Looks like McCain is now clutching at straws with new negative ads and dispatching Palin around the country to question Obama's character and patriotism. Desperate times..... 
U.S. Presidential Race: Official Thread
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Looks like McCain is now clutching at straws with new negative ads and dispatching Palin around the country to question Obama's character and patriotism. Desperate times.....
This campaign has gotten pretty disgusting. Mostly on McCains lead I think. Just one more thing to turn the voters off.
Agreed. Its going to look like an act of deperation to voters. Obama is also going negative re-earthing McCain's ties to the Keating Five, presumably to preemptively counter McCain's negative ads. Sending Palin out to bash Obama is a bit rich on McCain's part given that she herself is under investigation and ducked half the questions in last week's debate.
The fact that the wealthiest people from other coutnries come here for medical care doesn't make ours the best system in teh eworld. By paying top dollar, they're getting access to care that you or I might have difficulty getting ourselves. And top-end, global-elite, best in the world type specialist account for only a very small percentage of our docs. Most of us get care that no one in their right mind would travel more than an hour for, let alone fly across the world.
And another thing. It's not just the US that is destination for overseas patients. Many now go to other parts of the world, including poorer countries such as Thailand and India, because the doctors are nearly as good in many cases, but the costs are dramatically less.
Having a few of the best specialiists in the world doesn't mean we have the best system. It would be like Serie A having two great teams (let's say Inter and AC Milan), who make the CL semis or finals every year, without fail. Often they play each other in the final. But below them, the league is in disarray. Several clubs can't pay their players wages, and their are pitch invasions nearly every week. The Italian teams in the UEFA get embarassed in teh first round, every year, by team fr even tiny countries like ALbania. The lower clubs pay very high wages, among the higest in teh world, but outside of AC and Inter, it's a mess.
In that situation...would it be fair to say that Serie A is the best league in the world? Sure, the best of the best want to go there (to AC and Inter, of course), but outside those two, the league itself is really quite weak. And that's our healthcare system. Great stuff at the top. Turmoil below. We're not the best league in the world. Not even close.
What the feck are you talking about, the doctors and equipment in the US are from top to bottom the best in the world. I don't think a football analogy is exactly gonna explain the healthcare system. It does speak to the US being on the cutting edge in regards to treatment options though. My question for you, is that if there was standardized health care for a rare sort of treatment say proton therapy for prostate cancer how would you decided who would get the treatment when no matter how you cut it there just arent enough medical proton accelerators to treat everyone, thus making an even level of standardized health care impossible.
Well, there's always the several billion dollars a month we spend in Iraq. And if McCain wins, we're going to be there for the next 4-8 years at least, so the spending woudl continue. Over the last six years, how many billions have we poured into that fiscal black hole? We're not going to win over there. We can't. The different sects in Iraqi aren't ever going to get along teh way the French and Belgians do. There's a just a wee little bit more antipathy and mistrust.
If a Democrat had started that war, he'd be crucified in the conservative press for spilling the blood of our soldiers without having a clear plan for either getting in, or getting out. The Dem President, they would say, has a fundamental misunderstanding of what the military is for, and he doesn't appreciate the loyalty and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. And in addition, they would say, he has spent money like it's going out of style, with no end in sight. Those crazy Democrats - spend, spend, spend. No need to ever think about how you're going to pay for it, because fiscal responsibility is anathema to those loony liberal Democrats.
He'd be crucified by the right, and you know what? They'd be right to do it.
Not exactly sure I understand the question, but I assume you're positing a situation where there's a new treatment that will save lives, but there aren't enough machines/specialist to treat everyone. How would you decide who gets treated, is that what you're asking?
Well I'm not a doctor, or an Administrator in the field of healthcare, so I don't have an exact answer. But do you think that that sort of scarcity doesn't happen already? How is it decided right now, under this system, who gets access to treatment and who doesn't? I couldn't say. But in either model of paying for healthcare, this problem is going to crop up when the demand exceeds the supply, whether it be for specialists, equipment, experimental drugs, innovative rehabilitation measures, or prosthetic body parts.
The fact that not everyone would be exactly equal is not really a problem. Just because the government subsidizes healthcare doesn't mean that we have to main a China-during-the-Cultural-Revolution level of equality.
Then what is the point of standardizing, there is always gonna be a gap and the wealthy are always gonna be able to afford the best treatment
You're joking, right?
Under the current system, yes. If there's a limited resource, those who pay the most will likely get it. But if it is part of a government-run system, the few available slots won't go to the richest. It would probably be done based on need, or by a lottery, or by putting your name on the list and waiting your turn. This, incidentally, is how organ transplants work. You put your name on the list and wait for your turn to come up, then wait for a donor. Doesn't matter how much money you have, or who you know.
Actually it does, although that is in rare cases I will admit, that said, you are talking about organ transplants something that in most cases you have several months and even years to wait, a lottery system would be about as inefficient as you could get. And also it's not like the government is gonna be able to tell physicians who to perform procedures on and treat etc., I think that if they did the health care system would fall flat on its face as a result of physician discontent, after all the most important people in medicine are those who practice medicine. If there is one thing the government has proven over the past 20 years is that they are incompetent, why do you think they should get to foul up the healthcare system, which is what inevitably will happen. You know if the US wasnt in war with shithead 1 and 2 in the moment, yeah the US would have enough money to foot the bill for those who are too lazy to work and get health insurance, but to think that an institution as corrupt as the US government will do anything good with their involvement is naive and borderline idiotic
I'm a bit confused, why are you talking about universal healthcare like it's such an unknown quantity when it has been in use in countries all over the world for decades.
I just did a quick google: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Finland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Czech Rep., Hungary, Poland, Slovakia have universal healthcare.
The U.S.A has (by far and away) the highest per capita spending on healthcare in the world. -Link-
and for all that money you get a health system that ranks 37th in the world according to the WHO -Link-
If I had anything wrong with me, I would want the procedure performed in the United States without a doubt. And when people have enough money they come to the United States more often than not to have medical work done. I have said the problem is/are the insurance and drug companies, but it's not like they are gonna go anywhere. You talk about the US as if it is a normal country.
I have absolutely no idea who you are referring to.
Your antipathy for those who cannot afford to purchase health insurance is quite frankly pathetic. Do you have any idea how much it costs if you try to purchase coverage by yourself, if you are either self-employed, a freelancer, or you work for a company that doesn't offer benefits? I'm guessing you don't, so I'll tell you: it's a lot. Really, quite a bit. Seriously, it's very, very expensive. A fecking shitload of money, and if you have a family as well, bend over beacuse they are really going to stick it to you. But to you, everyone who doesn't have coverage is obviously a fat, non-white welfare mother with six kids by 5 different fathers who sits at home all day, drinking malt liquor, eating fried baloney sandwiches and swearing at the television set. Why should I pay for her fat ass, you say to yourself. That's an outrage! An outrageous outrage of outrageously large proportion, larger even than this Welfare Queen's posterior, which is really quite ample!
I think maybe you watch too much Fox News. Either that or you listen to the Rush Limbaugh Radio Program a little too often, I can't tell which. I recommend you try something a bit more enlightening, for example:
-getting hit on the head with blunt object
-chewing on tin foil
-knitting humorous cummerbunds
-sitting on the toilet and reading the local paper
These are just a few of the many activities that would better prepare you a for a rational discussion of public policy, but I don't have time to list them all so these four will have to do for now. Give it a go if you like, then come back and share your thoughts.
The American health care system is completely screwed up. We spend far more than any other country in the world but the health care is only rated average. With 80 million uninsured Americans, it makes you wonder why the per capita spending is so damned high. Not to mention the 1.9 million Americans that are forced into bankruptcy by medical bills each year, many of whom have insurance.
National health care systems like the UK's and Canada's would be just fine with proper funding. Imagine what the care would be like in the UK if it received 2.5 times its current budget.
National health care systems like the UK's and Canada's would be just fine with proper funding. Imagine what the care would be like in the UK if it received 2.5 times its current budget.
Not a fan of either, doesnt mean I dont stand by what I said. I never said that it wasnt expensive but in the end it is that important people should be spending their money on their health as opposed to wasting it on material objects, it's as simple as that. Weird how people will drop 65k on a car, but not 2.5k on health insurance, which in most cases is less. Weird how the premiums rise if you smoke or regularly drink, go figure that is really surprising.
Right, the government should stick to foreign nation-building and Keeping the World Safe for Democracy. Shining City on the Hill, right?
You bet I do, and that retort just strengthens my argument, the government will inevitably feck it up they get their hands on it mark my words
The way the debate has been framed in the US, socialized medicine is some sort of slippery slope toward full-blown socialism, if not worse. They'll tell you which doctor you have to see! There won't be any choice! You'll wait years for an appointment! You'll catch herpes from the toilet seat in the bathroom outside the lobby! But most of all, it will take away...our Freedom!
Freedom with a capital F is a big deal here. No one knows what it actual means of course, but we know it's really good. And we have more of it than anywhere in the world, and everyone else looks up to us because of it! But also...that's why they hate us. You know who I'm talking about. They hate us because they hate Freedom.
Way to distort the argument. The average car costs well under $30k, yet the average cost of health insurance for a family is around $4k (subsidized) or $9k if you have to buy your own. And the cars depreciation is only about $4k a year over 5 years, plus you need the car to get to work to pay for your health insurance.
Yes, most of the uninsured who show up in free clinics and Emergency Rooms for their care drive $65,000 cars. The parking lot is full of BMWs and Lexi. Something must be done to address this terrible problem.
Seriously, put the pipe down, you're scaring me.
It drops 4k once you drive it off the lot
True.....BUT after five years the average $28k car is worth around $8k.....do the math.
Tough to estimate, but I'd say that's in the ballpark. A little low though would be my guess. I'm 38, single, no history of illness, don't smoke, social drinker, no drugs, excellent cardiovascular health from having been an amateur athlete all my adult life. I pay $7000 a year, and because of injuries sustained in an accident last spring, for the past two years I have also met the $2500 out-of-pocket maximum. So I've paid $9500 for each of the past two years. And I consider myself lucky, because my insurance is actually quite good, it covers nearly everything. Many people are not so lucky, and if I'd been uninsured after my accident...I would have been completely and totally fecked.
In the most recent in-depth investigation of the issue, a 2001 study found that approximately half of the 1700 bankruptcy filers they interviewed cited health care costs as a significant factor in their bankruptcy. The researchers estimate that about 2 million people per year were driven into bankruptcy by medical bills. Think that number has gone up or down since then, given that health care costs have risen dramatically? I'm going to take a wild guess and say that it's gone...up. Sharply.
Then there are people like me. Pre-existing condition, can't get health insurance. So, if I get sick, I die.
Please explain how awesome that is, would you Alex?
Please explain how awesome that is, would you Alex?
I think he would say that you're obviously some sort of fat, alcoholic shirker with a two-pack-a-day habit and a brand new Lexus. Get a job, you hippie. Why do you hate America?
I'm paraphrasing.
The only real problem with the NHS is funding. The US spends over 2.5 times per capita more on health care than the UK. For that extra investment the US system is ranked below 20th in the world in terms of health care provided, we have 80(ish) million uninsured, AND nearly 2 million people are forced in to bankruptcy each each because of medical debts...many of which HAVE insurance.
The US health care system is a joke when you factor in the revenues it receives and care it provides. If the UK system had a 40% increase in funding it the care would be amazing, and that would still only be 50% of US health spending. Even with the relatively low funding levels its still a fairly good system.
Just before we emigrated to the US my mother, grandmother and sister were all diagnosed with breast cancer within a few days. All three of them had surgery within days, made full recoveries and it didn't cost them a penny at POS.
My nephew in the UK had a devastating head injury earlier this years. He had airlifts, three surgeries by the best brain surgeons money could could buy, four weeks in high dependency intensive care, 6 weeks in intensive care, and several months of follow up treatment. Total cost to my sister at POS, zero pennies.
The US health care system is a joke when you factor in the revenues it receives and care it provides. If the UK system had a 40% increase in funding it the care would be amazing, and that would still only be 50% of US health spending. Even with the relatively low funding levels its still a fairly good system.
Just before we emigrated to the US my mother, grandmother and sister were all diagnosed with breast cancer within a few days. All three of them had surgery within days, made full recoveries and it didn't cost them a penny at POS.
My nephew in the UK had a devastating head injury earlier this years. He had airlifts, three surgeries by the best brain surgeons money could could buy, four weeks in high dependency intensive care, 6 weeks in intensive care, and several months of follow up treatment. Total cost to my sister at POS, zero pennies.
Tonight's Debate is being covered by the BBC from 1am (UK Time).
It's clear that insurance companies need to be reformed in several ways, but that doesn't mean changing the whole system. Government money is needed but not their oversight. Of course I feel sorry for redwood, but what is your response to the average drug addict alcoholic overeater getting unlimited health insurance ans still superceding redwood to the treatment because he has a more serious condition is that anymore fair
IF all the current health care revenue (personal insurance premiums, company contributions, SS) were directed into one nationalized system it would be MORE than enough to provide first rate free health care for every American. That would be more than 2.5 the funding of the UK NHS.
it isn't going to happen but it would be nice if it did.
The debate starts at 2am UK Time.
I've been reading all of the comments of late with some interest. Obviously the US is a special case. For one, obesity is rampant, a result of many factors including lifestyle and culture and that would be severely taxing on a publicly funded healthcare system. For the US to have such a system it would require a monumental effort in educating people to take care of their health, and you'd still have fatties saying that they have a right to eat as much as they want, etc. Probably a challenge to the constitution as well.
Then you have the task of deciding which procedures are covered and which aren't, then the influence of special interest and lobby groups trying to change legislation to ensure coverage for their interests. It would be a nightmare and would take 20 years to solve and get running correctly.
How are free clinics in the US, Alex? Are they mostly run by charitable foundations? Perhaps the government could direct funding to these ventures for the poorest and middling income people.
Now to the socialism argument. I find it quite funny that people in the US don't recognize their system is already quite socialist. The Welfare system, for one, is so socialist it hurts. A $700 Billion bailout? Holy feck it's socialism!
The list goes on....
I don't believe that for a second. Do you have some statistics to back that up. With a quick search the population of the US is 301 million, UK 60 million. That's 5 times the population. I'm also thinking that might not include undocumented workers here either. There is also a need to look at paying for such a plan. I don't know the numbers but I've thought the UK tax rate is substantially higher than the US. Something along the lines of 27% to 40%. I could be way off with that though.
If you want to see how nationalized system work just look at social security. There is a reasonable probablity that when I retire I will have paid into the system my whole life and there will be nothing left for me to collect. I'm not saying privatizing would have done any better but government, especially big government, can't accomplish shit. It's proven time and time again.
Per Capita health care spending has nada to do with population or taxation. The US spends over 2.5 times more per capita on health care than the UK. If the UK could increase the NHS spending by 2.5 times it would be one hell of a system.
The money is in the US health care system to give every man, woman and child first rate health care BUT the system is failing.
Per Capita health care spending has nada to do with population or taxation. The US spends over 2.5 times more per capita on health care than the UK. If the UK could increase the NHS spending by 2.5 times it would be one hell of a system.
The money is in the US health care system to give every man, woman and child first rate health care BUT the system is failing.
Sorry, I don't see per capita. I was taking what you were saying as total expenditure.
That is a fair point. It's variable in regards to who runs them. One of the problems is the US medical aids to developing countries, why, it's not our fecking problem nor should the American people pay for it by paying out the ass for the drugs. I agree with you on welfare as well I am get a fecking a job, the only people who deserve welfare are government employees who were injured in wars. The bailout is a disgrace and I saw this crash coming from miles away, it's amazing wallstreet gave out over 100 billion in bonuses in Christmas last how does that work.
Per Capita health care spending has nada to do with population or taxation. The US spends over 2.5 times more per capita on health care than the UK. If the UK could increase the NHS spending by 2.5 times it would be one hell of a system.
The money is in the US health care system to give every man, woman and child first rate health care BUT the system is failing.
It's going to the insurance companies, still comparing the US and the UK is comparing apples and oranges.
Why are you so certain that a system that's in use all over the world couldn't work in the US?
The only explanation I can see is that americans are fatter and lazier than everyone else, and therefore don't deserve it.
Not speaking for Alex but Americans are jaded because of experience. The government has shown time after time they are not capable of handling large social welfare projects or just about any project for that matter. Things end up working very poorly and costing many times what they should. Perhaps our governments aren't run as well, I don't know.
Except medicare, which has the lowest administrative costs of socialized medicine programs in the world.