-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can the US afford socialized medicine?
- Thread starter Smoke
- Start date
We need a balanced budget amendment and then decide what we want and how we are going to pay for it.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
Why do you hate America, Mister T?
More seriously, can the US afford not to have socialized medicine when it must complete with countries that have it -- and thus have lower health care costs than the US?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
In short, yes.
Instead of insurance companies desciding doctor's fees and the nature and availability of care, and pharmiceudical companies determining the same for drugs and their lobbiests helping to create laws in their favor...
We should do it ourselves through the democratic process.
Instead of insurance companies desciding doctor's fees and the nature and availability of care, and pharmiceudical companies determining the same for drugs and their lobbiests helping to create laws in their favor...
We should do it ourselves through the democratic process.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Wiki:
The Health care system in Japan is one of the best in the world. Japan provides healthcare services, including screening examinations for particular diseases at no direct cost to the patient, prenatal care, and infectious disease control, are provided by national and local governments. Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. People without insurance through employers can participate in a national health insurance program administered by local governments. Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice and cannot be denied coverage.
And they're spending less than half of what we are. Clearly their priorities are all wrong. It costs money to deny health care to people. Letting babies die, making sure adults are disabled rather than treated for preventable condition like stroke--those are all expensive, and we're willing to spend what it takes to make sure fewer people get health care.
The Health care system in Japan is one of the best in the world. Japan provides healthcare services, including screening examinations for particular diseases at no direct cost to the patient, prenatal care, and infectious disease control, are provided by national and local governments. Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. People without insurance through employers can participate in a national health insurance program administered by local governments. Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice and cannot be denied coverage.
And they're spending less than half of what we are. Clearly their priorities are all wrong. It costs money to deny health care to people. Letting babies die, making sure adults are disabled rather than treated for preventable condition like stroke--those are all expensive, and we're willing to spend what it takes to make sure fewer people get health care.
All figures from World Health Organization, latest data available as of this morning:
I'm not going to listen to your data because Fox News won't make me listen to your data, and besides, your data was gathered by a socialist communist fascist who hated America.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yep. Health care is a public concern and not a private one.
Smoke
Done here.
You're suggesting that we spend no money till we have a balanced budget amendment? No military, no court system, no social security? We should just put everything on hold until we get that amendment?
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
why not....?
People with thumbs up their posteriors.... would it be different than now?
If so...how much?:areyoucra
Uh no. We get the amendment first.
Don't act like I am crazy, States and cities have to do this each and every day.
Smoke
Done here.
Well, which is it? No, or We get the amendment first?
LOL the latter.
Think about it, we have x amount of dollars. We spend y amount of dollars. Divide one into the other and you come up with the percent we over spend. Cut every program by that percent.
If some programs experience an immoral underfunding, we simply cut other programs all together to reduce the percentage.
If some programs experience an immoral underfunding, we simply cut other programs all together to reduce the percentage.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
In this case, every red cent would go to the wars, which ARE NOT included in the already deficit budget.
We can add that only one President in recent history who had a balanced budget was Bill Clinton, and Obama is slated to have one in 2011 or 2012, after cleaning up the wicked mess that Bush made.
Angellous, no offense but do you really believe a President who has spent more in one year than all the other Presidents combined is going to balance the budget?
Now before you get all upset, I say we bring all the boys home and put an end to these wars or come up with the money to fund them.
Same with health care.
That's an astonishing figure. Do you have a source for it?
Why do you hate America, Rev. Rick?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
How long did it take Clinton to clean up Bush Sr's mess?