personally i have used the healthcare in Europe
Posted By: SM on 2007-09-21
In Reply to: Opinions on Hillary's proposed health care system? - Lifelong Democrat
and in France and England (several times in France) and I have to say that national healthcare over there works wonderfully well.....costs are minimal (though taxes are high) and all rxs in England cost the same and I was treated fabulously (married French) at American Hospital in Paris and Gap Hospital in France in 1980.....I did England in 71-72 and again, got treated well and for less than $40. I believe national healthcare can work but the govt and medical professions here in the states don't want it - because they, the MDS, will make less. But know this, that I saw the life of a doctor in France and his family in Michael Moore's movie SiCKO and they are living like kings, well not kings, but living VERY VERY WELL.
So, based on my own experiences in Europe - and the experiences to date of my in-laws over in France - I have to say the healthcare over there is FAR better and FAR LESS EXPENSIVE than over here but again, their taxes are somewhat higher.
Hillary screwed it up once before, I don't want to give her a second chance regarding healthcare.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
She took it personally because she was attacked personally. Plain and simple.
Where did you get your debating skills? On the south side of Chicago in some street gang? Because if you did, it shows.
In a REAL debate, there is no room or tolerance for personal attacks. Yet, that's all you people know how to do. You can't stay on the issue. You MUST attack the poster personally, claiming to know not only what they think and feel but also claiming to know what every liberal ever thought or did, what they're thinking and doing right now and what they will be thinking and doing for the next 1,000 years. In fact, you seem to know everything about anything that ever existed on the planet, exists now or will exist into infinity.
As I (and others) have said repeatedly and you just can't seem to grasp, if you constantly treat people badly, they're not going to want to associate with you. Lurker was very gracious in her posts to all of you on your board, but even she, in the end, couldn't tolerate your continued, nonstop, personal attacks any more (as she indicated in her responses to the attackers). If you ever stop knowing it all and become interested in the proper way of debating someone, you could learn a lot from Lurker. You see, having *thick skin* is only important if you're a thug in a gang somewhere. It's irrelevant when it comes to treating humans like humans, and in that area, you have a lot to learn.
As for me, I like to learn from intelligent, friendly people with different political views, so I visit boards where those kinds of people are found. Not all conservatives are angry, rude, come out swinging and need to personally attack 1,000% of the time. Some of them are actually quite nice and informative, and they can be found on other forums. Too bad they can't be found on MTStars.
Have a pleasant evening. 
Europe
Almost whole Europe was sponsoring Barack Hussein Obama! Victory!
europe
Europe is trying to encourage Pres Elect Obama to join with the EU to ensure economic stability for the US
And then there is Europe
We are nothing like Russia, therefore should not compare our nation to Russian.
Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Liechtenstein. They do quite well as the European nation.
I've lived there for 12 years.
yeah, in EUROPE
.
A lot of Europe, even though they hate us....
are tied our markets. I think at least one German bank has already failed...and other european banks as well. He should be calling his buddy Obama...well I bet he already has. lol.
I was BORN in Europe, So what? What does this have to do
with anything and it is none of your business.
I assume that you are jealous that I am European born, therefore you are literally 'following' me around the forum with your pathetic comments.
Nothing better to do?
Look for another past-time.
Is Pakistan in Europe?
Just wondering...
China, India, Europe.....
I was in Italy once and couldn't swim because the local shoe factory had just poured all their dye into the Med and it was red. Most of the world drive cars with leaded gasoline. We do more to preserve the environment than many countries.
Who cares what Europe thinks? They are no
nm
Why do you care what Europe thinks?
__
You sound bitter and should just stay in Europe
I'm no Bush fan (now), but let me tell you why I voted for him. I was tired of the dems taxing the you know what out of us. In my whole life I had never been taxed as much as when Clinton was in, and Gore was going to continue on with those taxes. I couldn't afford anything. DH and I had good jobs, but close to 38% of those paychecks were going for taxes and then each year in addition to that we ended up not paying enough and would have to fork over an additonal $1500 to 2000. We didn't own a house, we didn't have an expensive car, no fancy wardrobes, no vacations, nothing, zip, nada. We had to pass on going out to eat a lot with family because we didn't have it. We lived in a one bedroom apartment in the silicon valley. We had enough of the Clintons. We had enough of the high taxes, the bumbling yahoo from the south. The guy who said he was going to do this for us and that for us and once he got into the white house all that changed and he catered to his rich friends. He didn't have a clue as to what the average American citizen was going through. He just kept imposing taxes to fund his phony programs. He brought in NAFTA. Lots of people lost their jobs and then he created these "false" jobs (i.e. the ones that paid minimum wage and people still had to go on food stamps). People were losing their homes. You want to talk about a Hillbilly you need to start with Bill and Hillary Clinton (please no offense to the Hillbillies). Those two were a disgrace to the country and made us look like fools to other countries. His phony gaffaw to make it seem as though he thought something was funny (not presidential at all!). Then on their overseas trips the insulting mannerisms of Hillary who is suppose to be first lady but acting as though she was the Queen. When graciously given a gift from another country if she didn't like it she was overhead telling people what a piece of $*$@ it was and there was no way she was going to put it on (it was a piece of homemade jewelry). She disgraces the country and made me ashamed to call it my country (I served the country under Regan and was very proud and they yanked that out when they came into power). Then you have his lying to congress, lying to the American people, Bill & Hillary's fights in the white house. The mysterious deaths of people, the affairs, the scandels, them acting as though they are King and Queen of America. Calling people to be there at a certain time then waltzing down the stairs making sure everyone was their watching their "grand entrance". Then you had the disgraceful people he had on his staff. People stuffing classified documents into their pants pockets to hide stuff, Janet Reno, Waco Texas, Elian Gonzales, drug runs, missing people only to be found having taken a "dirt vacation", etc, etc. They were the two biggest disgraces to ever step foot into the white house and clearly did nothing of any benefit while in there.
Bush is not the brightest but neither was his predescessor. Sure Bush has a lot of faults, sure he should be impeached like Clinton was - remember that detail - Clinton is an impeached ex-president and in my opinion has lost the right to still be called Mr. President.
Gore as VP was one of the most worthless VPs we've had. I put him right up there with Quayle. Good for absolutely nothing. But I guess we should remember. He created the internet and he and Tipper were the role model for the movie "Love Story". Wait a second...I'm going to barf here... Sorry but I did not want Mr. Stiff as the next President. Especially when he was hiding and covering up what the President and Hillary were doing. He was a weakling and I did not want them in there. Do I believe the election was stolen? Yes I do. Am I sorry it was? No. Gore would have not done any better and nobody can tell me otherwise. He's an imbi*cile pushing this global warming thing of his, which he won't even listen to the expert scientist and weather people who know what is happening in the world. I still wonder what he's going to tell his kids when they ask him one day why he lied about global warming. I'd love to be there when that happens.
Am I going to vote for McCain? Are you out of your mind. No I don't like Bush. Yes I don't think he's running on all cylinders. As someone once said to me "He's one fry short of a happy meal". I'm not going to continue on with another term of Bush.
Who are you to "warn" other people. Who are you to "tell" other people who to vote for. You are entitled to your opinions, but it is this elitist attitude that gets very tiresome. There are plenty of very good reasons why half of the country did not vote for Gore. I actually did not vote for Bush, but voted against Gore. As my mom told me you have to pick the lesser of the two evils. Nobody, including you, knew Katrina was going to happen when Bush was running, you didn't know that 911 would happen. You didn't know any of the disasters that happened would happened unless you have a crystal ball, and now you act as though "you warned everyone this would happen". How someone reacts to crisis is a whole different story. Clintons were no better with the disasters that happened when they were in. Yes it could have all be handled better.
You mentioned stem cell research. Funny how that wasn't approved when Clinton was in there. Gay marriage...I heard nothing about Clinton approving it. Gay couples were struggling back then as they are now fighting for their rights to the equality that opposite sex marriages have. You make it sound as though Bush took all of this away - this is rubbish!
No, I am no Bush fan and am glad he's on his way out. I'm sure in his last days he too will be handing out pardons like Clinton did as if they a K-Mart blue light special.
Yes, this is a free country and you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine and mine is that you have an elitest attitude and I hope you stay in Europe.
Speaking of Europe, lol, they love Obama.
nm
No wonder Europe thinks this country is full of
nm
She posted articles about the big 3 in Europe, not European car cos.....(nm)
And I can visit Europe and actually TALK to people, without
How refreshing will THAT be? To not be embarrassed to death about what country we live in?
I was BORN in Europe, So what? What does thishave todo
with anything and it is none of your business.
I assume that you are jealous that I am European born, therefore you are literally 'following' me around the forum with your pathetic comments.
Nothing better to do?
Look for another past-time.
Hallelujah! Leftists in EU elections across Europe are
Don't think this will go unnoticed on this side of the pond as well. Obama's numbers shriveling, the Democratic-dominated Congress even worse numbers...and the Republican gubernatorial candidate in New Jersey, of all places, is leading the Democrat incumbent by double digits in the polls. Those who crowed prematurely about the demise of conservatism are going to find that the toe tag has been switched - and they're the ones who will end up wearing it. Why? Because they got above themselves and WENT TOO FAR. It's so true, isn't it - "pride goeth before a fall".
Conservatives Racing Ahead in EU Parliamentary Elections:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090607/ap_on_re_eu/european_elections
Why do you think Obama campaigned in Europe/Germany last year? sm
Were they voting for him?
Huge red flag went up for a lot of us on that one.
The writing was on the wall, but so many refused to see it.
You hope it's wrong, and so do I. But only time will tell.
Loony Left is LOSING Clout in Europe
Once again (how many times do we have to do this?) socialist ideas are being thrown 'on the trash heap of history' where these losers belong.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124425154944290829.html
"He (Obama) chairs the subcommittee on Europe. ... He's held not one substantive hearing to do
Fischer, who is a minority staff member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said something as major as NATO’s role in Afghanistan would typically be held before the full Foreign Relations Committee, rather than Obama’s European subcommittee.
In fact, the Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Afghanistan on Jan. 31, 2008, and NATO was a part of the discussion. Obama attended a Democratic debate in California that day. Clinton is not on the committee.
The Clinton campaign put out a statement reiterating Clinton’s comments to reinforce the theme that Obama is more about talk than action.
“Given the opportunity to take the reins of leadership and shape two critical areas of U.S. foreign policy — Afghanistan and our alliances in Europe — Senator Obama has done next to nothing,” the statement said.
Obama’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
So let’s look at Clinton’s statement:
“He chairs the subcommittee on Europe.” Yep.
“It has jurisdiction over NATO.” Yep.
“NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He’s held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan.” Yep.
Some may argue that the issue of NATO’s role in Afghanistan typically and more appropriately would come before the full Foreign Relations Committee. But Clinton is right when she says Obama’s subcommittee has been largely dormant while Obama has campaigned for president. We rate her comment True.
Foreign policy advisors
Barack Obama is currently advised on foreign policy by a support group of approximately 300 people organized into 20 teams based upon subject.[89] A core group of advisors, led by Susan E. Rice and Anthony Lake, filters hundreds of papers and messages daily to provide the Senator with more concise positions on foreign policy and more specific reactions to international developments. Obama's foreign policy advisers have included Richard Danzig, Mark Lippert, Gregory Craig, Dennis McDonough, Daniel Shapiro, Scott Gration, Sarah Sewall, Ivo Daalder, Jeffrey Bader, Mark Brzezinski, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Clarke, Roger Cressey, Philip Gordon, Lawrence Korb, James Ludes, Robert Malley, Bruce Riedel, Dennis Ross, Mona Sutphen, and Samantha Power (resigned March 7, 2008).[90][91][92]
If he is such an expert why does he need 300 advisors?
Europe - Swastika vigilantes kill foreign students to keep their city 'clean' ...see article.
Swastika vigilantes kill foreign students to keep their city 'clean'From Jeremy Page in Moscow
|
|
![src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif]() |
THE African students did not even see the man raise the swastika-emblazoned shotgun as they emerged from the Apollo nightclub in St Petersburg.
When he opened fire from the shadows behind them, some of the group thought it was a firecracker going off.
Then they saw Samba Lampsar Sall, a 28-year-old student from Senegal, lying dead on the pavement with his throat blown apart.
Within hours, a sinister message had appeared on the website of a group called the Party of Freedom. “The clean-up of the city continues,” it said.
Mr Sall had come to study at St Petersburg’s State Communications University in 2001 in the hope of finding a better life when he went back home.
Instead, around dawn yesterday, he became the latest victim of a hate campaign by neo-Nazi extremists on the streets of Russia’s cultural capital.
“How can people be so evil?” asked Michael Tanobian, an African student who was with Mr Sall when he was killed. “We come here just to study, for nothing else. We don’t take anything here.”
Mr Sall’s brutal murder exposes one of Russia’s most disturbing problems as President Putin prepares to host the G8 summit in St Petersburg in mid-July. For all its grandeur and impressive art collections, Russia’s second city is fast becoming the racist capital of the world.
Critics say that the authorities are not doing enough to combat the extremists who routinely attack, and kill, Africans, Asians and immigrants from the Caucasus or Central Asia.
Seven people have been killed, and 79 injured, in more than 40 racist attacks this year, according to Sova, a non-governmental organisation that monitors extremism in Russia.
Last year, 28 people were killed and 366 injured in racially motivated crimes, it says.
The Interior Ministry sent a team of special investigators from Moscow to work on yesterday’s murder. The Foreign Ministry expressed “sincere condolences to the relatives and loved ones of the deceased”. The Prosecutor’s Office said that the case was being treated as a racist killing.
But dozens of similar cases have been treated as “hooliganism”, a crime that carries a far lighter sentence. One of the most shocking attacks occurred in 2004, when teenagers stabbed to death a nine-year-old Tajik girl in St Petersburg. Last month, a court convicted them of hooliganism, giving six of them 18-year jail sentences and one of them five years.
Desire Defaut, chairman of the local community group African Unity, urged Mr Putin to lead the fight against neo- Nazism. “They must make an announcement at a state level that such a problem exists and state organs must work on it,” he said. “We can’t say they are doing enough if there are two attacks within one week.”
Last week, the nine-year-old daughter of a Russian woman and her African husband was wounded in a knife attack in St Petersburg. “What more proof of extremism do they need in St Petersburg?” asked Juldas Okie Etoumbi, chairman of the Association of the African Students of Moscow. But, he added, the problem is not confined to St Petersburg. In the past week, skinheads in Moscow beat up a journalist of Caucasian origin and the culture minister from the Caucasus region of Kabardino-Balkaria.
Mr Putin has called racism “an infection” and pledged to stamp it out. But critics say that the Kremlin has tolerated, and even encouraged, ultra-nationalist groups to foster loyalty to the State and make itself look relatively liberal.
MURDER CITY
Sept 2003 Tajik girl, 5, beaten in St Petersburg
Feb 2004 Tajik girl, 9, stabbed
Mar 2004 Syrian student pushed in front of train
June 2004 Anti-Nazi campaigner shot dead
Oct 2004 Vietnamese student stabbed
Sept 2005 Congolese student beaten
Dec 2005 Cameroonian student stabbed
Feb 2006 Malian medical graduate stabbed
Apr 2006 Senegalese student shot |
|
He would also have (and likely already has) best healthcare in USA.
I don't consider this a concern. Major factor in cancer is awareness and monitoring, and I'm quite sure he's getting the best monitoring and follow-up care available.
healthcare
Healthcare is already rationed in the US: If you can't afford insurance, you can't get it. If you're sick, you can't get insurance. If your employer enticed you with promises of insurance, but then didn't pay you enough to cover premiums, you can't get it. If you can't afford a procedure, then your long wait just became a lot longer.
Incidentally, what Obama is offering is *not* anything like what those countries you mention have. He's not nationalizing the healthcare system (like the UK) *or* nationalizing the insurance system (like Canada). Read his plan; it's a mixture of public and private plans, with more strict requirements on the insurance companies to cover everyone affordably, rather than gaming the system and cutting out sick people.
Personally, I'd love a nationalized system. Insurance companies are unnecessary middlemen driving up costs. That said, they're not the entire problem with healthcare costs--you can look to pharmaceutical companies for a big part of *that* problem.
What happens to healthcare...(sm)
Yes, more people probably will go to the doctor. That means there will be a lot of health maintenance involved, and as we both know only too well, health maintenance is a key issue in preventing major medical issues, hence less surgeries, etc. Check out France's healthcare system. I think main issue we will have is going to be dealing with the drug companies to get costs under control. At this point a lot of people don't go to the doc because they can't afford it, like you said; however, even more don't go because they can't afford the drugs.
What happens to healthcare...(sm)
Yes, more people probably will go to the doctor. That means there will be a lot of health maintenance involved, and as we both know only too well, health maintenance is a key issue in preventing major medical issues, hence less surgeries, etc. Check out France's healthcare system. I think main issue we will have is going to be dealing with the drug companies to get costs under control. At this point a lot of people don't go to the doc because they can't afford it, like you said; however, even more don't go because they can't afford the drugs.
BTW, regardless of Fox's ratings, they are undeniably a right-wing station. That is a fact that is widely known and recognized. Just because you agree with what they say doesn't mean they don't lean to the right. And yes, the same holds true for MSNBC (to the left), but at least they admit it. You also might want to look into exactly how ratings for cable news come about. You might be surprised and what you could learn.
Healthcare
I'm not sure this is a good idea either. Ireland has gov't run medical and those women were waiting years, yes years to get their Pap smears read. They had to be shipped to the US because of a lab closure. Can you imagine wondering if you have cervical cancer for years? No thanks.
universal healthcare
Where are you getting that information about Obama and universal healthcare? The last time I heard him speak about it he wanted universal healthcare for people who couldn't get healthcare but leave the option open to people who could get their own healthcare (as they are doing now) to do so. He also spoke about companies being held more responsible to providing affordable healthcare for employees. I don't remember him ever saying to knock out the entire healthcare system and make everyone have universal healthcare.
As for McCain... I guess you like the economy and the war. He's not going to change anything if he's elected.
European healthcare
Its not all cracked up as it sounds. I use healthcare right now in Sweden and its horrendously bad. I had to fly home to the US to get my breasts examined for lumps that were found because they have the "if it isn't broken, bleeding or obviously damaged, then go home and take an aspirin" mentality. They found the lumps and we were still waiting for a mammogram over a month later because they don't want to do testing and because they have a don't care attitude when it comes to everything here. Don't rush them. its amazing. Its at least 6 months waiting list (if your lucky) to see the dentist unless you are under a certain age as a youth. You can get private healthcare here but the cost of labor is such that its hugely expensive. I don't know about other places because I have only lived here and in the US. We have great healthcare in the US and we have never chosen jobs where we weren't going to have some kind of coverage, but I would never give up my doctors and my insurance in the US for this garbage social junk.
McCain's healthcare tax.
I posted this further down but there are apparently a lot of people who are still confused about how McCain's tax on health insurance works.
So, here you go:
Say you pay 14% income tax based on your income.
And you receive $10,000 worth of health insurance from your employer.
The $10,000 is taxed separately at the 14% (your tax bracket). That comes out to $1,400.
McCain gives you a $5,000 tax credit.
$5,000 less the $1,400 -
YOU'RE AHEAD $3,600.
:)
Alternatively, you can take the $5,000 tax credit and purchase your own insurance (like I do). I pay $250 a month.
$250 x 12 = $3,000.
$5,000 - $3,000 - $2,000.
I'M STILL AHEAD $2,000.
WIN/WIN 
On the healthcare front........sm
Nearly half the respondents in a survey of U.S. primary care physicians said that they would seriously consider getting out of the medical business within the next three years if they had an alternative.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/17/primary.care.doctors.study/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
This comes from top healthcare facilities
nm
I'm pretty sure you don't get your healthcare from
nm
I found something interesting about US healthcare.
Because I am infinitely quizzical about most things and the rising cost of healthcare was on my mind, I did a little browsing and came across this document:
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
Now keep in mind this is information compiled is from a think tank funded by some of the biggest corporations, including insurance corps for the betterment and furtherance of the regressive conservative ideal, so I was rather surprised to see these numbers so beautifully printed in black and white.
It shows exactly how much we are paying for healthcare in the United States and it is rather astounding. Far more of our GDP, about 15.5% (the highest in the world) goes to healthcare. Almost double that other industrialized nations that have socialized healthcare.
I think this is a pretty good argument against a free market healthcare system being the most efficient and the best, it is just the most expensive and at the rate it has been exploding, it is going to increase the number of uninsured.
Why is it so expensive? Because the insurance companies are pacing the market. Some things should just NOT be included in the free market enterprise, and healthcare is one of them. We get sicker and the insurance companies get fatter.
healthcare a problem prior to THIS war and they did
x
It can end with affordable healthcare for kids.
I would like to see more affordable healthcare for all Americans, but really if kids got free or very affordable healthcare I would be happy. We spend outrageous amounts of money on the space program, the war, gourmet food for Congress, etc. I don't agree with the hoards of money going to those things, but I would think we could ALL AGREE on money being redirected to provide healthcare to all American children, because that is obviously a good and just cause.
France is getting universal healthcare right...
Great post piglet. I so agree with what you all had to say in support of changing our current system. Canada probably has the worst universal healthcare system, and yet the average Canadian lives 3 years longer than the average American. People always point to the flaws in their system and just assume that we will make all the same mistakes. Of course their system has flaws, just as our system has many fatal flaws. England and France actually have great universal healthcare systems. Here is an article I found about France's successful program:
"France's model healthcare system
By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007
MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.
Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.
The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.
An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.
That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.
Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.
Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.
It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.
Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?
National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.
Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.
French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.
The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?
Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.
American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.
Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...lthcare_system/
I have used the British and French healthcare
I have visited and used both the British and French national healthcare system and I must say I was treated very_well in both countries.....and I think it is a great idea for THIS country now, having had first-hand experiences in Europe..
JMHO, of course. 
Universal healthcare NOT the answer!!
- There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
- "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
- Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
- Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
- Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
- Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
- Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
- Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
- A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
- Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
- Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
- Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
- Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.
NOT VOTING FOR OBAMA! His plans will fail and they will up the cost of everything. Stop the government spending! Don't vote for someone wanting to add more programs that will INCREASE government spending. That is why our economy is in deep crap right now.
Members of Congress get the best healthcare that...sm
money can buy by the U.S. government and Obama wants us to have it too.
Here's a breakdown of McCain's healthcare tax.
Say you pay 14% income tax based on your income.
And you receive $10,000 worth of health insurance from your employer.
The $10,000 is taxed separately at the 14% (your tax bracket). That comes out to $1,400.
McCain gives you a $5,000 tax credit.
$5,000 less the $1,400 -
YOU'RE AHEAD $3,600.
:)
Alternatively, you can take the $5,000 tax credit and purchase your own insurance (like I do). I pay $250 a month.
$250 x 12 = $3,000.
$5,000 - $3,000 - $2,000.
I'M STILL AHEAD $2,000.
WIN/WIN :)
From what I understand Canada's healthcare...sm
is not run by private insurance companies as is Obama's plan, but rather by the government itself. His aim is for all people to have availablity to health insurance with a premium based on what they can afford, the ability to keep your insurance when you change jobs, keep your own doctor, and have your doctor ultimately decide what treatment is best for you not the insurance company.
When did socialism and universal healthcare
nm
Obama's universal healthcare will be SO much
nm
A ? for those in favor of national healthcare
What is your rationale for wanting government in charge of your healthcare? You have to know that if this happens, healthcare in this country IS going to be rationed, the same as it's been rationed in Great Britain, Sweden, and Canada. There will be long waits for procedures that we now take for granted being done in a very short time. I know Obama promised the same healthcare as he now has in the senate...do you believe him?
You need to talk with a few liberal healthcare
nm
what are liberal healthcare facilities?
b
A lot of "liberal" healthcare administrators
who once believed all the democrat garbage until they got Obama into office. Now, after reviewing from some of Obama's top sources the info on what Medicare will stop letting elderly have at their own discretion, they are becoming livid. Well, they wanted him, they got him. So many to thank for all their free lunch for everyone thinking.............
A lot of "liberal" healthcare administrators
who once believed all the democrat garbage until they got Obama into office. Now, after reviewing from some of Obama's top sources the info on what Medicare will stop letting elderly have at their own discretion, they are becoming livid. Well, they wanted him, they got him. So many to thank for all their free lunch for everyone thinking.............
A lot of "liberal" healthcare administrators
who once believed all the democrat garbage until they got Obama into office. Now, after reviewing from some of Obama's top sources the info on what Medicare will stop letting elderly have at their own discretion, they are becoming livid. Well, they wanted him, they got him. So many to thank for all their free lunch for everyone thinking.............
AIG/Future of American Healthcare
I've written a few times on this board that I think employers and insurance companies should be completely taken out of the picture when it comes to healthcare, that our very lives shouldn't be profit-driven commodities.
In my opinion, what's happening at AIG with greedy executives gives us a window into what could happen again (or probably already is happening) with health insurance companies.
I did a quick Google search and found the following two articles that address this. The first link is more current and probably the better of the two links, but the second is worth reading, as well. There may be better ones out there, but I didn't have much time to do my search, and these are two that caught my attention. If you find others, please post them.
It seems to me that before a new healthcare plan is implemented for Americans, we need to insure (no pun) that greedy executives can never do this again to Americans, particularly if our very ability to live or die lies in the balance.
I plan on writing my Congressman and Senator. I DON'T plan on having my concerns taken seriously (or even being read, for that matter).
Can you imagine -- just for a moment -- how much money could be saved by eliminating the profit factor in healthcare? It might just pay for a new healthcare care system itself, or at least put a big dent into the cost of one.
http://blogs.webmd.com/mad-about-medicine/2007/08/ceo-compensation-who-said-healthcare-is.html
http://www.harp.org/hmoexecs.htm
|
