I am a Indy but like obama

The only difference - they aren't swimming in debt from legacy costs. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Why do you suppose this is?

Healthcare - 19th in the world? I think the WHO put that out, with some strange criteria, one of which being whether or nor universal healthcare was available (circular logic). Bottom line, we have more people travelling to this country for healthcare than the reverse...because we have a good system here. What about the fact it is bankrupt in Hawaii and Tennessee, and about to be bankrupt in Massachussets...or the Canadian system is a shambles, UK healthcare is a running joke, and it has run Portugal into the ground? The mere fact that it 'feels good' won't pay the bills. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Actually, we were 37th in the last (year 2000) WHO study. The CIA Worldbook puts the US at 49 in life expectancy and 44 in infant mortality. Those are two of the most looked at figures in health care as a country's general effectiveness. We are far from #1. Can you give some numbers of how other country's health care systems are failing? Seems like you're just absolutely making this stuff up on the fly. How about some facts about Hawaiian, Massachusetts or Tennessee's health care? How about that health care costs make up between 16-18% of GDP with future expectations reaching 30%. These costs do need to be contained or it could bankrupt this country. Also, the number of Americans (60-85K - 2006) that travel outside of the US for medical treatment far outnumbers the number of those (750K - 2007) that travel to the US for medical treatment. Google medical tourism and look for the numbers for yourself.

Sin taxes = control taxes. There's been alot of talk about a 'pole tax' recently...would put small strip clubs out of business. Anyone for that? Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

How do you know this would put small strip clubs out of business? Or is this just a guess?

Tenncare:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125046457087135327.html

More Tenncare:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/10/...n-health-care/

More Tenncare:

http://healthcare.nationalreview.com...DYxZGE3YzE1MWI=

Tenncare wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TennCare

Hawaii Healthcare:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4527996.shtml

More Hawaii:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534750,00.html

More Hawaii:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/l...th-care-system

Massachussetts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massach...th_care_reform

More Massachussetts:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...is_failing_us/

UK healthcare:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...s-Civitas.html

UK Dental healthcare:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Fa...s-a01073976467

(ever wonder why comedians always make fun of British teeth?)

UK again:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/326/7382/188

Canada:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lec...er-Health-Care

Canada:

http://civitasreview.com/healthcare/...its-a-failure/

Is it statistically correct in the WHO rankings to compare the United States to:

San Marino
Andorra
Malta
Oman
Luxemburg
Columbia
Cyprus
Saudi Arabia
Morocco
Dominica
Costa Rica

...all of which outrank us on the list?

Call me crazy, butI'm not going to San Marino for medical care, even though they are no. 3 on the list.

Would there be anything else affecting the mortality rate in this country: More young people per capita than most western countries, who get in accidents. Our high number of gun deaths. Our terrible diet. Our sedentary lifestyle.

When asked, a large majority of Americans say they are perfectly happy with their healthcare. I can't find any such polls in the UK.

"Also, the number of Americans (60-85K - 2006) that travel outside of the US for medical treatment far outnumbers the number of those (750K - 2007) that travel to the US for medical treatment"

85K > 750k???

From scanning a few of the links involving states, the problem doesn't seem to be covering everyone as it does skyrocketing medical costs. Those costs need to be reined in to make health care affordable for all.

Pole tax: In Texas, the pole tax was supposed to raise $44 million over two years. In the first year, it only raise $13.6 million....indicating business fell off 40% over projections. Did the pole tax cause the fall off in business? Or was it the overall economy? Nobody can know for sure; but, I guarantee the tax isn't helping.

The most insulting thing about the Texas pole tax...it funds programs for rape victims. What the hell...if I go into a strip club, I am somehow more inclined to be a rapist? The connection sickens me...

So, nope, I don't like sin taxes (which btw hit the poor the hardest).

"Those costs need to be reined in to make health care affordable for all."

Looking at my personal situation, I predict:

1. In a few years, my employer will drop our plan, and pay the penalty (they will save money)

2. Just like BC/BS abandoned Tennessee, there will be very little available to me in private insurance...and I will purchase a 'public option' plan.

3. This plan will cost me more than what I presently pay to supplement my employer's plan...what has happened in Tennessee

4. I will be treated like a dog and a beggar when I go for health services (personal experience in the Army)

5. A bean counter will decide if I am eligible for certain life saving treatments (personal experience with SO and child in the Army)

All I am asking is for one single example of a government run healthcare system that people are happy with. Just one single example...that's all. Since nobody can give me one, it is only logical for me to suspect that our new system will not be successful. I'd love for somebody to prove me wrong.

"Also, the number of Americans (60-85K - 2006) that travel outside of the US for medical treatment far outnumbers the number of those (750K - 2007) that travel to the US for medical treatment"

85K > 750k??? Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Obviously I mistyped. It should have been "...is far outnumbered by..." It was a mistake, kind of like how you tried to pass off more people coming here for medical treatment than us going elsewhere as fact.

As far as putting down other countries health care, grow up. There is nothing wrong with many of those countries that are ranked higher than us. Don't be that pompous American that thinks EVERYTHING we do is better than every other country just because we are American. People that do that look ignorant. For example, not only does Luxembourg have better health care than us, but their GDP is 78K compared to our GDP of 46.4K. Both are per capita numbers. Sounds like they may be doing some things right.

"As far as putting down other countries health care, grow up."

Thanks for the ad hominem attack...I took 5 years of Latin, so I can use those phrases.

I wasn't putting down those other countries...merely pointing out that they are not statistically comparable to the United States. You made my point by pointing out that Luxemberg is a very wealthy nation (poverty breeds health problems). Also, some of the countries on the list have draconian punishments (even death) for drug use. Others have an incredibly small population. The one I pointed out was San Marino...population 30,000. Is it really appropriate to use 'deaths per 100,000 people' style data on a country that small...where people must travel outside of the country for acute care!?

The WHO list is completely useless from a statistical standpoint.

And I still don't get it...you say 85k people travel outside US for healthcare and 750k travel to the US for healthcare...

All I am asking is for one single example of a government run healthcare system that people are happy with. Just one single example...that's all.

"As far as putting down other countries health care, grow up."

Thanks for the ad hominem attack...I took 5 years of Latin, so I can use those phrases.

I wasn't putting down those other countries...merely pointing out that they are not statistically comparable to the United States. You made my point by pointing out that Luxemberg is a very wealthy nation (poverty breeds health problems). Also, some of the countries on the list have draconian punishments (even death) for drug use. Others have an incredibly small population. The one I pointed out was San Marino...population 30,000. Is it really appropriate to use 'deaths per 100,000 people' style data on a country that small...where people must travel outside of the country for acute care!?

The WHO list is completely useless from a statistical standpoint.

And I still don't get it...you say 85k people travel outside US for healthcare and 750k travel to the US for healthcare...

All I am asking is for one single example of a government run healthcare system that people are happy with. Just one single example...that's all. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Well I am very proud of your Latin prowess. To set the record straight, far more Americans leave this country for health care than those that come to the US for health care.

Why is the WHO useless? Because you don't agree with it. As far as statistical comparisons, everything can be compared statistically. It does not matter if a country only has 30K people. Need to get to the magical 100K number. Multiply 30K by 3.3. It isn't that hard. Now you have a statistical comparison. A lot of polling with low levels of deviation are done with just over 1,000 people.

How did I make your point about Luxembourg? Poor countries don't breed health problems. They just don't have the resources to deal with the health problems. And WTF does drug punishment have to do with anything? You are reaching for straws.

Here is a really cool link about some countries health care from Deloitte.

2010 Survey of Global Health Care Consumers

It appears as if many in the other countries are satisfied with their health care. 40% rated US health care as a D or F, but I have seen polls showing 80% are satisfied. The Brits show 4 of 5 do not feel adequately covered, but it shows that 70% are satisfied. 92% of the French are moderately or completely satisfied with their health care. It is an interesting study.