are private and for-profit. For some reason a lot of opponents of universal healthcare (I mean, HOW can you be against it is beyond me) always think it's a government run operation.

Lowrider, you should read the link in my reply #2.

[Edited 2011-02-10 04:57:07]

[Edited 2011-02-10 04:57:22]


Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1889 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3877 times:

Quoting lowrider (Reply 2):
Because there are many of us who believe it is not a valid function of the federal government, as currently defined by the founding documents.

I am sure you can find at least a dozen other things the US federal government is doing that is not defined by the founding documents.


User currently offlinelowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3866 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 8):
If all services were rendered by government hospitals with government-employed doctors under government-run insurance, that would be one thing, but that's not even remotely the case in the current or any other proposal. Stop dreaming.

It is not currently within the authority of the federal government to require citizens to participate in any health care scheme. I am not the only one who thinks this way. There is also no mandate for the federal government to administer the health care of private individuals. And to pretend that these services being conducted by proxies is does not amount to the same thing is being deliberately blind.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 10):
I think that the purpose of a government is providing a safe country with an infrastructure in which the people can live happily, work and contribute to society. Having a good universal healhcare system is a prerequisite for that.

While that may be true in the Netherlands, I think the purpose of the US Federal government, as currently constructed, is to protect the rights of individuals while leaving them free to pursue their own goals to the maximum extent possible. Whether or not they contribute to society is entirely up to the individual.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 12):
am sure you can find at least a dozen other things the US federal government is doing that is not defined by the founding documents.

I am sure I can, but that is beyond the scope of this thread

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 11):
Lowrider, you should read the link in my reply #2.

It probably has some good ideas, but I will have to come back to this later. Right now I need to go make sure I stay gainfully employed.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8289 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3860 times:

Quoting lowrider (Reply 13):
There is also no mandate for the federal government to administer the health care of private individuals.

How is Medicare at all valid then?

Quoting lowrider (Reply 13):
And to pretend that these services being conducted by proxies is does not amount to the same thing is being deliberately blind.

Surely no less deliberately blind than continuing a system where we directly subsidize those without coverage at both the private insurer and state/county tax level.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1667 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3853 times:

Quoting lowrider (Reply 13):
Quoting travelavnut (Reply 10):
I think that the purpose of a government is providing a safe country with an infrastructure in which the people can live happily, work and contribute to society. Having a good universal healhcare system is a prerequisite for that.

While that may be true in the Netherlands, I think the purpose of the US Federal government, as currently constructed, is to protect the rights of individuals while leaving them free to pursue their own goals to the maximum extent possible. Whether or not they contribute to society is entirely up to the individual.

I do understand the cultural differences, and as stated in the NY Times article simply copying one countries sytem to another is not the smartest thing to do. But IIRC that in the US the percentage of un-insured people is the highest in the western world. That is not only a bad thing for the people that are un-insured, but also for the US economy in general.

People will pospone treatment or not take any treatment, which increases health problems and descreases productivity.

Quoting lowrider (Reply 13):
Whether or not they contribute to society is entirely up to the individual.

It is not like you are forced to contribute to society in the Netherlands, I was merily stating it as an example. If you don't want to contribute that's fine, but eventually you'll end up in the streets (even in the Netherlands). Although even our homeless at least have medical insurance.

Quoting lowrider (Reply 13):
Right now I need to go make sure I stay gainfully employed.

    



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineAA7295 From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3850 times:

Quoting lowrider (Reply 13):
It is not currently within the authority of the federal government to require citizens to participate in any health care scheme. I am not the only one who thinks this way. There is also no mandate for the federal government to administer the health care of private individuals. And to pretend that these services being conducted by proxies is does not amount to the same thing is being deliberately blind.

Yeah... currently. The US Constitution has an amazing ability to be amended. Especially for the betterment of US citizens. Also, you are talking about "participating in a health care system" when Universal Health Care implies medical treatment as a right.

Health care, the ability to be treated for illness and ailments, should be a given right to any human being regardless of citizenship. I can see where you're coming from, and kind of thought on a similar wave length previously until I had an injury that was treated with Universal Healthcare, but put yourselves in the position of others. Imagine being a parent and having a sick child and not being able to give them proper medical treatment. Or imagine being a child and watch your parent age in a not so graceful way due inability to afford appropriate medical treatment.

Most people on A.net... I dare say have been dealt a card in life where they can make something for themselves. There are many people who haven't, and the ability to stay alive and function (and also for their families), should be provided to them in the form of medical treatment.

[Edited 2011-02-10 05:31:19]

User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1667 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3841 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Reply 16):
Most people on A.net... I dare say have been dealt a card in life where they can make something for themselves. There are many people who haven't, and the ability to stay alive and function (and also for their families), should be provided to them in the form of medical treatment.



While that is true for the most part even a universal health care system has downsides. The previous Dutch system was way too cheap (they were practically giving everything away, highly subsidized). It actually makes people lazy, because they don't have to worry about it at all.

I think our new system is a lot better in that respect, you actually have to pay a decent amount of money (unless your below the poverty level, in which case the government helps you, which is a good thing IMHO) and the government doesn't have to subsidize it so heavily.

Fun fact; our previous system was put in place by the Germans when they payed our country as visit (during the 40's).



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineQuokka From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3820 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):


For the benefit of those not familiar with the system in Australia it is not perfect and it is not entirely funded by Medicare. However, the system does mean that treatment must be given ,on basis of need and not ability to pay. No one can be turn away without treatment for essential health care simply because they do not have insurance. Elective surgery in a public hospital is subject to a waiting list but if you are privately insured you can be treated sooner in a private hospital.

The Commonwealth of Australia is enabled by the Constitution Pt 5 s.51 (xxiiiA) to establish pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), a power that provides a protection to those in the medical profession not enjoyed by any other sector of the community.

The existence of Medicare in Australia does not rule out the option of obtaining insurance for private treatment, either as a private patient in a public hospital or as a patient in a private hospital. Insurance may also cover ancillary items not covered by Medicare, such as optical, chiropractic and other services. Private hospitals are included in the Medicare system but Medicare will only pay the scheduled fee. If the hospital or health service provider charges more than the scheduled fee, the patient must pay the gap or have insurance to cover the difference.

People who earn more than a certain threshold amount and who do not have private health insurance for hospital cover are subject to a Medicare Levy Surcharge of 1% of taxable income. For 2010 -2011 the threshold is $77,000 for singles, $154,000 for couples and for people who have children the threshold increases by $1,500 for the second and each subsequent child.

The Australian Government provides a 30% Rebate on appropriate private health insurance cover. There are higher rebates for older people: 35% for people aged 65-69 years and 40% for people aged 70 years and over. In other words, you will get at least 30 cents back for every dollar you spend on private health insurance. For example, if your premium is $2,000 a year, you will get at least $600 back. If you are paying $1,000 you will get at least $300 back.

A person may claim the health insurance rebate if they are eligible for Medicare and have a Complying Health Insurance Product that provides hospital treatment, general treatment (also known as ancillary or extras) cover or both.

The rebate can be 30%, 35% or 40% (as applicable) of the actual cost of premiums paid. Therefore, the rebate will increase if there is any increase in the premium. It is a condition of the rebate scheme that increases in premiums must be approved by the Government. To date this requirement has not prevented competition between the various health insurance funds.

[Edited 2011-02-10 05:56:38]

User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 19, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3809 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 14):
How is Medicare at all valid then?



Because the US Federal Medicare program for the elderly is not mandatory and does not provide universal coverage.

Yes, we are all required to pay 1.45% up to $106,800 of earned income in 2011 (2.90% for self-employed). However, that is a contribution to the health care of the elderly. It is not 'purchasing insurance' for ourselves.

When a person reaches age 65 (Medicare eligibility), they have to make a series of choices. If they are still employed with a health plan, or covered by a spouse's health plan - they will normally not participate in Medicare except for Part A.

Part A basically covers in-patient hospitalizations only with high deductibles. It is free to people with more than 40 quarters of employment covered by social security withholding. There are premiums for those with 39 quarters or less.

Part B is the 'normal out-patient' type of insurance - if you have other health coverage - you do NOT want to enroll in Part B. It costs $96.40 per month (if covered in 2009), $110.50 (new in 2010) or $115.40 (new 2011 participant). If your income (AGI) is higher than $85,000 (single) $170,000 couple - the cost for Part B will be higher. Up to $396.10 per month if joint income is over $428K.

If a person elects to participate in Part B, they must continue to pay for the rest of their life. If a person elects to not participate in Part B at age 65, they will have to pay 'back premiums' from the month after their 65th birthday to the month of regular withholding from their social security payments if they choose Part B coverage later in life. (If a person was covered by another health plan - they can avoid back premiums)

Most people with Medicare Part A and B need to purchase a 'MediGap' policy to provide supplemental coverage for the expenses which are not paid by Medicare. My 86 year old father's MediGap coverage is $328 per month for him alone through the group plan his union negotiated with his old employer - International Paper.

Part C is "Medicare Advantage" which is a combination of Parts A and B with separate premiums that resembles a private insurance plan. Medicare Advantage is not available everywhere. The program basically puts the Medicare eligible person under a non-government health insurance plan with complete coverage. The Medicare Part B premium, the person's additional premium and a supplement from the government to the private insurance company for Part A coverage pays the cost of the coverage.

Part D is optional coverage for prescriptions - at an additional cost.

But basically in the US

If you still have a job with insurance or coverage from a spouse - Medicare is not part of your plan, except as a supplemental insurance for in-patient hospitalization.

If you don't have a substantial income - Medicare is the only option.

If you have a substantial income - you can ignore Medicare and provide your own coverage at personal costs, or be a self-pay patient with no insurance.

That makes Medicare an optional, voluntary insurance program with private alternatives available.


User currently offlinegatorfan From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3805 times:

Quoting Quokka (Reply 18):
The Commonwealth of Australia is enabled by the Constitution Pt 5 s.51 (xxiiiA) to establish pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), a power that provides a protection to those in the medical profession not enjoyed by any other sector of the community.

The answer to the original question lays in this response. Unlike Australia (or many of the other countries discussed) our Constitution provides no such protections. So why don't we do it? Because to do it would be unconstitutional.


User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1667 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3799 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 19):

That seems quite complicated!

May I ask what kind of plan you have and what you generally pay for that?



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3789 times:

Interesting to note how many Americans vehemently defend the right to:
-) pay far more money to get far less protection than anybody else in an industrialized nation,
-) pay nothing at all and bear all the risk.
Just because of ideological reasons which in this case are quite wrong even, as demonstrated by many free and equally prosperous industrialized nations from all over the world!

Somehow, it seems a given to me everybody wants to see himself and his family as well protected as can possible be done, for as cheap as possible. If that's the case indeed, then a compulsory system we all contribute to and which does not aim to maximize its own profitability, but rather strives to maximize the coverage, is the best way forward really.

Healthcare insurance isn't something to make as big a profit as possible on: it's not like offering leisure activities or package holidays for instance, so it's definitely not something you should be able to opt out off.

A government that pretends to do everything it takes so its citizens can persue their dreams to the fullest, should at least make sure these citizens are well protected and covered in case they (or somebody in their family) has a mishap! Otherwise, it's just grandtalk of that government and a cheap excuse for not caring about the people at all....

[Edited 2011-02-10 06:43:46]

User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1889 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3776 times:

Quoting lowrider (Reply 13):

I am sure I can, but that is beyond the scope of this thread

So can you agree with me that a XVIII century document cannot dictate or limit what a society can or cannot do?

On a different level, that's akin to taking the Bible literally.


User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1667 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3772 times:

Quoting JJJ (Reply 23):
On a different level, that's akin to taking the Bible literally.



Well, that's a whole different discussion, let's not get OT here.



Live From Amsterdam!
25 AustrianZRH : The very first sentence of your constitution says: Note "promote the general Welfare". Now to me, health care is essential to my welfare if I'm sick.
26 rfields5421 : Up until March 1992 - I was a member of the US Navy with health coverage provided by the government. Mostly military doctors and corpsmen. My childre
27 travelavnut : @RFields5421 Thanks for your extensive reply! Damn, that would put some people into bankruptcy. That is not too bad, but I guess there is a whole vari
28 slz396 : Wow, that sounds all fairly complicated to me! Do you spend a lot of time comparing all those plans to make sure you have the best plan possible at al
29 rfields5421 : That view is not held by most voters in this country at this time. Even though the cost of health care is high. And the un-insured / under insured ar
30 Post contains links travelavnut : It is very untrue. Old people receive the care they need, doesn't matter if they are terminal, chronic or just having a bad day. Also the life expect
31 rfields5421 : Probably not. No matter how it is done - it is my belief that every large organization in every country is quite capable of hiding costs to enable th
32 DocLightning : And what you are now starting to see, from a foreign perspective, is that your belief makes no sense and will ultimately bankrupt the country.
33 slz396 : I can say for a fact that that is NOT CORRECT. I've never hear anybody in Western Europe tell a story about his 80 year old grandma not being given a
34 rfields5421 : I didn't mention the cost of my wife's Medicare Part B $1,156.80 per year, however because of the Lump Sum Retirement payout in 2009 and it's impact
35 gatorfan : The US Supreme Court has consistently held that the general welfare clause in the Preamble is not a separate source of power for any branch of the na
36 DiamondFlyer : Exactly. And the thing I'd like to point out is, the sheer size, diversity and differences in life styles in the different regions of the US. People
37 travelavnut : But that's the point I'm trying to make and that doesn't seem to land with my American friends. In the Netherlands at least there is nothing governme
38 DocLightning : And the states with the most liberal laws will be open to all sorts of abuse. That won't work at all. It needs to be done at the federal level.
39 travelavnut : I assure you it would not, the Dutch system is perfectly scalable. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better then having 16% of the entire population w
40 gatorfan : But see, that's not really the whole story. The Dutch government does limit lawsuit damages for medical malpractice at the national level thereby red
41 ronglimeng : I thought this thread got off to a good start with "travelavnut"'s Reply 1 that contained that link to the article by the American writer living in Th
42 Post contains images travelavnut : Those are all valid concerns and I in no way think our approach would work 1 on 1 in the US. Not because of scale, but because of difference in law a
43 rfields5421 : I disagree. I think it is our lack of health care in youth and early adulthood (especially the poor pre-natal care so many receive) - and our lifesty
44 AustrianZRH : So do we. My Grandpa received lots of surgery and medical treatment in the final phase of his life, terminally ill with cancer. My Grandma received a
45 rfields5421 : That is not what I said. We in the US routinely expend insane amounts of money to extend life of people who are dying, for no other reason than to co
46 rfields5421 : From a very basic start of the thought of creating a different government in the colonies, it is not the moral responsibility of government to provid
47 Arrow : Wow -- I thought these threads died out about a year ago. Obviously still a hot topic. One of the biggest impediments, IMHO, to the US ever solving th
48 gatorfan : Agreed. But the way to fix any problems that exist with the Constitution is not to start by ignoring what the Constitution says. The Constitution set
49 Quokka : Our original Constitution did not provide for health care being a federal constitution, but a subsequent amendment was put before the people and vote
50 Arrow : So why is there no movement afoot to do exactly that? The strength of a constitution is that it can set out rights and responsibilities that determin
51 Arrow : You've done a very good job detailing why administrative costs in the US are through the roof. Yet blind adherence to ideology seems to be more impor
52 travelavnut : Thinking about it I have to agree with you on this one. Well, it´s still not true. Based on personal experience and simply on the laws we have in my
53 AGM100 : We already do ...its called Medicare and it is bankrupt . We are too large and diverse to have a bureaucracy that is capable of fair , effective univ
54 travelavnut : The time frame on which to implant cardiac assist devices differs from case to case. If his grandma needed one a.s.a.p she would have received one a.
55 FlyPNS1 : But the private sector has no viable solution because health care for much of the population isn't going to be profitable. It's the same reason we do
56 DocLightning : Which is exactly what they did in the Netherlands and Switzerland. and when we tried to do that here, everyone got all up in arms.
57 Post contains images Stabilator : A great post. The police force is controlled on a state level. I agree that when someone is sick/injured/etc. they have the right to be treated then
58 Flighty : The private sector is technically and analytically not a viable solution for health insurance markets. A market breakdown is inevitable, which is the
59 Post contains links and images travelavnut : My insurance company is Achmea, a very private profit oriented company; http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/139/139971.html
60 rfields5421 : But that is how the vast, vast majority of people in any country learn about differences in other countries. Just because it isn't true does not make
61 Ken777 : Within the limits of society. Want to just rob banks instead of working? You're outta luck and will find you're not very free for the future. Same wi
62 DiamondFlyer : So then if people want a federal health insurance program that has a mandatory participation, the constitution must be changed. Simple as that. Witho
63 Flighty : Ken777: I wanted to add you to my RU list but I got this message: "Ken777 is already in your respected users list!" I applaud your post 100%
64 Post contains images Arrow : I can't argue with that -- it's one of the reasons there's a big push on here now to re-direct a lot of exports to Asia, particularly oil. There is g
65 gatorfan : Nobody said the government couldn't spend money on what it sees fit. The question was does the preamble grant the government a power not granted to i
66 AA7295 : My question why don't the people want it?
67 Ken777 : No it's not. I's paying out on our care, just like our supplemental policy does. It's necessary to maintain taxes and fees paid current, but the core
68 Flighty : Absolutely, this has been a topic I and others have researched. Surprisingly, we do not figure this (massive) dead weight loss into our health care c
69 Arrow : From an article on the Council for Canadian website, some stats to back that up: "In 1988, Chrysler’s CEO Lee Iacocca reported that each car his co
70 Post contains links gatorfan : I'm certainly no expert on the UK's NHS but this article makes it appear that if you go outside the system you lose all your benefits. http://www.tim
71 Ken777 : The UK has both public and private health care. While they have a problem with people standing in both sides those paying for private care do not hav
72 gatorfan : So let's be honest. For a universal system to work IT MUST ration care and keep some people from seeking the life-saving care they want. Any favorabl
73 Arrow : It doesn't happen here. Case in point: I have had two chemo treatments now for leukemia, the drugs (very expensive ones) all covered by the health pl
74 JJJ : You mean like getting a liver transplant just because you feel like it? But health care doesn't work like an all you can eat buffet. Total spending w
75 gatorfan : No I means giving an 80 year old a liver transplant because her spouse wants to keep here alive a couple more years. I mean giving someone with a 1%
76 Post contains links gswarbrick : That was never generally true in the UK and that particular - very unusual - set of circumstances was sorted out within 8 weeks of the article you po
77 rfields5421 : So how is that different with the current health care system in the US. What we have, both under private insurance for individuals and through employ
78 Ken777 : So let's be honest. For a private health insurance to be profitable IT MUST ration care and keep some people from seeking the life-saving care they w
79 Aaron747 : OK but here's the kicker - there was a $900 difference in price between my echo here in the states and the one I had in Japan, and because I'm observ
80 Rabenschlag : While living in the US, I noticed that the very same procedures with by and large the same equipment cost about twice to three times as much as in Ge
81 Ken777 : Oh, yes. Last time I was in I had my blood sugar checked. I do that regularly and the costs are pretty simple. The test strip is around $1 and the la
82 BAKJet : Because the right-wing pundits and republicans have demonized it, simple as that.
83 DocLightning : Among others, the medical team taking care of him should decide. One thing that is very wrong with the system in this country is this attitude of "th
84 D L X : That's how insurance works now. Doctors can't just run that test you want if your insurance isn't going to pay for it. The idea that switching to uni
85 Aaron747 : Some of the things that go on in our system are downright zany. You've got people with terminal cancers who go on palliative therapies like chemo tha
86 Ken777 : When my sister died the family was able to discuss her situation with the Doctor and were able to see her and understand that she was brain dead. The
87 Aaron747 : I was referring to Doc's comments about the downsides of "the patient is always right". If there's absolutely no medical benefit to be derived from p
88 rfields5421 : My old-maid aunt, the only one of my mother's six siblings who did not have Alzheimer's, was diagnosed with lung cancer at age 84. She have been thro
89 pwm2txlhopper : We're not socialists, and the supreme court just rules it's unconstitutional to force Americans to buy health care. When Obama took the oath of offic
90 DocLightning : No. A federal court did. The case has not seen the Supreme Court yet. Have you ever received healthcare or worked in healthcare in any of those count
91 Post contains images Ken777 : Morphine is a very cheap medication. "Medication" means legally obtained with a prescription or doctor's order. When I had neck surgery I had a pain
92 Aaron747 : What? When did they do that? Do you know the difference between a district court and the USSC? You already are. How do you not realize that? You pay
93 Arrow : Health tourism is widespread; Americans are flocking to India and even Mexico for treatment because it's way cheaper and just as good. And they come
94 Aaron747 : Actually folks like that needn't be representing the country abroad, thanks. It does far more harm than good.
95 AA7295 : See... you completely miss the point! It's not about buying health care (which you already do indirectly). It's about a percentage of your taxable in
96 slz396 : It took that "long" because the problem was discovered while she was already hospitalized for another medical problem (hip prothesis, all paid by pub
97 slz396 : ROTFL.... All the scaremongering only works with people who haven't experienced first hand what other systems can do for them and thus all too easily
98 ManuCH : This is quite an interesting thread. Still, after reading all the details on the various medicare plans, there's something I can't figure out. Let's s
99 AA7295 : You'd be looking at AT LEAST $100-$150 a week!
100 gswarbrick : Oh I'm sure that's true. It was just an interesting aside...
101 Ken777 : I'm sure you can find a policy with the benefits noted, but pricing is hard to determine. NYC will have significantly costs because they have more un
102 Quokka : It is good to see that bar tenders and pizza boys earn such good money that they can afford the best treatment without ever being a burden. It is goo
103 Post contains images travelavnut : I pay that per month, get the same, and even a bit more (extensive dental plan)
104 Rabenschlag : One curious aspect of this debate is that those who would profit from a cross-subsidization (i.e. the poor, the lower to middle class incomes) do not
105 DocLightning : Obama ran with this as a flagship piece of his platform and got elected, so I would submit that it did get voted for.
106 gswarbrick : Indeed. But the poor don't get much of a voice in the subsequent media and online debate....
107 Dreadnought : Not quite. What drives up costs in the American system (one of the things, anyway) is that people want insurance to cover every little incident, with
108 slz396 : That's where the right makes a mistake indeed. They think there's no majority for it, but there is, albeit silent at present. Poor and lower middle c
109 Dreadnought : I find it sad that you think so poorly of the electorate that you simply assume that they should vote for whatever politicians who'll give them stuff
110 Ken777 : Most of the voices shouting during the health care reform debate was paid for by the health insurance industry. The average American doesn't stand a
111 Post contains images D L X : Wow. That is a powerful statement.
112 Dreadnought : And wrong. Have I ever said that the healthcare system in the US makes any sense whatsoever, or that we should leave it as it is? No I haven't. I bel
113 Lowrider : You will never catch me arguing that it is. The only problem is that, for years, money has been confiscated from individuals toward paying for it, cr
114 Ken777 : 1) The individual mandate was a compromise that "avoided" the public (a Republican desire) and it actually used the model brought in by Romney when h
115 Dreadnought : Like I said, I am in favor of an individual mandate. But you need a constitutional amendment. Some good things were addressed, but Obamacare rammed t
116 Ken777 : In the end Romney didn't need a constitutional change. Was it because he was a Republican? Conservative? Or maybe the residents of MA felt it was wis
117 Dreadnought : Last I checked, Massachusetts is not the federal government, and is not limited to the enumerated powers therein. States can pretty much do what they
118 zhiao : People talk much about the Swiss system; did anyone know that the Swiss spend more per capita out of pocket on heathcare than anyone else? 25% more th
119 Dreadnought : Don't forget to take into account the strength of the Swiss Franc, which is now worth more than the USD. I remember when it was 4 francs per USD. Whe
120 Post contains links zhiao : Actually, the figure is not on the basis of exchange rates, but rather purchasing power. Doesn't change my initial point anyway. And what difference
121 D L X : Charles, this is unnecessary, and out of character for you. I think you believe it to be unconstitutional because you accept partisan "news" sources
122 DocLightning : You just said an individual mandate was unconstitutional, now you want an individual mandate? On the local level no less? Talk about a mess. That's l
123 JJJ : In any case, the Swiss system is just behind the US in cost as a % of GDP.
124 Dreadnought : I believe it to be unconstitutional because I can read. What is it about "enumerated powers" do you not understand? And those "scholars" you talk abo
125 Post contains images D L X : Then I posit that you are reading the wrong things. Don't forget that our constitution was written in the context of a common law nation and did not
126 Lowrider : Actually it was written in the context of 13 sovergn states ceding limited powers to a central body in pursuit of common goals. Too bad the entire pa
127 Post contains links Dreadnought : Such as this? What a subversive document! http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html Which I consider to be possibly their greatest mistake. I think th
128 Asturias : What I don't understand is why people (here) seem to be making an effort to convince Americans that their health-care system should be more "universal
129 Post contains images D L X : But each were and are common law governments. My statement is still true. There has never been civil law in the US except in Louisiana, which they in
130 Ken777 : And subject to the US Constitution as well. The states cannot bring in a law that is, at the Federal level, unconstitutional and have a guarantee tha
131 Dreadnought : Given that the Constitution was meant to grant only certain limited powers to the federal government and put few restrictions on the States, that sho
132 rfields5421 : What we do have and we do know from history is that after the failure of the strong states Articles of Confederation government, the folks who worked
133 Dreadnought : I disagree. The Articles of Confederation failed because of too little central power, but that does not mean that the Founders suddenly fell in love
134 Ken777 : Which makes you very fortunate when compared to millions of Americans. Not quite. In our over-priced system we are still seeing huge increases in the
135 D L X : What is arguably our third try, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments (if you don't count the 11th), all abrogated state power bringing it to the feder
136 Post contains images Ken777 : IIRC, when the Constitution was written people in the various states had more loyalty to their states than to the nation. I would hope that by now ou
137 Lowrider : That was sarcasm. The is a huge body of documents surrounding the theories, thoughts, and intents of the Framers. It is just that it is conveniently
138 D L X : I can't get past this comment to begin to respond to your whole post. Can you explain what you mean or cite an example?
139 Ken777 : I think he is referring to the politicians in some states who want to look good to conservative voters by filing suits against the "mandate". But the
140 Dreadnought : "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington. Like all
141 Lowrider : The idea is that the States are the ultimate check on the power of both the US Supreme Court and Congress. By refusing to enforce unconstitutional la
142 Lowrider : As a General who had to fight a war with a very limited budget, I am also sure he would cut to the bare essentials and show that he was spending the
143 Ken777 : Government is a force, just look at Iraq to see the blunt hand of he force and how government can truly be a dangerous servant. Washing worked with t
144 Lowrider : It was a pay as you go war. And he was not always able to meet payroll. No, I assume that he would not support raising taxes without first cutting to
145 Post contains images Ken777 : Maybe he understood the problems and inefficiencies of bare operations and would have jumped at the chance of having proper funding. But then the "ri
146 Lowrider : You mean the same "rich" that were helping bankroll the war or the one who helped secure loans from France? As for the Loyalists, they couldn't aband
147 D L X : Oh come now, you have no basis to say that Washington would agree with what we today call "conservative." And to be fair, Ken777, you do not know tha
148 Lowrider : Then how do you explain the past instances of it? If the US government draws its authority from the consent of the governed, and the states do not co
149 Flighty : People with a corporate or govt job have quite good service here. People without, oh boy. They are forced to decide between paying a mortgage, feedin
150 Lowrider : I never did buy into the logic of; You claim A is true. I claim B is true. You break my nose, therefore A is true."
151 D L X : Most of the time, the feds took them to court, and they were brought back in line. Medical marijuana is an open case at the moment, but there is no d
152 Post contains images Ken777 : You've pointed out another queer factor in our current health care. All government workers get taxpayer assistance in paying for the most expensive h
153 Flighty : You claimed Federal laws don't apply in California. If unconstitutional, then certainly you are right. I guess we can leave it at that.
154 Lowrider : Only within the limits proscribed by the Constitution. Witness the ongoing struggle over the interstate commerce clause, with the federal government
155 Ken777 : This goes back to the "Unite or Die" slogan. We are one nation and it is IMO unAmerican to have more loyalty to a state than to the Nation. If we did
156 gatorfan : No, the rationing occurs by price. The consumer determines how much care they want and pays according for it. Someone can get a Cadillac Plan if they
157 Lowrider : "Unite" does not require giving up all rights, sovereignty, or authority. To suggest that the states ceded all meaningful self determination in the C
158 Post contains images D L X : There is no such thing as an insurance plan that does not ration care. There is simply no such thing! You can recharacterize it as "rationing by pric
159 Lowrider : Ok, but then you would force me to point out numerous examples that support my statement, how the Constitution was an agreement among equals, not a s
160 Post contains links Ken777 : A company in an individual state can develop a device or drug for use only within the state. If that new drug is presented to only the state medical
161 gatorfan : But there's a world of difference when the private sector in a private transaction determines what will and won't be paid for and when the government
162 Post contains images D L X : *I'M* not trying to eat cake. I don't like the new health care plan. I'm in the group that thinks it does not go far enough. My name is not Barack. R
163 Lowrider : Yes. It is specific, but I don't know enough about the man to come to a conclusion over whether his beliefs originated from racism, or states rights,
164 windy95 : Yes I believe we are in a sorry state because of the Federal Government venturing into areas it does not belong.
165 CargoLex : I believe we are in a sorry state because some people hate the government with such unreasoning, blind fury as to suggest that prescription drugs sho
166 Dreadnought : Source?
167 CargoLex : I was responding to an earlier post.
168 Arrow : That doesn't get you off the hook. You said there are people who hate government so much they don't want drugs tested. Where did you hear (or read, o
169 Ken777 : The difference is that the private sector would have to deny more treatments than the government because they have to add in their nice, plump profit
170 ltbewr : Several factors seem to limit the possibility of 'Universal' health care in the USA. In large part is a lack of trust in and fear of government. Many
171 Dreadnought : There is a big difference between supporting Civil Rights and supporting the Civil Rights Act, Just like I support health care reform but not Obamaca
172 Ken777 : I stand corrected. The Senator (who I consider to be a pathetic wimp) would not stand up for the CIvil Rights Act. He had to hedge when asked about t
173 Lowrider : Segregation and health care reform have nothing in common. One wrong does not justify the another. To attempt to tie the two together does not even r
174 D L X : Come on guys... Health care. Let's get back on that.
175 CargoLex : Sure it does. As Ken777 pointed out, that opinion is expressed in the two previous replies to Ken777's question. The premise there, and expressed lat
176 Arrow : I had to read it a couple of times, but you're right. Apologies offered. You don't have to convince me of the importance of the FDA, although their r
177 Tu204 : Not and American, but I have an answer here: Because Universal healthcare = Socialism. They showed on the news here like half a year ago when Obamacar
178 Lowrider : But it already has. Witness California's medical marijuana. If you could build and profitable market an aircraft that would not leave the confines of
179 Ken777 : Both are issues that the states want to control, but that have presented problems, and inequality, in the past. Both need a responsible Federal Gover
180 CargoLex : So you are suggesting that Marijuana was invented in a lab, tested, and marketed solely in California? Marijuana is a plant. Zocor and Xanax do not g
181 AustinAllison : That's incredibly hypocritical. The government has almost no place in personal affairs; be it marriage, or health care. You can't say 'I don't think
182 gatorfan : Perhaps you should first understand what the DOMA says. It's primary aspect empowers state by saying that they don't HAVE to recognize a marriage in
183 Ken777 : The government does need to stay out of marriage, except when under age kids are involved. Then there needs to be a structure. Governments do, howeve
184 Post contains links Dano1977 : Its not the normal way things are done. http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/...cuments/digitalasset/dh_093442.pdf The NHS has it's flaws, but if you
185 CargoLex : What happens between you and your spouse or you and your doctor, you're absolutely right. But in making healthcare available to you and a price that
186 Ken777 : It used to be that you bought Fire insurance and got a plaque for the front door. If you had a fire the firemen would come and look for the plaque. I
187 windy95 : That is local and not federal tax dollars. Different story. Your opinion Nothing valid at all about this argument.
188 Aaron747 : Then who will? Just wondering...
189 san747 : I guess Windy just volunteered! Because it doesn't sound like he wants anyone else to take care of the 50 million Americans who can't afford their ow
190 Ken777 : Sure there is. Start with small pox. How many Americans haven't got their vaccine? Start counting with those who are at the bottom of our financial s
191 Lowrider : I have seen nothing that leads me to belief that less, instead of more, local control will fix any of the health care problems. Back to my original p
192 CargoLex : There aren't any more of them, because those that remained converted to commercial banks in 2009, but the FDIC did not insure investment banks like G
193 Ken777 : So you like the idea of paying for 50 different systems/infrastructures instead of one? You love paying unnecessary taxes that would be significantly
194 DiamondFlyer : What are you talking about with smallpox? You do realize we no longer immunize against smallpox, do you not? -DiamondFlyer
195 AustinAllison : It's not the responsibility of one group of Americans to pay for the health care of another group. Never has been, and never will be. Taxing the rich
196 flymia : Have not been reading this thread much but will add this and I do wonder is it the same in France or Canada so anet members from there please let me k
197 CargoLex : The whole point of insurance is lowering the cost by raising the volume. If more people pay premiums, then the cost of treating individual patients i
198 Aaron747 : Then why do we pay higher premiums and suffer inflated ER and imaging costs to cover the under and uninsured? In any case I ask again - if we don't t
199 Post contains links Lowrider : I pay for the one in the state I pay taxes to. Why would someone in Maine pay taxes for Kansas services? There is no data to suggest that. Should be
200 CargoLex : You realize what that would mean for many seniors and poor people, and why these programs were enacted in the first place, right? Are you personally
201 Dreadnought : For that to work, everyone needs to be paying the premiums. Rates were higher, but tax revenues were no higher, I presume in part due to tax breaks.
202 Lowrider : No, you might have missed earlier where I said that the contributions created an obligation, but we needed to find a way to phase it out, probably th
203 CargoLex : Which is why our current system cannot work forever, because as more people withdraw from the system because of the high premiums, the premiums conti
204 Post contains images Ken777 : Well, JFK brought the top rate DOWN to 75% and then Reagan brought the Top Rates DOWN to 50%. So I guess the downright wrong percentages should be mo
205 AustinAllison : I'm not debating the numbers, I'm debating the principle. Everyone should have the same tax rate. Keep it simple.
206 flymia : I plan on having a job by 26 BUT I do agree with covering kids until 26 this is something I do not think republicans would argue against either.
207 Lowrider : If it want's to remain the largest and most prosperous nation, it realizes that the government cannot be all things to all people. If you really want
208 Ken777 : Those in the top tier will not want to see that as it takes away all of the loopholes which are far more valuable that their tac cut on final income.
209 Lowrider : If we could get an average, per person, per year cost of what that core care actually cost, then we would have an idea of who can, or cannot afford i
210 Ken777 : We did have problems from time to time, but we didn't wimp out on Social Security and Medicare. We accepted increases that were necessary to take car
211 Lowrider : You had it easier in that respect. People didn't live as long, and consequently withdrew less. Medicine was less complicated, with fewer life prolong
212 Ken777 : And we put enough money into the Fund to last us a long time, and to give your generation a start. It's easy to say that - as long as you don't get h
213 Lowrider : That time is just about up, and we currently have no workable plan for how to continue You mean as long as China keeps buying our debt and we keep ru
214 Post contains images Ken777 : Right now you have well financed conservatives working hard to get you to believe that. Unless you fight for it you won't have anything but risk in p
215 Lowrider : Yes. Do you really think, huge, complicated economic events hinge on a single event like a tax rate adjustment? Doesn't matter, choices we make in on
216 Flighty : The only people who have unlimited free health care in this country are Medicare beneficiaries. I certainly do NOT have it. There is? What exactly is
217 Ken777 : I believe that the games played in terms of turning homes faster and faster for the benefit of those profiting from the process is why we had our hou
218 Lowrider : '' In order to have responsible, ethical business, you must have responsible, ethical, business leaders. That is not what we tend to produce anymore.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Health Care In The USA posted Mon Feb 4 2002 02:57:16 by PanAm747
Why Scania Do Not Sell Their V8 Trucks In The US? posted Thu Sep 27 2007 04:40:05 by 747400sp
Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US posted Sat May 16 2009 10:18:32 by CaliAtenza
Why Cars Are So Cheap In The US? posted Mon Oct 2 2006 20:07:11 by F.pier
Cars Not Sold In The Us That Might Work There posted Mon Aug 14 2006 20:17:33 by Marcus
Why Is Discover Card Only In The US? posted Fri Apr 7 2006 21:27:44 by CalAir
Why Is Phoning Whilst Driving Legal In The US? posted Tue Oct 18 2005 15:26:04 by Runway23
HIV+ Visitors Not Welcome In The US posted Thu May 5 2005 21:37:28 by Catatonic
Why Wasn't Carter Included In The US Delegation? posted Thu Apr 7 2005 00:10:51 by Jake056
Why Has Literacy In The US Sunk To Such Lows? posted Thu Jul 29 2004 07:47:27 by MD-90