American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435043]Jackson does not like the Socialist System of Health Care in Argentina, so he goes back to the USA And pays the Capitalist rates for it in the USA.
Sure, he does?[/QUOTE]Actually, I like the system here in Argentina. A network of free public hospitals where the treatment is commensurate with what you pay, and private hospitals for those who would prefer to pay to be treated by doctors who weren't trained in Cuba.

However, the most important point here is that I'm not handing [u]my[/u] [u]bill[/u] for [u]my[/u] [u]health[/u] [u]insurance[/u] to you and expecting you to pay it.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jax

Esten, Black Shirt and WT69, You're smart enough to realize that our government has screwed up healthcare big time. We pay 17% of GDP for health. No other country except Sierra Leone pays over 12%. Yet overall outcomes (longevity, infant mortality, etc) are better in countries that spend much less. Singapore spends 4.5% and people live longer.

You can blame greedy doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and malpractice lawyers. But it's government that allows them to engage in anti-competitive practices, to manipulate Medicare, to sue for no reason, etc.

What exactly did the Affordable Care Act do to improve this, in a substantive way? It's a 2000 page bill that no one understands and that was passed without any member of Congress reading its contents. Apparently the Obama administration recognizes that parts are unworkable, at least on the schedule as stated in the bill. Health expenditures as a % of GDP will almost certainly continue to go up.

I'm very curious what your response will be to Jackson's comment, which offers an actual solution to the problem, instead of just throwing more money into a failed system:

[QUOTE=Jackson;435044]Actually, I like the system here in Argentina. A network of free public hospitals where treatment is commensurate with what you pay, and private hospitals for those who would prefer to pay to be treated by doctors who weren't trained in Cuba. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;435045]What exactly did the Affordable Care Act do to improve this, in a substantive way? It's a 2000 page bill that no one understands and that was passed without any member of Congress reading its contents. [/QUOTE]You can't expect to be taken seriously with bullshit like this. Do your research.

[QUOTE=Jackson;435026]How noble, except your plan requires a system wherein money is taken at gunpoint from people who earned it for themselves, to be used to buy medical services for strangers who do not wish to pay for their own medical needs.

That's morally repugnant.[/QUOTE]Some people would say that denying healthcare to those who cannot afford it, or who have pre-existing conditions, is morally repugnant.

[QUOTE=Jackson;435044]Actually, I like the system here in Argentina. A network of free public hospitals where the treatment is commensurate with what you pay
, and private hospitals for those who would prefer to pay to be treated by doctors who weren't trained in Cuba.

However, the most important point here is that I'm not handing [u]my[/u] [u]bill[/u] for [u]my[/u] [u]health[/u] [u]insurance[/u] to you and expecting you to pay it.[/QUOTE]So when a poor person in Argentina receives medical treatment, who pays for it?

In the last ten years Not Obama, both parties, before our / your time. Obama is trying to help You and Me.

What is so hard for some of you to seeeeeeee that / He does not care what Color you Are.

He cares for All of US.

What can't some of you not SEE?

Tiny read the act. "but it did not sink in."
It is not the greatest, it is a Start, to help the needy In This Country.
S.S, needed changes, but the Republicans have not offered any changes in health care over the last 7-8 years, on howt they would help Our Country.

But, I agree on not sending our hard earned Money to Foreign Countries that hate us...

Over the last 10 years I went to the German Hospital and never paid more than US$35. for each visit.
My Dentist bill was $150. to replace my bridge.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;435045]Esten, Black Shirt and WT69, You're smart enough to realize that our government has screwed up healthcare big time. We pay 17% of GDP for health. No other country except Sierra Leone pays over 12%. Yet overall outcomes (longevity, infant mortality, etc) are better in countries that spend much less. Singapore spends 4.5% and people live longer.

You can blame greedy doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and malpractice lawyers. But it's government that allows them to engage in anti-competitive practices, to manipulate Medicare, to sue for no reason, etc.

What exactly did the Affordable Care Act do to improve this, in a substantive way? It's a 2000 page bill that no one understands and that was passed without any member of Congress reading its contents. Apparently the Obama administration recognizes that parts are unworkable, at least on the schedule as stated in the bill. Health expenditures as a % of GDP will almost certainly continue to go up.

I'm very curious what your response will be to Jackson's comment, which offers an actual solution to the problem, instead of just throwing more money into a failed system:[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;435048]Some people would say that denying healthcare to those who cannot afford it, or who have pre-existing conditions, is morally repugnant.[/QUOTE]Ah yes, the Sandra Fluke strategy wherein she falsely decried that the Republicans wanted to deny women access to health care, when in fact the actual issue was not "access to health care", but "who would pay" for her health care, and specifically for her personal birth control needs.

Only a woman would claim that you are denying her something because you won't buy it for her.

Anyway, for many years the law has compelled every hospital in the USA to treat any person who walked in the door, regardless of their ability to pay, so your insinuation that the current system is "denying healthcare" is factually inaccurate.

However, we were not discussing health care, but health insurance, and while I believe that everyone has a right to access health care services, that right does not include any right to force me pay for your personal needs, health care or otherwise.

Regarding pre-existing conditions, I'm all for eliminating pre-existing conditions as a barrier to buying health insurance if anyone can figure out a way to deal with the inevitable issue of people waiting until they have a health issue before they decide to buy health insurance.

[QUOTE=Esten;435048]So when a poor person in Argentina receives medical treatment, who pays for it?[/QUOTE]It's possible that you may have missed the sarcasm in my previous comments, but I'll play along.

They go to the free public hospitals, which are funded by the Argentina government. These hospitals are very bare-bone, with limited technology and lab resources, and staffed by government employees and doctors working for wages that are substantially less than their private industry counterparts.

I like this system because those who choose not to utilize their financial resources (however meager) to pay for their own medical needs can in fact receive basic medical care, abet care that is equivalent to what they're paying. Simultaneously, those of us who choose to utilize our financial resources to pay for our own medical care can have access to a private, market based health care system.

This is in contrast to socialized medicine in countries like Canada and England, where (for the most part) everybody is forced into the government health care system whether they like it or not, with no private care option.

Nevertheless, the Argentine system of both free public and paid private health care would never work in the USA for a very simple reason: Argentina cannot borrow money internationally, and thus the amount of money they spend on their free public health care system is limited to what they can pay for from their own internally generated tax revenues.

In other words, they are forced to balance their national budget.

However, if we had a system of free public hospitals in the USA, the gutless politicians in charge of our government, bowing to the inevitable political pressure, would borrow another trillion dollars from the Chinese every year (above our current borrowings, mind you), all in the name of "investing" in our medical care system. In addition, there would also be the inevitable creep in employment costs as the same gutless politicians buy the votes of the government employee union members with salary and pension increases, eventually driving the cost of the free public health care system higher than the private care system.

Thanks,

Jax.

A note on the "Argentine Public Heath System", It is falling apart because the gov't is not paying. This year has seen many strikes and basic denial of services. The hospitals can not pay the staff and they have nothing to "work" with. No bandages, no drugs, no nothing. If you need a appointment for something they tell you to come on the first of next month and they will give you a appointment for the FOLLOWING month. So under Queen Cristina, the system no longer works...

[QUOTE=Jackson;435044]Actually, I like the system here in Argentina. A network of free public hospitals where the treatment is commensurate with what you pay, and private hospitals for those who would prefer to pay to be treated by doctors who weren't trained in Cuba.

However, the most important point here is that I'm not handing [u]my[/u] [u]bill[/u] for [u]my[/u] [u]health[/u] [u]insurance[/u] to you and expecting you to pay it.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jax[/QUOTE]Jackson implies that Cuban Medical training is inferior and suspect. That is not true! In spite of the many other problems that Cuba has because of a Communist Dictatorship, medical care is not one of them. Cuba has some of the best care and training in the world. Because of money, the trade embargo, and other problems associated with a communist dictatorship, Cuba does not have medical equipment commensurate with the training, but the training is there.

Jackson also likes the system in Argentina. Why? Because he has money, that is why, and does not have to go to the "free" hospitals unless he wants to. There is no such thing as a "free" hospital, just as there is no free lunch. Someone has to pay. The staff does not work for free, and buildings are not free. The patient does not pay, but someone does. Everyone in Argentina has some form of basic health care. It may not be much, but it is better than nothing. Unfortunately, one cannot say the same about the USA.

What can be said about the USA, is that it is one of the few, if not the only developed country, countries in the world without some form of universal medical care for all citizens.

I deliberately left emergency rooms out of my statement about the USA for obvious reasons.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Jackson;435053]Anyway, for many years the law has compelled every hospital in the USA to treat any person who walked in the door, regardless of their ability to pay, so your insinuation that the current system is "denying healthcare" is factually inaccurate.[/QUOTE]Hospitals do NOT have to treat anyone unless their condition is IMMEDIATELY life threatening. In any other instance, heathcare can be and is denied. Mitt Romney made the same bogus claim a couple years ago.

Mitt Romney says federal law requires hospitals to provide free care (rated [B]'Mostly False'[/B])
[URL]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-federal-laws-requires-hospitals-p/[/URL]

[QUOTE]They go to the free public hospitals, which are funded by the Argentina government. These hospitals are very bare-bone, with limited technology and lab resources, and staffed by government employees and doctors working for wages that are substantially less than their private industry counterparts.[/QUOTE]And the government is funded by taxpayers. So, regarding medical treatment for the poor, it's basically "a system wherein money is taken at gunpoint from people who earned it for themselves, to be used to buy medical services for strangers who do not wish to pay for their own medical needs." Correct?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;435045]Esten, Black Shirt and WT69, Singapore spends 4.5% and people live longer:[/QUOTE]As you know, Singapore has been under 1-party rule since independence. So you can say that Singapore have an authoritarian government, albeit elected within democratic guidelines. Fortunately, it is under "good governance" because the elected government is honest, dedicated, innovative, and planning within a very big picture. Social engineering is very vital to its core everyday message as well as in its long term planning. In other word, Big Brother is not only behind you, but all around you. Not really a problem for industrious, family oriented, law abiding citizens. American society today hardly fit that description.

So, can Americans tolerate that? No way, not even if they promise that every citizen can be a millionaire if you follow the rules. You want to pack a gun. No problem, $500,000 just to obtain a license to buy. Then another $25,000 per year to renew. That's how it works there. Just google their car purchasing process. So you want to smoke pot? Ahhh, you don't want to go there.

As for their living longer, well, you figured that one out. Really, not too hard.

P.S. The gun stuff, I made it up. Just an example of how government regulates activity and everyday life.

[QUOTE=Esten;435061]And the government is funded by taxpayers. So, regarding medical treatment for the poor, it's basically "a system wherein money is taken at gunpoint from people who earned it for themselves, to be used to buy medical services for strangers who do not wish to pay for their own medical needs." Correct?[/QUOTE]Esten,

As a compromise to those who wish to buy votes, I stated that I would support a tax funded system of free public hospitals in the USA. Of course, I'm envisioning concrete block facilities staffed with doctors and nurses trained at tuition-free government medical schools and working for military payscales.

I also said that such a system would never work in the USA because...

[QUOTE]Nevertheless, the Argentine system of both free public and paid private health care would never work in the USA for a very simple reason: Argentina cannot borrow money internationally, and thus the amount of money they spend on their free public health care system is limited to what they can pay for from their own internally generated tax revenues.

In other words, they are forced to balance their national budget.

However, if we had a system of free public hospitals in the USA, the gutless politicians in charge of our government, bowing to the inevitable political pressure, would borrow another trillion dollars from the Chinese every year (above our current borrowings, mind you), all in the name of "investing" in our medical care system. In addition, there would also be the inevitable creep in employment costs as the same gutless politicians buy the votes of the government employee union members with salary and pension increases, eventually driving the cost of the free public health care system higher than the private care system.[/QUOTE]In other words, the liberals would eventually bankrupt such a system, so it's not actually a solution.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435062]As you know, Singapore has been under 1-party rule since independence. So you can say that Singapore have an authoritarian government, albeit elected within democratic guidelines. Fortunately, it is under "good governance" because the elected government is honest, dedicated, innovative, and planning within a very big picture. Social engineering is very vital to its core everyday message as well as in its long term planning. In other word, Big Brother is not only behind you, but all around you. Not really a problem for industrious, family oriented, law abiding citizens. American society today hardly fit that description.

So, can Americans tolerate that? No way, not even if they promise that every citizen can be a millionaire if you follow the rules. You want to pack a gun. No problem, $500,000 just to obtain a license to buy. Then another $25,000 per year to renew. That's how it works there. Just google their car purchasing process. So you want to smoke pot? Ahhh, you don't want to go there.

As for their living longer, well, you figured that one out. Really, not too hard.

P.S. The gun stuff, I made it up. Just an example of how government regulates activity and everyday life.[/QUOTE]Philosophically I don't agree with Singapore's stance on several issues related to civil liberties. But since I don't use drugs or chew gum they don't effect me. Significantly, they don't throw you in jail for seeing prostitutes. The four floors of w*ores (Orchard Towers) there are awesome.

Given issues that are important to me, like taxes, safety and security, quality of public services, rule of law, and ready availability of women, Singapore looks like a very desirable place to live. If you were a woman I'd marry you to get Singapore citizenship, even though I disagree with you on many issues and believe you're too old for me.

On the subject we're discussing, the difference between Singapore and the USA is that Singapore puts a gun to your head and tells you that you must contribute to your own personal savings account for medical care, retirement and education. The United States, in addition to running something like a Ponzi scheme for Medicare, puts a gun to my head and tells me that I must pay for other people's medical insurance. I actually wouldn't have a complaint if I paid a reasonable amount in taxes and IF funds were administered in a way that resulted in efficient, cost-effective, basic medical care being provided for people who really need it and can't afford it through no fault of their own. But that's not the case.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;435070] I actually wouldn't have a complaint if I paid a reasonable amount in taxes and IF funds were administered in a way that resulted in efficient, cost-effective, basic medical care being provided for people who really need it and can't afford it through no fault of their own. But that's not the case.[/QUOTE]So let's be clear. "Government" by itself is neutral, but the kind of society we have determines the kind of people who is in government. And so society gets the kind of government it deserves. So just look around you, or even in the mirror, and the dysfunctional forces that permeates American life. You can say that Singapore has reach the mountain top, but the road ahead is even harder as we have witness what has happen to Japan & the USA.

Three years ago, Geyland mongering reached it's peak. I considered it as one of top 5 red zones in the world. Sadly, it become too rowdy for Singapore, and the iron fist was flashed.

In the future, please refrain from such personal sensitive issues like marriage proposals in the forum.(smile).

Singapore is a densely populated city state on an island with a polyglot of races, albeit the majority is Chinese. They do what has worked best for them after early trial and error. They have found that being authoritarian works for them, and avoids a sanitation problem with concomitant diseases. The big differences between Singapore and the rest of the world are that, they pay police and other civil or public servants a living wage, come down hard on corruption of any form, and have strict, onerous laws which are ENFORCED. If one obeys the law, one still has a great deal of freedom. Contrary to popular belief, Singapore banned chewing gum because youths were using it to disrupt the subways (arguably one of the best in the world) by holding a train car's doors open, thereby stopping the train until the offending doors were cleared.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;435078]Singapore is a densely populated city state on an island with a polyglot of races, albeit the majority is Chinese. They do what has worked best for them after early trial and error. They have found that being authoritarian works for them, and avoids a sanitation problem with concomitant diseases. The big differences between Singapore and the rest of the world are that, they pay police and other civil or public servants a living wage, come down hard on corruption of any form, and have strict, onerous laws which are ENFORCED. If one obeys the law, one still has a great deal of freedom. Contrary to popular belief, Singapore banned chewing gum because youths were using it to disrupt the subways (arguably one of the best in the world) by holding a train car's doors open, thereby stopping the train until the offending doors were cleared.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]Early on, Singapore also had to deal with racial tension between the Chinese and the Malays. The threat of communism was also present as there was no national identity and most Chinese still look to the China as the motherland. With no natural resources except human labor, Singapore by sheer determination, is a vibrant futuristic city state. But now, it is plagued by that killer of ethical & moral instincts, consumerism.