Name 1 thing ANY government does well?? besides taking your money!!

Police, firefighters, national parks, NASA, water and sewer, garbage collection, defence, health and safety, health regulations...Developement of telecommunications, television, radio, computers ...highways, border inspection,
there's more but you get the idea.

I agree, governments are responsible for police, fire, public transportation and protection from other nation states or groups. Governments should not be in the business of providing services or developing technology such as "telecommunications, television, radio, (and) computers". Private industry does a much better job. The point is government should do what it does best and private industry should do what it does best.

Sorry but without the govt(military) developing most things we take for granted today we'd be spending exponentially more had it been left to a private company. You are correct that Private companies do things well. They take gov't project and provide civilian products out of them.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Name 1 thing ANY government does well?? besides taking your money!!

Police, firefighters, national parks, NASA, water and sewer, garbage collection, defence, health and safety, health regulations...Developement of telecommunications, television, radio, computers ...highways, border inspection,
there's more but you get the idea.

I agree, governments are responsible for police, fire, public transportation and protection from other nation states or groups. Governments should not be in the business of providing services or developing technology such as "telecommunications, television, radio, (and) computers". Private industry does a much better job. The point is government should do what it does best and private industry should do what it does best.

Sorry but without the govt(military) developing most things we take for granted today we'd be spending exponentially more had it been left to a private company. You are correct that Private companies do things well. They take gov't project and provide civilian products out of them.

The US military still gets most of this work done by private companies. They do not have the expertice to manufacture weapons or equipment. That's why they have so many suppliers and contractors. The company I work for happens to be one of them. What the military does best is training the best soldiers in the world.

Name 1 thing ANY government does well?? besides taking your money!!

Police, firefighters, national parks, NASA, water and sewer, garbage collection, defence, health and safety, health regulations...Developement of telecommunications, television, radio, computers ...highways, border inspection,
there's more but you get the idea.

I agree, governments are responsible for police, fire, public transportation and protection from other nation states or groups. Governments should not be in the business of providing services or developing technology such as "telecommunications, television, radio, (and) computers". Private industry does a much better job. The point is government should do what it does best and private industry should do what it does best.

Sorry but without the govt(military) developing most things we take for granted today we'd be spending exponentially more had it been left to a private company. You are correct that Private companies do things well. They take gov't project and provide civilian products out of them.

The US military still gets most of this work done by private companies. They do not have the expertice to manufacture weapons or equipment. That's why they have so many suppliers and contractors. The company I work for happens to be one of them. What the military does best is training the best soldiers in the world.

Businesses are good at making profit this quarter, and possibly this year. Planning beyond that is very difficult because in the US at least, they have to give financial statements every quarter. This tends to generate the mentality in the insurance industry to try to not spend money on patients - perhaps they will be someone else's problem when they crap out and cost a million dollars. I know of many cases where the hypertension drugs cannot be purchased because of the copay. The insurance company would have been better off paying for the hypertension drugs rather than the heart attack.

---

BOINC WIKI

Police, firefighters, national parks, NASA, water and sewer, garbage collection, defence, health and safety, health regulations...Developement of telecommunications, television, radio, computers ...highways, border inspection, there's more but you get the idea.

Development of telecom?? I KNOW Mr Bell, sony, rca and motorola have had a lot more to do with development than the the fed. And NASA you must mean the $12,000 toilet seat. Highways, you mean the highway system that has caused massive urban sprawl, addicted us to petroleum and ruinded our cities?? Border Inspection oh they inspect those mexicans for what when they cross the border?? ahh health regulations how about the reg that says only the fed may purchase flu vaccine!! yes only the FED. before that mistake was made the US had 12 companies that employed americans to make the vaccine now only 2. we must import most of our vaccine! they did this because they thought they could control the price, guess what the price went UP as supply dropped and the US companies wont make it because the FED makes their lives misarable for it.

you need to read more and stop watching MSNBC!!

---

Sorry dude your wonderful system has you at 73.7 and the us at 74.3 allthough your wife will outlive mine by 3 yrs.

There seems to be an aweful lot of data on this subject Googleing it provides a bunch of different numbers. If canadians do live longer i think it is only because you guys make way better beer than americans!!

---

the problem with health care as it stands is that smaller businesses that purchase Insurance for their employees do NOT get the same cost as much larger businesses. The Insurance companies call it large pool vs small pool insurance. I see this as crap. What keeps the insurance companies from pooling small businesses and individuals into large pools? PROFITS. How would they make any profits if everyone was on an equal footing for insurance purposes. They'd raise everyones dates again and again... oh wait they're already doing that.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

the problem with health care as it stands is that smaller businesses that purchase Insurance for their employees do NOT get the same cost as much larger businesses. The Insurance companies call it large pool vs small pool insurance. I see this as crap. What keeps the insurance companies from pooling small businesses and individuals into large pools? PROFITS. How would they make any profits if everyone was on an equal footing for insurance purposes. They'd raise everyones dates again and again... oh wait they're already doing that.

Everyone ought to be paying community rates for insurance (same coverage, same rate).

---

BOINC WIKI

Hi, since I'm a big supporter of H.R. 676 Single-Payer which is commonly referred to as a socialist type of national health care plan (not necessarily here, but we've all seen it elsewhere) instead of what it really is which is Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, and I saw this thread and didn't notice any so I thought I might offer a couple of links I found very useful for those that might have more interest in what it really is and does.


United States National Health Care Act (H.R. 676)

Healthcare-NOW!

---

Name 1 thing ANY government does well?? besides taking your money!!

Police, firefighters, national parks, NASA, water and sewer, garbage collection, defence, health and safety, health regulations...Developement of telecommunications, television, radio, computers ...highways, border inspection,
there's more but you get the idea.

I agree, governments are responsible for police, fire, public transportation and protection from other nation states or groups. Governments should not be in the business of providing services or developing technology such as "telecommunications, television, radio, (and) computers". Private industry does a much better job. The point is government should do what it does best and private industry should do what it does best.

Oh yes, the Private Sector..... in this country, it flourished under that evil woman, Thatcher - everyone in the country ended up paying more, for everything! If that is the best the private sector can do, then I will happily endorse mass nationalisation, with no qualms! In the UK, we've had the benefit of seeing what the private sector does, with previously 'nationalised' companies, thanks to the Conservative Government of the time. In the US, would you allow Russian companies to control electricity supply? Oil, gas, electricity, water and health-care (probably transport and telecommunications, too) should be state controlled and administered. How can you possibly allow, companies, possibly foreign, to profit from, essential, basic requirements? As to health-care, when a private hospital makes a hash of things, it is the NHS which often picks up the bill! In my books, if someone is rich enough, or stupid enough, to pay for 'private treatment' and it goes wrong, they should seek legal redress, not rely on the NHS to sort things out! After all, they could afford it....

---

Don't take life too seriously, as you'll never come out of it alive!

Name 1 thing ANY government does well?? besides taking your money!!

Police, firefighters, national parks, NASA, water and sewer, garbage collection, defence, health and safety, health regulations...Developement of telecommunications, television, radio, computers ...highways, border inspection,
there's more but you get the idea.

Ahhhhh! borders - YES our goverment does really well in prosecuting Ramos/Campion for plinking a mule in the keester and allowing the guy to make 3 more trips under government protection.

---

Classic WU= 7,237 Classic Hours= 42,079

And NASA you must mean the $12,000 toilet seat.

Do you really believe that some procurement officer would put their carreer on the line by doing that or is it more likely that the funds were diverted to some black ops project? c'mon man

Whats really funny is businesses love the idea of gov't helth insurance. Ask any international corporation and they'll tell you that its cheaper to run their business in countries outside the US because the COmpany isn't footing the bill for health insurance. They all pay but not like they were under the US style plan. Simply put the resistance to gov't health care is merely a plitical ploy. the only folks that don't really want it are Insurance companies and their Conservative lackeys in Congress that are being paid to drag their feet, stomp their feet and become obstructionists to a program that will save every WORKING person money.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Whats really funny is businesses love the idea of gov't helth insurance. Ask any international corporation and they'll tell you that its cheaper to run their business in countries outside the US because the COmpany isn't footing the bill for health insurance. They all pay but not like they were under the US style plan. Simply put the resistance to gov't health care is merely a plitical ploy. the only folks that don't really want it are Insurance companies and their Conservative lackeys in Congress that are being paid to drag their feet, stomp their feet and become obstructionists to a program that will save every WORKING person money.

We might need such a plan and it might work as intended. But is it prudent to borrow money in order to pay for it? (by selling bonds) Shouldn't we pass something that is fully funded? Obama's plan (according to the white house) will add over 1 trillion to the national debt. I have not read the 1000+ page bill, and I doubt anyone here has. (who has that much free time?) So who really know what is in there?

Secondly, if the democrats wanted to pass something, they could do it without a single republican vote. So I would stop blaming republicans for the faults of congreess if I were you. If the democrats stood together, there would be no problem.

Whats really funny is businesses love the idea of gov't helth insurance. Ask any international corporation and they'll tell you that its cheaper to run their business in countries outside the US because the COmpany isn't footing the bill for health insurance. They all pay but not like they were under the US style plan. Simply put the resistance to gov't health care is merely a plitical ploy. the only folks that don't really want it are Insurance companies and their Conservative lackeys in Congress that are being paid to drag their feet, stomp their feet and become obstructionists to a program that will save every WORKING person money.

We might need such a plan and it might work as intended. But is it prudent to borrow money in order to pay for it? (by selling bonds) Shouldn't we pass something that is fully funded? Obama's plan (according to the white house) will add over 1 trillion to the national debt. I have not read the 1000+ page bill, and I doubt anyone here has. (who has that much free time?) So who really know what is in there?

Secondly, if the democrats wanted to pass something, they could do it without a single republican vote. So I would stop blaming republicans for the faults of congreess if I were you. If the democrats stood together, there would be no problem.

who is borrowing money. I am willing to bet the insurance will be taken out of our checks when we receive our checks. Someones been listening to the Neocon AM stations again. Nobody said they were reinventing the wheel. I currently pay about 1.5% of my check towards Medicare. wouldn't it be just as easy to charge me 3-4% and have my insurance covered

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Whats really funny is businesses love the idea of gov't helth insurance. Ask any international corporation and they'll tell you that its cheaper to run their business in countries outside the US because the COmpany isn't footing the bill for health insurance. They all pay but not like they were under the US style plan. Simply put the resistance to gov't health care is merely a plitical ploy. the only folks that don't really want it are Insurance companies and their Conservative lackeys in Congress that are being paid to drag their feet, stomp their feet and become obstructionists to a program that will save every WORKING person money.

We might need such a plan and it might work as intended. But is it prudent to borrow money in order to pay for it? (by selling bonds) Shouldn't we pass something that is fully funded? Obama's plan (according to the white house) will add over 1 trillion to the national debt. I have not read the 1000+ page bill, and I doubt anyone here has. (who has that much free time?) So who really know what is in there?

Secondly, if the democrats wanted to pass something, they could do it without a single republican vote. So I would stop blaming republicans for the faults of congreess if I were you. If the democrats stood together, there would be no problem.

who is borrowing money. I am willing to bet the insurance will be taken out of our checks when we receive our checks. Someones been listening to the Neocon AM stations again. Nobody said they were reinventing the wheel. I currently pay about 1.5% of my check towards Medicare. wouldn't it be just as easy to charge me 3-4% and have my insurance covered

Is that in the bill? I doubt congress is as smart as you because I doubt that part is in the bill.

Any new spending done by congress is paid for by borrowing. As in deficit spending.

has anyone noticed that only the talking head Neocon radio personalities and few others are against this. Every major industry in this country want this done, with the exception if the insurance industry. Major industrial exec state that to have a viable even playing field they need it. Why? because every other industrialized nation in the world has it. THey haven't ended and we won't either. THis isn't a tattoo. we can change it as we need.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

There is a big problem with universal healthcare that you will never hear talked about on the media or even from those with liberal bias; the money.

I'm not talking about the money to fund such an endeavor. Many countries with far less wealth can pull off such a system. The money I'm talking about is in the form of taxes that the government collects from health care providers.

Some doctors make into the hundreds of thousands annually. Some specialists make into the millions. That's not even considering hospitals (which are a business by the way), medical supply companies, the drug companies, medical insurance companies, all paying taxes on the income they earn which is billions and billions of dollars. With universal healthcare, this level of revenue for federal and state governments is all but gone overnight.

This is, ultimately, why the government tends to oppose the measure in the US. Gay marriage is no different; with separation of church and state it should be a no brainer that marriage (a religious institution to begin with) should be available to any two people that want to marry. But if you allow gays legal marriage on the federal level, that's a big deduction on income taxes for married status.

US government, when it comes to social infrastructure for the middle class, is only motivated to support such endeavors that earn money or at the very least; prevent losing it. Look at the cash for clunkers program; many are already saying that it is the most effective stimulus to date. Ford is reporting a sales increase; the first US auto maker to do so in 19 months straight. And government only spent a meager billion so far. That's without considering lowering the consumption rate on gasoline somewhat. And they would have never considered doing this program had it not been for pressure to ease dependence on foreign oil. The stimulus is a byproduct.

US government looks out for itself first, business second, and society the very last. But there are huge advantages to propping up the middle class first. But it's the fear of financial loss for doing so that has the US being the most socially backwards Western Democracy in the world.

I think more than the money it cost or the the revenue lost, the representatives we have in both houses loyalty to the Insurance co's has more to do with why health care reform, particularity single payer is doomed from the start. I still think it's the best plan out there and the bill itself isn't 1000 pages.
H.R. 676

What I consider IMO is part of the problem
Presidential Candidates: Selected Industry Totals, 2008 Cycle Health Services/HMOs

---

Of course, there is no one single factor. Sure, there are politicians in the pocket of the insurance companies. Such is the case with just about any government initiative that wishes to change the status quo where business is involved.

Historically however, the government is overwhelmingly opposed to socialized medicine and this has everything to do with revenue loss.

We can talk about potential failures of single payer healthcare, or the compromise of giving up choice in exchange for access. But the brass tacks are that the current system is a failure. It has already failed. We can mill over the disadvantages of such a program, or propose that single payer will fail (which I don't believe it would but that's another issue altogether), but we must put such things into perspective and we do that by considering that the current system has already failed.

Charging me $2700 for 2 minutes on an MRI machine, $64 for a blood oxygen test (a little device that was placed on my finger for 5 seconds), $471 for a single x-ray; my friends, that is a failed system.

but we must put such things into perspective and we do that by considering that the current system has already failed.

Charging me $2700 for 2 minutes on an MRI machine, $64 for a blood oxygen test (a little device that was placed on my finger for 5 seconds), $471 for a single x-ray; my friends, that is a failed system.

I agree we have a failed health care system, and I think the reason it's a failed system is it's main objective isn't to provide health care, but a profit. That's why the Insurance co's have to be taken out of the equation, so we can have a system the people pay into (like single payer HR 676) whose goal is to provide health care and not profits for Insurance co's.

I don't agree though that government is overwhelmingly opposed to socialized medicine. Medicare is as American as it gets and is socialized medicine.

Obama at one time supported single payer, but IMO through scare tactics from the insurance co's that goal has almost been taken off the table, but isn't one of the bills out there that anyone is debating in the news ATM. The one's being talked about now, IMO are sellouts to the insurance co's that won't do anyone much good, but the insurance co's.

---