world

Obama says health care reform good for small businesses

19 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

19 Comments
Login to comment

"A prescription for disaster"

Hope! Change!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know what would be good for small business? De-coupling healthcare and employers all together.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

passing reform that will reduce costs, expand coverage and provide more choices for our families and businesses

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Ronald Reagan

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Canadian health care is being depicted by American media as bad. We pay taxes that pay for it, so no, it's not free. I don't call anyone just my doctor for an appointment and the doctor bills the Provincial (ie State) government. The Feds then pay the Province. No to zero paperwork. I find the American system utterly alien.

There was once an American who had to fill out forms. I remember reading that he ended up in one basement office of a hospital because no one knew what he was talking about since we don't have floors upon floors devoted to paperwork. No one has ever talked to an insurance agent because we don't have any. I'd imagine it's like saying we don't have lawyers then expecting people that do to understand. No wonder its futile.

Canada isn't perfect, no country is. I"m glad for my health care and I hope American's join the modern world. Canadians just love to complain though so finding someone to complain is different that saying it's not working.

However after seeing "Sicko" by Michael Moore, after seeing what Americans have to go through, I was quite proud of my country and felt like I should move to France haha.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Michael Moore is a joke, you might as well watch southpark to get to know America better if you believe anything that idiot has to say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

watch southpark to get to know America better

that's actually very good advice

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would argue that health care reform is not good for small business on the basis that the tax hikes will target anyone making 250k+ which most successful small business owners fall under. Think about it. If a person starts a privatly owned small business all revenues generated are considered personal earnings despite the fact that most of it has to be paid back into the business to keep it running. It's like fixing a hole in the wall by ripping out a piece of the same wall and using it to patch the hole. End result is that you still have a hole but the contractor technically did his job.

Canadian health care is being depicted by American media as bad. We pay taxes that pay for it, so no, it's not free. I don't call anyone just my doctor for an appointment and the doctor bills the Provincial (ie State) government. The Feds then pay the Province. No to zero paperwork. I find the American system utterly alien.

Thats all fine and dandy for regular procedures but the problems arise when the need for specialists occure. Then comes the paperwork, maybe not on your part but on the part of your doctor filling out a request, sending the request, department of health requiring more information, your doctor sends it again...

The beurocracy is so convaluted and unnessicary that it would be easier if you went to a hospital or a specialist with a wad of cash, dropping it in their lap, and saying 'fix me'. To which they will reply, make an apointment.

However after seeing "Sicko" by Michael Moore, after seeing what Americans have to go through, I was quite proud of my country and felt like I should move to France haha.

I believe that was the same fat slob that stated that it was impossible to rise beyond your position in America despite being born lower middle class in Flint Michigan he's made millions telling people how crappy and unfair the U.S is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter Reagan basically took a joke that was popular in the midwest from about the 1950s and recycled it for 80s consumption. Cute, huh? Reagan took the distrust that hillbillies had for REVENOOERS and made it a national mantra. First he championed Prop. 13 as Governor of California, which started the spiral that Arnold is now dealing with. Reagan made fiscal matters much worse for the whole US after becoming president.

Be that as it may, I am not convinced that the health care reform plan is so great. I will say that universal health care makes things much easier for businesses. Just frankly, I will say that I have nixed two investment projects in the US this year because of requirements that would need to be met for workers there. In Japan, you get healthy workers making their own decisions about their own health. A business owner can just run a business and not meet a single health insurance salesman. Claims, liability, regulations, paperwork. Forget it.

SF2K is right on. If American people think the paperwork is bad, what are foreign investors going to think?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Health insurance should definitely be separated from a persons place of employment. If you lose your job you lose your health care - it's idiotic. If employers could just be able to pay the money they spend on health care directly to their empployees and if the health care market was opened up to competition across state lines it would be much better for everyone. If you drive a care, you are responsible for getting your own care insurance. If you own a house, you get home insurance. People should also be responsible for their own health insurance. Whenever the government gets involved, citizens lose their freedom to chose what they believe is best for them. Health insurance is no different than anything else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then comes the paperwork, maybe not on your part but on the part of your doctor filling out a request, sending the request, department of health requiring more information, your doctor sends it again...

no that's not how it works. I've had two surgeries by a specialist all done quite quickly at the time. You get a referrer and visit another appointment, that's about it. Step One, I go to my family doctor who knows me and has been with me for X number of years. I belong to a care team so there are a couple of doctors that I've used. (In effect you belong to a care group of specialists already) Step Two, he/she recommends a specialist and sets up the appointment. Step Three I see a doctor. Done and done.

Again this just proves my point that people can't let go of the idea of paperwork even when it doesn't exist anymore.

Canadians are quite competitive in the marketplace because the employer doesn't not have to pay for healthcare. This is why we can have quite detailed care even if we work for a small business. Thus this has had the effect of keeping Canada competitive and innovative.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sf2k

After waxing poetic about the virtues of the Canadian health care system, I'd be curious to know the sickest you've ever been. Because I know Canadians who carry American health insurance policies in case they get really sick.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It should be noted that Obama has staff who are married to Canadians who are probably laughing at everything being made against reform.

"Big Pharma" is against it because you'd have Canadian drug prices, which are magnitudes cheaper FROM THE SAME COMPANIES, and stop seeing ads on TV (not allowed in Canada thus saving marketing cashola = cut prices) which would shift the focus of science back to scientists, not marketing. Oddly they can make money either way, so their reluctance is unnecessary.

When I watch US TV sometimes, I laugh at the ads for drugs that describe every side effect possible so they don't get sued.

You'd be giving up paperwork, stupid ads, marketing, and greed. Surely that's a start in the right direction?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A few points.

Rationing: There are limits to what government funding will provide. The expectations that many Americans have is that any system will provide whatever they want, when they want it. Under UHC, prioritization will leave some patients, particularly those considered to have low expected outcomes or reduced life benefits, which is all just a nice way of saying that you are not expected to get better or that you are too old, so have some pain killers and wait for the end.

Wait times: Limited budgets results in wait times that can be as long as 14 - 24 weeks (e.g. Canada). That's not critical for most health problems, but for Americans that are used to 1 week or less wait times, it's unacceptable.

Reduced R&D incentive: What many people forget is that most of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies are based in the U.S. The top eight U.S. companies account for ~$33.3 billion dollars of R&D. UHC proponents argue that prices for medication will be lowered, but such cuts would have to include significant reductions in profit and that will unavoidably affect R&D expenditures. The Congressional Budget Office just released a report that indicated that no significant savings would be realized by the proposed UHC plan, so the benefits are somewhat dubious.

Reduced incentives for health care providers: Another way to reduce costs is to reduce pay for physicians. The result of this is a reduced incentive to spend the time and money to become a doctor. This actually encourages a dual system--a public system and a private system for the wealthy.

Nothing is free. For all of its proponents, UHC cannot change the principle of supply and demand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Big apologizes for the size of this post. The last one brought up things that I would like to thoughtfully answer. Note I'll try to answer your points from my room in Canada so obviously this is just my personal perspective and observations from someone who has benefited from healthcare and thanks god everyday I was not born in the USA. Don't be offended by that. If USA does get universal healthcare, Canadians will have to find something else to compare you by!

To the points:

with the American system denying services to sick people anyway, it's hard to argue Americans have unmitigated healthcare access if they don't qualify to begin with. (fallacy #1)

The issue of rationed care is a misnomer since most issues are covered, for all family members, all the time, everyday, for the majority need to begin with. Sure not all issues, but why not ask what is on the list or not? Different Provinces here have different lists same in US States. This could be split up if too much to cover for everyone on the exotic stuff. Cosmetic surgery probably not, that's to be expected. Here you could also go with no list at all if you want. The point is that you don't have limitless money, which is why there are restrictions to begin with. Given your trillions of Chinese debt I can't see how you are allowed to ignore limitations anymore. (fallacy #2)

Big Pharma wants this the most because they charge more money for exotic and experimental drugs that are proven to not work any better than what's out there. US has the Big Pharma but your standard of living is quite low, thus you can't equate their existence in your country to your health if I live longer in Canada. (fallacy #3).

Doctors know there are better and cheaper choices (they're doctors, and highly trained experts). They can always offer you alternatives to expensive drugs though. This is equivalent to the Pentagon's $1000 toilet seat. Again you'll save a lot if doctors are not pressured into sales.

RandD has always been a cure looking for a disease, not the other way round. They focus on where to make money, not where they can help and most certainly not research for it's own sake. (ie: Viagra) Hence why marketing is such a force in the US but no where else. (fallacy #4)

Developing drugs that people actually need (diabetes) would result in massive savings to worldwide disease. RandD might even stop wasting time in areas where there are not successful towards that massive effort which is more worthwhile.

With a healthcare provider no longer being part of a money supply it is no longer concerned with having multiple patients for their paycheque but actually keeping people well instead. When a healthcare system succeeds there are fewer people involved. It's not a supply or demand paradigm to being with, and thus the heart of understanding the problem. (fallacy #5)

If fewer people are sick the taxes needed to support it are less thus you save money/or use less. If more people are sick then the taxes go up, but the cost is split over the population making it cheaper by volume. It doesn't matter, either way money goes to the right place, to help people.

Here you can discuss the rationing list in more detail. Go ahead and put everything on the list if you want, see what the cost is. Split it up by total population or available population and it's still cheaper by the dozen than any insurance you could possibly ever have. Reducing your top ten most ridiculous procedures only makes that better.

Stop shooting yourselves. USA has the best doctors for gun shot wounds because you need them and sometimes we call a few up here for assistance. If that were to drastically drop in line with other countries so obviously would your health care costs. (obvious fact #1)

By putting the incentive on the doctors or to people themselves to live a more healthy lifestyle, that can happen as a community. McD's and high fructose corn syrup aren't it either. (obvious fact #2)

This has always been odd how America doesn't have universal healthcare. I hope you can figure it out, but there is clearly many (too many?) misunderstandings and logical errata.

I don't know, if American's get any fatter the land itself might open up under the pressure and also solve the problem. (flippant stupid comment born of frustration #1)

Solutions exist but it means looking at it from the perspective of putting yourself all in the same pool. The part of universal means your fellow Americans after all. That's why the expectation is different in other countries as well as the choices they have made.

Hope that answers the last post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@helter_skelter:

Yes there are many. Let's just say a lot. I am wary to state my medical history online, and I have been hospitalized a dozen times, but let me try to answer another way.

Other than the splints and crutches, all services were FREE, no delays that were uncomfortable, no burdens to any family member except for the phone call telling them where I am ;)

But it doesn't matter. Look, people are going to be dissatisfied about anything. Canadians love to complain a lot but frankly have absolutely no idea what Americans go through. We have no experience and have never called insurance.

Your comment has a fallacy. First, obviously there is no reason why I would have American insurance if I didn't live or work in America. Or for that matter if I was in Japan. Thus it is often the law to have local insurance in order to have a visa.

As well if something gets really serious they can just come back to Canada, (they didn't cancel their citizenship did they?) so they have twice the benefit. Sounds practical, not negative.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Last post then I'll give this a rest ;) The bigger question seems to be why. Have you had your tetnis shot? hepatitis? flu?

when things are free (as in beer) or low cost, people tend to get them more often than not. If everything required a song and dance show we'd live as long as Americans. I Googled for some average longevity stats. BTW men bring stats like these down, and woman bring it up as females live quite a bit longer, maybe 5-9 years more depending on country? Can't remember. Anyway:

Japan: 81.25

Sweden: 80.51

Switzerland: 80.51

Australia: 80.50

Canada: 80.22

Italy: 79.81

France: 79.73

Germany: 78.80

United Kingdom: 78.54

United States: 77.85

Mexico: 75.41

China: 72.58

Iraq: 69.08

Russia: 67.08

http://longevity.about.com/od/researchandmedicine/p/lifeexpectancy.htm

Truly I'm more interested to know what Aussies or Swiss or Swedes or Japanese do to live longer than what happens in the USA. America protesting all you want doesn't change the global reality.

Good luck, I hope it works out. But it looks like you've got a lot of work to do. Note though that a Canadian standard is not as high a bar compared to Japan and a likely step.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"with the American system denying services to sick people anyway, it's hard to argue Americans have unmitigated healthcare access if they don't qualify to begin with. (fallacy #1)"

Many of those without insurance get medical care anyways by using emergency rooms as free clinics. In 2006, 17.4% of all emergency room visits were by uninsured individuals. 12% of all emergency room visits were non-emergency. This not only puts a disproportionate burden upon emergency room staff, but it deprives those who really need emergency care from the attention that is required. This also means that the costs are transferred to those who do do pay, in the form of higher fees.

"The issue of rationed care is a misnomer since most issues are covered, for all family members, all the time, everyday, for the majority need to begin with. Sure not all issues, but why not ask what is on the list or not? Different Provinces here have different lists same in US States. This could be split up if too much to cover for everyone on the exotic stuff. Cosmetic surgery probably not, that's to be expected. Here you could also go with no list at all if you want. The point is that you don't have limitless money, which is why there are restrictions to begin with. Given your trillions of Chinese debt I can't see how you are allowed to ignore limitations anymore. (fallacy #2)"

"[Health services should not be guaranteed to] individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." - Ezekiel Emanuel, White House Health czar

"Big Pharma wants this the most because they charge more money for exotic and experimental drugs that are proven to not work any better than what's out there. US has the Big Pharma but your standard of living is quite low, [...]"

The U.S. standard of living is extremely high, second only to Luxemburg. According to the OECDP, the 2007 gross national income (US dollars, current prices and purchasing power parity) was $46,098 for the U.S., compared to $37,970 for Canada, and $35,842 for the U.K.

"[...] thus you can't equate their existence in your country to your health if I live longer in Canada. (fallacy #3).

The U.S. population is highly diverse: 12.4% of the 2007 population was foreign-born (a quarter of whom are from Mexico) and 20.2% of the 2008 population were non-white. This significantly skews the life-expectancy averages. For example, in 2005, whites (both U.S. born and foreign born) had a life expectancy of 78.3 years, compared to blacks who had a life expectancy of 73.2 years. Moreover, lifestyle choices have a significant impact on health, but Americans are not inclined to let the government dictate diet and so forth.

"Doctors know there are better and cheaper choices (they're doctors, and highly trained experts). They can always offer you alternatives to expensive drugs though. This is equivalent to the Pentagon's $1000 toilet seat. Again you'll save a lot if doctors are not pressured into sales."

Doctors are not so much "pressured into sales" as much as they choose branded products over generics, unless you consider the profit motive to be "pressure".

"RandD has always been a cure looking for a disease, not the other way round. They focus on where to make money, not where they can help and most certainly not research for it's own sake. (ie: Viagra) Hence why marketing is such a force in the US but no where else. (fallacy #4)

Developing drugs that people actually need (diabetes) would result in massive savings to worldwide disease. RandD might even stop wasting time in areas where there are not successful towards that massive effort which is more worthwhile."

I do not agree with pill-pushing (it increases costs with dubious benefits), but you are repeating a stereotypical perception. In the United States, profitable drugs fund research in other, less-profitable areas. 15.9% of R&D expenditures in the United States are spent on cancer research, even though cancer drugs only make up ~5% to 7% of sales. That's a disproportionate expenditure.

"With a healthcare provider no longer being part of a money supply it is no longer concerned with having multiple patients for their paycheque but actually keeping people well instead. When a healthcare system succeeds there are fewer people involved. It's not a supply or demand paradigm to being with, and thus the heart of understanding the problem. (fallacy #5)"

Whether money is the concern or not, health care is still subject to supply and demand. There is only x amount of medical resources whereas there is nigh-infinite demand for medical resources. Whether the transaction is in dollars, IOUs, or beans, between patients and providers or government and providers, the difference in supply and demand must result in equilibrium that does not fulfill everyone's needs/wants. Moreover, the financial rewards are certainly part of attracting the best and the brightest to the medical field. As for health-maintenance, it is more of a life-style issue.

"If fewer people are sick the taxes needed to support it are less thus you save money/or use less. If more people are sick then the taxes go up, but the cost is split over the population making it cheaper by volume.

It doesn't matter, either way money goes to the right place, to help people."

In a study of 1992-2000 statistics, the CDC measured who used health care. At 6,125 visits per 1,000 individuals, senior citizens (age 65 or older) accounted for almost half of total visits. Yet, those are the ones that will be most impacted by the administration's proposed UHC rationing scheme.

"Here you can discuss the rationing list in more detail. Go ahead and put everything on the list if you want, see what the cost is. Split it up by total population or available population and it's still cheaper by the dozen than any insurance you could possibly ever have. Reducing your top ten most ridiculous procedures only makes that better."

In our system, if you want a ridiculous procedure, you have to pay for it. A fool and their money are soon parted.

"Stop shooting yourselves. USA has the best doctors for gun shot wounds because you need them and sometimes we call a few up here for assistance. If that were to drastically drop in line with other countries so obviously would your health care costs. (obvious fact #1)"

That's an absurd statement. 20.3% of emergency room visits were due to accidental falls. 9.5% were due to motor vehicle accidents. 5.9% were due to assaults.

Overall Fall Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 2,671.86 Overall All Transport Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 1,423.47 Assault All Injury Causes Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 513.80 Violence-Related Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 17.96

Unintentional All Injury Causes Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 9,194.25 Unintentional Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 5.2

Gunshot injuries constituted less than 3.5% of injuries due to assault and less that 0.00057% of injuries due to accident.

"By putting the incentive on the doctors or to people themselves to live a more healthy lifestyle, that can happen as a community. McD's and high fructose corn syrup aren't it either. (obvious fact #2)"

Doctors can't force people to adopt healthy habits or to change their lifestyle. Moreover, most Americans do not believe that it is the government's job to force such changes.

"This has always been odd how America doesn't have universal healthcare. I hope you can figure it out, but there is clearly many (too many?) misunderstandings and logical errata."

One major "misunderstanding" is the notion that Americans share the exact same priorities or views as that of other nations' people.

"I don't know, if American's get any fatter the land itself might open up under the pressure and also solve the problem. (flippant stupid comment born of frustration #1)"

Combined with your erroneous conclusions, I can't say that I am surprised by your comment. Many Americans live at the extremes, but that is a lifestyle choice.

"Solutions exist but it means looking at it from the perspective of putting yourself all in the same pool. The part of universal means your fellow Americans after all. That's why the expectation is different in other countries as well as the choices they have made."

The assumption that you are making is that solutions don't exist from any other perspective other than universal health care.

"Hope that answers the last post."

It didn't, but it certainly made it clear that you don't have a clue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"with the American system denying services to sick people anyway, it's hard to argue Americans have unmitigated healthcare access if they don't qualify to begin with. (fallacy #1)"

Many of those without insurance get medical care anyways by using emergency rooms as free clinics. In 2006, 17.4% of all emergency room visits were by uninsured individuals. 12% of all emergency room visits were non-emergency. This not only puts a disproportionate burden upon emergency room staff, but it deprives those who really need emergency care from the attention that is required. This also means that the costs are transferred to those who do do pay, in the form of higher fees.

Easy there! I was referring to the American system where some insurance middleman knave tells you if you can go to the doctor or not or goes over some policy number etc.

That sounds like a car accident. People are not cars. Never in my life has that happened. I go to the doctor as I see fit. If it's not serious I make an appointment to a receptionist who use computers. They ask why, they give me a date, I go. (Note this is where you are likely to be delayed a few days if you are dealing with a chronic issue. If it's serious, you just go in and you'll get direct treatment)

Now if I get hurt, an ambulance can come, or I go somewhere and they see my Provincial hospital card, and that's it. It could not be easier unless they were psychic roaming the streets in search of patients.

Oh, recently I came down with something. I called a nurse on a 24/7 number, (Telehealth Ontario) where she confirmed my symptoms, then forwarded my case to my doctor's office. The receptionist called me from the doctor's office within a minute, I came in and I got treatment. If it wasn't during the day I'd go to hospital night staff. This helps buffer the emergency system. In this case it removed my need for emergency care which was done by the doctor team (another doctor in my doctor's team).

Your comment seems off. If a person receives service in an emerg then that is still receiving service. But those who went didn't pay taxes for care since in the American system they were denied insurance. Canada is the other way round. We pay into it. Thus we are our own insurance agent so to speak. This we feel is a worthy citizen obligation.

I think your emergency room comment is a separate issue of doctor shortage as well, which is worldwide btw. Let's move on...

"[Health services should not be guaranteed to] individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." - Ezekiel Emanuel, White House Health czar

wow that's nuts. In fact they probably need more healthcare not less. "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is" ;) Alziemers' sufferers in Canada are treated. In Ontario there is a push to treat children of Autism. I think BC does this already, another Province. This shows it's a system in constant change regarding the list of coverage as the needs of families change. But to then make a blanket claim that all treatments are denied is not the case.

Note that ours is a system of Provincial administrations with a national equalization tax. This is our Canadian constant argument on how this works and duplication or differences of service, so we can't claim perfection.

On fallacy #3 that was not resolved. The comment equated having the companies in the US meant better care, when in fact I don't live in the USA and statistically we live longer. So that's why I thought that argument didn't work. next..

The U.S. population is highly diverse: 12.4% of the 2007 population was foreign-born[...]

whoa, what are you talking about? Available healthcare in Canada isn't based on race. 50% of Toronto is foreign born, in fact Canada has an extremely high if not higher rate of immigration. Thus this is not a winning comparable argument nor would it justify the ranking of America lower than Canada. In this case I'd suggest talking to Americans who live and work in Japan about their healthcare.

[..]Americans are not inclined to let the government dictate diet and so forth.

Food and Drug Administration "http://www.fda.gov". Europe banned trans-fatty acid from food. USA didn't. Guess who will live longer? next...

btw, black and white people are both Americans! I only mentioned that females live longer.. that's it. Both are an aggregate statistic true, thus some go up and some go down. But for you to wander off and pick black and white is quite telling and is not the topic of discussion...geez. I would question access to medical care.

For what it's worth, The Okinawa Centenarian Study, a 25-year medical study of those in Okinawa to go over why they live so long pointed out among other things is that as people moved and they changed their diets. It was the local diet that mattered the most even within genetic variation. So Okinawans who moved to Brazil who ate a Brazil diet died at the rate of Brazillians not Okinawans....next

[...]even though cancer drugs only make up ~5% to 7% of sales. That's a disproportionate expenditure.

Interesting and good point. Thank you. Also USA beats cancer quite well, but not the best. Quote from ctv.ca in 2008 "For breast cancer, Cuba had the highest survival rates -- another country with free health care. The United States was second, and Canada was third, with 82 per cent of women surviving at least five years." http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716/cancer_statistics_080716/20080716/

So I'd have to remove this as an argument given Cuba beats both our super duper drugs and billions of dollars invested. Let's move on. next...

Overall Fall Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 2,671.86 Overall All Transport Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 1,423.47 Assault All Injury Causes Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 513.80 Violence-Related Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 17.96 Unintentional All Injury Causes Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 9,194.25 Unintentional Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000: 5.2 Gunshot injuries constituted less than 3.5% of injuries due to assault and less that 0.00057% of injuries due to accident.

so basically 300,000,000 in US, by the per 100,000:2671.86 = 8,015,580 people are shot every year in the US that don't die. Wow. Good to know albeit a scary stat. Now, that's just injuries, what about fatalities? Can you send the sources? I don't follow. Isn't it safe to say that 100,000:2672 if it went down would save you multiple billions and billions? 300mil / 100,000 is 3000 2671 say $10000 is $80,130,000,000. Even if it's $1000 per injury that's a savings of $8,013,000,000 .

the murder rate is about 5.6 per 100,000 in the US. Canada is 1.93 per 100,000 and Japan around 0.5 . I don't think your country needs to be so angry. It's expensive.

If Americans had a free (as in beer) healthcare system they wouldn't be under such stress.

"By putting the incentive on the doctors or to people themselves to live a more healthy lifestyle, that can happen as a community. McD's and high fructose corn syrup aren't it either. (obvious fact #2)" Doctors can't force people to adopt healthy habits or to change their lifestyle. Moreover, most Americans do not believe that it is the government's job to force such changes.

Sorry, I"m referring to recommendations by the doctor. Ex: I was asked to eat more fish to help cholesterol. I had the option to ask a nutritionist if I wanted to. I passed on that. Note, no cost to me, just options freely given to me to pursue if I want. Doctor's can not make you do anything, they are just there to help you live. I'm not sure what they do with loser patients. Where are you getting this Doctor's Will Control You conspiracy stuff??

"I don't know, if American's get any fatter the land itself might open up under the pressure and also solve the problem. (flippant stupid comment born of frustration #1)" Combined with your erroneous conclusions, I can't say that I am surprised by your comment. Many Americans live at the extremes, but that is a lifestyle choice.

that was a joke y'know but I think you topped me wth "lifestyle choice".

"Solutions exist but it means looking at it from the perspective of putting yourself all in the same pool. The part of universal means your fellow Americans after all. That's why the expectation is different in other countries as well as the choices they have made."

The assumption that you are making is that solutions don't exist from any other perspective other than universal health care.

I though the question was about universal healthcare, where no one loses and everybody wins. (Ideal principle of course, no one is perfect) . You make a list and decide what's covered or not. How on earth would a non-universal healthcare system cover Americans universally? That doesn't sound fair to anyone and would be expensive. I don't think Bill Gates is going to pay for it.

Pay in tiers, pay with taxes, figure it out for your list what to cover or not. Mix and match. Maybe cover everything you want who knows, you certainly have the largest first world population by far so that's a possibility to SURPASS us all. Whatever you do decide how to pay for it.

But first realize that it's about all Americans, all together like at a buffet restaurant about to split up the bill for a payment. Why should anyone get stiffed with a bill they don't owe?

To be truly fair everyone has to be involved to cut the costs. Share the bill. That's it. That's all it ever was.

Cheers

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why should anyone get stiffed with a bill they don't owe?

in the sense that it would be so cheap that every American could afford to pay for their insurance/healthcare even if they never used it. But it would always be there if they did. (Frankly we always do checkups so an ounce of prevention beats the price of a pound of cure and worth the price of citizenship)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites