http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...nhs127.xml
Yeah, the government controlling healthcare is a great idea!! Just ask the Brits.
Read some of the comments below the article. Many of them want to take the money that they pay into the "free" services and use it for private insurance.
Have any of the major parties proposed a UK-style national health system? If so, please name them.
Also, if you'll note, most private insurance in the US won't pay for fertility treatments or abortion anyway. And, some employers charge you more for your insurance if you smoke. I don't think that you would have anyone seriously put forth a proposal that denied treatment for someone who is legitimately ill. Oh wait we already do! They're called HMOs!
mixduptransistor Wrote:Have any of the major parties proposed a UK-style national health system? If so, please name them.
Also, if you'll note, most private insurance in the US won't pay for fertility treatments or abortion anyway. And, some employers charge you more for your insurance if you smoke. I don't think that you would have anyone seriously put forth a proposal that denied treatment for someone who is legitimately ill. Oh wait we already do! They're called HMOs!
think back to the 1st Klinton admin., a 1000+ page proposal (Hillary Kare) which, thankfully, was defeated
in congress.
and we're all forced [at gun point] to join HMO's
NOT
statistics prove smokers miss more work than non-smokers due to illness. and smokers are sick more [overall] than non-smokers.
if we removed gov't administered programs and 'cradle to grave' health insurance coverage, let each individual be responsible for his/her own health care as each indiv. deemed appropriate, health care costs would drop like an anvil. it's called personal responsibility, a foreign concept to liberals.
we already have a guarantee of no cost federally funded emergency medical treatment (health care). Don't confuse health care with health insurance.
if you want more, well....
I suggest YOU pay for it. My taxes are too high already. I pay for my own health care insurance. It isn't cradle to grave, a'hole to elbow, no deduct., no co-pay stuff. But it's what I deem necessary. Yes, I said 'What I deem necessary'.
mixduptransistor Wrote:Have any of the major parties proposed a UK-style national health system? If so, please name them.
Also, if you'll note, most private insurance in the US won't pay for fertility treatments or abortion anyway. And, some employers charge you more for your insurance if you smoke. I don't think that you would have anyone seriously put forth a proposal that denied treatment for someone who is legitimately ill. Oh wait we already do! They're called HMOs!
John Edwards & Hillary Clinton. They both force the tax payer to join, just like we're forced to join SSI, and just like it's done in the UK. At least Obama's gives you the choice of joining. And before you tell me I have my info wrong, I got it straight from there mouths at the last Dem debate.
The beautiful thing of what you said is "most." That means that there are options that DO cover things like fertility, abortion, etc. That, my friend, is the beauty of the free market. Someone giving the consumer what they are willing to pay for.
The problem with healthcare programs is that if it involves tax money, the people want it to be CHEAP!!!. As with public education, the drive is to always find a cheaper way to at least make it look like it works. The priority is NEVER quality of outcome unless it is a sports coach, then the sky's the limit. If the idea of CHEAPER were not paramount, the programs for public health and public education would be much more successful.
BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:If the idea of CHEAPER were not paramount, the programs for public health and public education would be much more successful.
we've thrown over $5 trillion dollars into the war on poverty, and we still have poor people. always will.
approx. $0.83-$0.87 of every dollar sent to soc. sec. goes to administrative costs
.
if we have 25 kids per classroom, and we spend $5,500 per kid (a little low for what we actually spend), that equals $137,500 per classroom in tax monies. if the teacher earns $50,000 per year (a little high to hear the teachers' unions), what happens to the other $87,500 EACH year? they don't buy books every year. h@ll, we even had to send paper towels, toilet paper etc. each year. most buildings are paid for. in the public school systems 3 out of every 5 employees is NOT a teacher
in private school systems, that number drops to 1 out of 5 hmmm
libs. always say 'don't judge us by our results because our intentions are noble.' 'our programs will suceed if we'll only throw MORE money at it'.
imo, we've already thrown too much money on these programs for such lousy results. the gov't doesn't do anything well except waste more money, and spout bs.
Milton Friedman on capitalism and freedom!! Regardless of the type of service, capitalism is the best answer of providing goods and services to the masses.
oldblazer79 Wrote:BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:If the idea of CHEAPER were not paramount, the programs for public health and public education would be much more successful.
we've thrown over $5 trillion dollars into the war on poverty, and we still have poor people. always will.
approx. $0.83-$0.87 of every dollar sent to soc. sec. goes to administrative costs.
if we have 25 kids per classroom, and we spend $5,500 per kid (a little low for what we actually spend), that equals $137,500 per classroom in tax monies. if the teacher earns $50,000 per year (a little high to hear the teachers' unions), what happens to the other $87,500 EACH year? they don't buy books every year. h@ll, we even had to send paper towels, toilet paper etc. each year. most buildings are paid for. in the public school systems 3 out of every 5 employees is NOT a teacher in private school systems, that number drops to 1 out of 5 hmmm
libs. always say 'don't judge us by our results because our intentions are noble.' 'our programs will suceed if we'll only throw MORE money at it'.
imo, we've already thrown too much money on these programs for such lousy results. the gov't doesn't do anything well except waste more money, and spout bs.
Big +1
oldblazer79 Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:Have any of the major parties proposed a UK-style national health system? If so, please name them.
Also, if you'll note, most private insurance in the US won't pay for fertility treatments or abortion anyway. And, some employers charge you more for your insurance if you smoke. I don't think that you would have anyone seriously put forth a proposal that denied treatment for someone who is legitimately ill. Oh wait we already do! They're called HMOs!
think back to the 1st Klinton admin., a 1000+ page proposal (Hillary Kare) which, thankfully, was defeated in congress.
and we're all forced [at gun point] to join HMO's NOT
statistics prove smokers miss more work than non-smokers due to illness. and smokers are sick more [overall] than non-smokers.
if we removed gov't administered programs and 'cradle to grave' health insurance coverage, let each individual be responsible for his/her own health care as each indiv. deemed appropriate, health care costs would drop like an anvil. it's called personal responsibility, a foreign concept to liberals.
we already have a guarantee of no cost federally funded emergency medical treatment (health care). Don't confuse health care with health insurance.
if you want more, well....
I suggest YOU pay for it. My taxes are too high already. I pay for my own health care insurance. It isn't cradle to grave, a'hole to elbow, no deduct., no co-pay stuff. But it's what I deem necessary. Yes, I said 'What I deem necessary'.
Oh, I get it, you used a K because you think the Clintons are Communist. HA HA. I am so proud that we have intelligent, thoughtful debate on political issues in America. I'd hate it if we had people who stooped down to the level of 3rd graders and didn't actually discuss the issues in an intelligent, thoughtful, and respectful way.
dfarr Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:Have any of the major parties proposed a UK-style national health system? If so, please name them.
Also, if you'll note, most private insurance in the US won't pay for fertility treatments or abortion anyway. And, some employers charge you more for your insurance if you smoke. I don't think that you would have anyone seriously put forth a proposal that denied treatment for someone who is legitimately ill. Oh wait we already do! They're called HMOs!
John Edwards & Hillary Clinton. They both force the tax payer to join, just like we're forced to join SSI, and just like it's done in the UK. At least Obama's gives you the choice of joining. And before you tell me I have my info wrong, I got it straight from there mouths at the last Dem debate.
The beautiful thing of what you said is "most." That means that there are options that DO cover things like fertility, abortion, etc. That, my friend, is the beauty of the free market. Someone giving the consumer what they are willing to pay for.
Let me make sure I understand the UK NHS before we go further. If I'm not mistaken, the government of the UK owns and operates all hospitals and clinics. The doctors are actually employees of the government. There is no insurance, you just get the care provided directly by the government, kind of like the VA in the US.
If that's the case, I do not believe any major candidate is proposing the same thing. The Democrats' plans vary, but they all hinge on providing
insurance while keeping the rest of the health care system private.
And I do not have meaningful choice in health insurance. I work at UAB. I get pretty decent insurance, and have 3 different plans that I can choose from. The only material difference between the three are what network of doctors I can use, and whether or not I need a referral to see a specialist. Otherwise, they cover pretty much the same things.
I could get 3rd party private insurance from a company like Alfa or Blue Cross, but the coverage is poor. It's worse than the insurance I had at Wal-Mart (which, contrary to popular belief, provides decent insurance for a retail company). Signing up for Alfa or Blue Cross requires you to wait 12 months on pre existing conditions, no Certificates of Coverage accepted. I'm lucky, UAB has good insurance. Some people aren't so lucky, their companies have bad insurance, and the 3rd party private insurance available isn't that great.
I think there are some intermediate steps we could take between socializing all insurance and having it completely private with no regulation. We should have a law detailing patients' rights. There is NO reason that a patient who has paid their premiums should be dying of cancer in the US because the insurance company denies their chemo treatments. Yet it happens. If the insurance company wants the politicians off their back, maybe they should be less heartless and improve the system. It would be in their best interest, because blindly ripping off their customers now will put them out of business when "Hillarycare" comes to fruition.
I think, but could be wrong, that the UK and Canada are both moving the way of people having private insurance on top of the government's. I'm pretty sure at one point Canada outlawed this, but that has since changed. You're right though, in the UK, doctors are employees of the state.
Also, I thought UAB employees had the option of signing up for BC/BS?
TMcCarty Wrote:Also, I thought UAB employees had the option of signing up for BC/BS?
They do. I was a UAB employee less than a year ago and you had a choice between Viva UAB, Viva Health, and BC/BS. I don't know what the hell mixedup is talking about.
The solution to all the insurance problems is more freedom. Allow people to have more choices, untie insurance from jobs, make insurance more catastrophic instead of paying for every little service, and allow it to be transferable across state lines. More government is not the solution.
dfarr Wrote:TMcCarty Wrote:Also, I thought UAB employees had the option of signing up for BC/BS?
They do. I was a UAB employee less than a year ago and you had a choice between Viva UAB, Viva Health, and BC/BS. I don't know what the hell mixedup is talking about.
The solution to all the insurance problems is more freedom. Allow people to have more choices, untie insurance from jobs, make insurance more catastrophic instead of paying for every little service, and allow it to be transferable across state lines. More government is not the solution.
Totally agree with this part. If people paid cash for their regular doctor visit/check-up, there would be more transparency in costs, and more competition and reduced overhead could help decrease those costs.
We HAD all that free choice stuff for over 100 years. There were NO government medical programs from 1789 to 1930s when we (the people) decided there was a better way to protect public health. When Social Security was created, retirement age was set at 65 because the peak natural death age was 67. The "Miracle Drug Age" was only a few years old so we didn't suspect that people would come to regularly live well into or past their 70s and there was no "Boomer Generation" in existence at the time. Yes, we could go back to the "old days and old ways" IF we are willing to suffer the consequences of letting "the people" become "Emergency Room Residents" on a more regular basis-THAT'S WHERE THE UNINSURED GO TODAY- or perhaps if we bar them from that relief, we can adopt unused farm land as expanded "Potters fields". The old Ebenezer Scrooge (now writing under the name Neil Boortz) will be delighted to find government costs reduced along with the "excess" population.
65 came from a German actuary sometime in the 1800s I believe.
dfarr Wrote:TMcCarty Wrote:Also, I thought UAB employees had the option of signing up for BC/BS?
They do. I was a UAB employee less than a year ago and you had a choice between Viva UAB, Viva Health, and BC/BS. I don't know what the hell mixedup is talking about.
The solution to all the insurance problems is more freedom. Allow people to have more choices, untie insurance from jobs, make insurance more catastrophic instead of paying for every little service, and allow it to be transferable across state lines. More government is not the solution.
Where did I say that UAB employees could not sign up for BC/BS. I said UAB employees have 3 options. Two options provided by Viva Health and one from BC/BS.
mixduptransistor Wrote:dfarr Wrote:TMcCarty Wrote:Also, I thought UAB employees had the option of signing up for BC/BS?
They do. I was a UAB employee less than a year ago and you had a choice between Viva UAB, Viva Health, and BC/BS. I don't know what the hell mixedup is talking about.
The solution to all the insurance problems is more freedom. Allow people to have more choices, untie insurance from jobs, make insurance more catastrophic instead of paying for every little service, and allow it to be transferable across state lines. More government is not the solution.
Where did I say that UAB employees could not sign up for BC/BS. I said UAB employees have 3 options. Two options provided by Viva Health and one from BC/BS.
That's what I thought, I guess this line confused me:
Quote:I could get 3rd party private insurance from a company like Alfa or Blue Cross, but the coverage is poor. It's worse than the insurance I had at Wal-Mart
I meant the private, non employer backed plans available from Blue Cross. Not all Blue Cross plans are the same.
There is NO competition between insurance plans available IF an employer pays less than 50% of insurance premiums. ONLY BC/BS will bid on programs where the employer pays as little as 20%- 30% of premiums. The teachers found this out when they tried to replace BC/BS for K-12 public school personnel after a large rate increase in a year we didn't receive a raise. The result was PEEHIP (Public Education Employees Health Insurance Program) which is administered by BC/BS but is not their insurance. Post secondary personnel, it is my understanding, have a different insurance situation since they are better funded than K-12 schools. That fact is also illustrated by the TOTAL ABSENCE OF "PORTABLE CLASSROOMS" ON ANY STATE COLLEGE CAMPUSES.
BTW, IF you are at maximum pay level at a wealthy school system, and you have earned an EDS degree (commonly called a AA-"double A") degree in your ACADEMIC field, you may well be making about $50,000 per year, but you are probably in the last decade of your career. The Alabama Dept. of Ed only began paying for EDS degrees about 20 years ago. Before then it would only pay the "A" or Masters Degree level. If you have an earned Doctorate Degree, you can make a couple thousand per year more than a "AA" would receive at maximum.
In most of the 133 state school districts the difference in wages from first year, BA holding, non-tenured new teacher to an earned Doctorate at MAXIMUM for that district is about $15,000 unless the scale has changed drastically since I retired in 1997.
Colleges aren't directly under the state board of education, so they all come up with their own plans. UA has BC/BS only, UAB has Viva (since Viva is part of the UAB Health System) along with BC/BS. If you peer into UAB's budget, you'll also note that a very very large percentage of their budget comes from places other than state appropriation. Most of the new buildings being built on campus are coming from federal earmarks, hence the Shelby buildings at UA, UAB, and UAH.
mixduptransistor Wrote:oldblazer79 Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:Have any of the major parties proposed a UK-style national health system? If so, please name them.
Also, if you'll note, most private insurance in the US won't pay for fertility treatments or abortion anyway. And, some employers charge you more for your insurance if you smoke. I don't think that you would have anyone seriously put forth a proposal that denied treatment for someone who is legitimately ill. Oh wait we already do! They're called HMOs!
think back to the 1st Klinton admin., a 1000+ page proposal (Hillary Kare) which, thankfully, was defeated in congress.
and we're all forced [at gun point] to join HMO's NOT
statistics prove smokers miss more work than non-smokers due to illness. and smokers are sick more [overall] than non-smokers.
if we removed gov't administered programs and 'cradle to grave' health insurance coverage, let each individual be responsible for his/her own health care as each indiv. deemed appropriate, health care costs would drop like an anvil. it's called personal responsibility, a foreign concept to liberals.
we already have a guarantee of no cost federally funded emergency medical treatment (health care). Don't confuse health care with health insurance.
if you want more, well....
I suggest YOU pay for it. My taxes are too high already. I pay for my own health care insurance. It isn't cradle to grave, a'hole to elbow, no deduct., no co-pay stuff. But it's what I deem necessary. Yes, I said 'What I deem necessary'.
Oh, I get it, you used a K because you think the Clintons are Communist. HA HA. I am so proud that we have intelligent, thoughtful debate on political issues in America. I'd hate it if we had people who stooped down to the level of 3rd graders and didn't actually discuss the issues in an intelligent, thoughtful, and respectful way.
I used K to make the point of Klinton admin./HillaryKare was socialistic.
Boy, nothing gets past you......
but the facts
I see that, since your argument apparently has no merit and you had no rebuttal to my points (mostly backed up by facts in this and previous posts), YOU'VE reduced the discussion/argument to name calling (...'stoop to 3rd grade level', and 'not discussing the subject intelligently, thoughtfully'). This is a widely known left wing ploy. If you can't win a discussion on merit, change the subject.
So now, WHO is acting like the 3rd grader?
Where are your points to refute my facts?
your thoughtful, intelligent discussion
mixduptransistor Wrote:Colleges aren't directly under the state board of education, so they all come up with their own plans. UA has BC/BS only, UAB has Viva (since Viva is part of the UAB Health System) along with BC/BS. If you peer into UAB's budget, you'll also note that a very very large percentage of their budget comes from places other than state appropriation. Most of the new buildings being built on campus are coming from federal earmarks, hence the Shelby buildings at UA, UAB, and UAH.
You will notice that the insurance options are similar to those for K-12 though. Either BC/BS or "self insurance". All that talk about competition is just that-TALK. There is no recourse to any "duck" or "gheko" or any other corporate logo to provide medical insurance for educators in Alabama. Those other companies ALL require the employer to contribute 50% or more to pay monthly premiums. That's about twice what the state will contribute (and you lose that when you retire).
K-12 is not able to procure those massive grants or endowments so we wind up with "portable classrooms" as a permanent fixture of our public education picture.
Apparently this state has neither the resources nor the commitment to have the educational system it "talks the talk" about. We are very close to an "I-35W bridge" type collapse in our K-12 schools than we care to admit.
TMcCarty Wrote:65 came from a German actuary sometime in the 1800s I believe.
This is possible because Otto von Bismarck initiated a Social Security Program in the 1870s (along with an unemployment insurance program) to protect German workers a half century before the USA started doing it.
BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:TMcCarty Wrote:65 came from a German actuary sometime in the 1800s I believe.
This is possible because Otto von Bismarck initiated a Social Security Program in the 1870s (along with an unemployment insurance program) to protect German workers a half century before the USA started doing it.
Protect them from what?
dfarr Wrote:BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:[quote=TMcCarty]
65 came from a German actuary sometime in the 1800s I believe.
This is possible because Otto von Bismarck initiated a Social Security Program in the 1870s (along with an unemployment insurance program) to protect German workers a half century before the USA started doing it.
Protect them from what?
The same things our programs protected the same people from at our later date.
BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:dfarr Wrote:BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:[quote=TMcCarty]
65 came from a German actuary sometime in the 1800s I believe.
This is possible because Otto von Bismarck initiated a Social Security Program in the 1870s (along with an unemployment insurance program) to protect German workers a half century before the USA started doing it.
Protect them from what?
The same things our programs protected the same people from at our later date.
thanks for the elucidation.
if we have 25 kids per classroom, and we spend $5,500 per kid (a little low for what we actually spend), that equals $137,500 per classroom in tax monies. if the teacher earns $50,000 per year (a little high to hear the teachers' unions), what happens to the other $87,500 EACH year? they don't buy books every year. h@ll, we even had to send paper towels, toilet paper etc. each year. most buildings are paid for. in the public school systems 3 out of every 5 employees is NOT a teacher
in private school systems, that number drops to 1 out of 5 hmmm
libs. always say 'don't judge us by our results because our intentions are noble.' 'our programs will suceed if we'll only throw MORE money at it'.
imo, we've already thrown too much money on these programs for such lousy results. the gov't doesn't do anything well except waste more money, and spout bs.
[/quote]
#1-YES we DO buy textbooks EVERY year that there is no proration of funds. The purchase is rotated through the subjects-Math one year, English the next, Social Studies, etc. through a seven year cycle IF it stays on schedule. Teachers are one group of many people paid from education funds that sustain K- Medical and Law Schools from the SETF. There are buses and their fuel (the state taxes are not charged but all other costs apply), utilities cost just as much for a school as a business (BTW,Most K-12 schools have hot water only for the lunch room and Cosmetology classes).
You can access the state budget for education by looking up the Minimum Program Fund and the Dept. of Education web sites. Check state listings to see where you tax money goes and what you get for your money.
Big +1
[/quote]