VAT Coming to U.S.?

This is a popular myth and I think a dangerous one. Hospitals are full of things that make people sicker not healthier. MRSA for one.

The number of hospital caused and medically caused illnesses is on the rise.

I have worked in a research hospital and a lot of the research is funded by drug companies who are looking for profitable results for their bottom line; not your health. If research was really aimed at health care, it would work on better diagnosing protocols at the local level to catch health problems before they progressed to the point where you needed that oh so expensive health care and surgery.

And if you remember, the expensive health costs have not lead to having affordable prescription drugs or the elderly wouldn't be trekking up to Canada to buy what they need. And it did not lead to the US having enough of something as basic as flu vaccine..remember how the rest of the world with is so bad universal health care had to send flu vaccine to the US?

Medically, the US is a 3rd world country in terms of availability, general quality and infant mortality.

Funnily enough I received a leaflet from the National Health authorities today. I'm presuming it was sent to all 40-74 yrs old as specified on the leaflet...its' to provide a FREE Health check-up at a neaby hospital. I sent the coupon back to include me in the scheme.....can't harm!

i am talking about major surgery, not health maintenance.

Oh, I'd go Germany or Switzerland for that, plus it's nearer too

The thing is with more preventative care and better diagnostic procedures in you regular doc's office, you can avoid having the major surgery a lot of the time.

Well, that's because the more than ten thousand annual hospital-caused deaths are not financially prohibitive. The bean counters have already adjusted for that

I was so enraged when I read a recent article about the industry's resistance to MRSA screening. Hospitals were essentially whining about the "prohibitively high cost" of screening, when stricter adherence to hand-washing could supposedly result in the same reduction in cases. I was thinking "What, what? You mean hospital staff *could* prevent thousands of deaths yearly by instituting better hand washing, but *won't* unless it's a compromise to a more expensive procedure?!?!?"

It's bad enough that I almost died because of crap like this, but to think that it's due to the apathy of the greedy just makes me rage!


.

People expect the level of competency in our hospitals to INCREASE once the government takes over? Haven't you been to the DMV or the Post Office? Instead of paying $100 for an aspirin and $300 for a bedpan, it'll be $300 for the aspirin and $900 for the bedpan.

And then, only if you've requested it, in writing, on a seven-page triplicate form, and filed it at least three to six weeks in advance...

And the aspririn will go to the bedpan requestor and vice versa.

Please, Mr Teleprompter. Let me continue to manage my own healthcare.

I think the most important point is that hospitals are fundamentally incapable of self-regulation, and whether the government 'takes over' or not, hospitals are currently insufficiently motivated to increase competency.


.

I'd like to see you establish a business that can deliver a letter to any business or household in the country for only 44 cents, typically within 3-5 days. Like any business, the Post Office will have their problems, but being overpriced isn't one of them, even taking into account the indirect subsidies. Nor are the inefficient. I get better, faster service at the post office than at the supermarket or most other retailers.

And the issue isn't having the government take over the hospitals. It's having them take over the health insurance industry.

Good luck pulling that off without causing New Hampshire, Oregon and the other sales-tax free states to revolt. In at least Oregon, a sales tax would violate the state's constitution, which has an amendment expressly prohibiting sales taxes.

Never mind that. I've been alive since Reagan. Since when have we had a president in my lifetime that the title "teleprompter-in-chief" didn't apply to? Ironic that Rush said that, given that Reagan was so braindead by the end of his term that he couldn't even read a teleprompter and had to wear a wire with someone reading him the speech he was giving.

No kidding. I stand to pay lower taxes, and get greater return for my tax dollars invested, by emigrating to Canada. Coincidentally, the unemployment rate is much lower and my field is actually in demand in Canada. There's so few jobs in Oregon, that my college's career counselor actually suggested seppuku is a good route for a civil engineering major planning to stay in the state. If I've gotta leave Oregon, it's for greener pastures both politically (which eliminates everything but rural Washington, Alaska and western Canada) and economically (Alaska hasn't had an economy since the Alaska Pipeline construction boom ended prior to my existence, rural Washington suffers a similar lack of people and thus lack of local economy).

I wouldn't use California as an example. They're known for being so selfish and stupid as to vote against their own best interest: They invented neo-conservatism and gave us Ronald Reagan, which enabled the Bush legacy. Of *course* they're going to shoot down any revenue measure no matter how extreme the need. Why do you think they still owe the Bonneville Power Administration money from the power crisis? If you live in the BPA area, you're still paying higher rates because some Californians didn't want to turn off some lights, turn down the air conditioning OR pay their electric bill earlier this decade. Nobody should be surprised that Prop 8 or the tax measures went the way it did given those events: Common sense always loses in California every time.

Want to use a state as an example of who is doing things right? Try looking to Vermont.

Well, California's gotta do something to stop the flood of productions leaving California for Portland and Vancouver, BC so they don't have to deal with the overpaid, self-absorbed, self-important wannabes Hollywood attracts...

That'll teach Red Green for running to New York to dodge PST and GST...

Actually, that's why it's being given serious consideration. It soaks the poor, allowing big money to stay big. We're all about regressive taxing...that's why the highest wage earners pay the smallest brackets for things like social security.

Sometimes, it's foresight is creepy. This headline from January 17, 2001 still haunts me for it's amazing accuracy.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784

obviously.
but if i am given a choice of having brain surgery in a private american hospital rather than a public australian hospital... im flying to the states. and i have no doubt this is due to the vast amount of $ involved in the american medical system.
as far as the local level, youve obviously never seen a bulk-billing doctors office!

What's really bad is that MSNBC, CNN and especially Fox don't take themselves as seriously as their remaining audience does. Jon Stewart accidentally coined the phrase "Roll 212!" as meaning any time big media is taken to the toolshed by someone who shouldn't be qualified to make such a judgement call getting it right when the "expert" getting grilled got it wrong.

And by the way, Jon Stewart is proud of the fact that The Daily Show is the highest rated program on CNN in Europe. That's pretty warped that CNN carries TDS in the first place!

of anyone who ever lived who could've used a teleprompter (let alone a brain), it was gwb. ;0

if you got yourself some jolly great healthcare, good for you, but don't lie and make it out like you will have your plans taken away from you just so the rest of us can get -some- coverage, -any- coverage... if you can afford to pay it, there'll be someone ready to take your money. most of us live without any at all. (and then some conservative folk's idea of a 'solution' is 'make going uninsured -illegal-' ... LOL!! ;0 what parts of the world that don't already despise us for such backwards-assed thinking, can only pity us.) besides, i want something back from my federal tax-money other than killing the poor and needy somewhere overseas (our troops and their citizens) and swelling the neck-sacks of warmongers.

;0 anyhow, far off original topic, folks... the feds really do need to clean out the offshore taxhavens and loopholes of all the megazillion corporations first... then (re)legalize da hemp for at least industrial purposes (textile/papermill). it would be like practically 'inventing a whole new economy' right there... if it hadn't already been invented before, then stamped out by maniacal monopolists -last- century. along with 'greening' our energy production, sure it's gonna be messy, and some formerly rich people won't be so gol-danged rich as they were before, but boo-hoo; they'll live.

chaotic systems grow grey and turbulent as they approach state-changes... ride the surf, folks.

Of course, if the American tariff system weren't horribly broken in the first place, it wouldn't be cheaper to offshore goods and services because the tariffs would make up the difference in price between foreign goods and labor and American labor in the US.

Do you really think companies would outsource call centers to India for 10¢/hour if they had to pay $10/hour in tarriffs to level the playing field for American labor for services serving the US? They'd be more likely to hire Americans. And if they do offshore the jobs anyway, they'd be generating needed tarriff revenue for the government.

Bad government spending decisions compounded by a lack of American jobs and a tariff system that makes it cheaper for revenue to escape the country's economy completely means no matter who's in charge, it's gonna take at least a decade, probably longer, for the US to recover.

The government does a good job handling other basic society needs like roads, police and fire, so why not complete the circle? Just because you want to do it the hard way doesn't mean it's the best way for society as a whole.

That being said, taxpayer-provided health insurance wouldn't do away with private healthcare. If you want to do it the hard way, all you have to do is look to Canada for an example of private and public healthcare coexisting.

You might want to stay out of Oregon if you're a fan of big pharma. We're not waiting around for the rest of the country to join the rest of the first world on getting this right.

How do you figure? People who are below median income would be paying a much higher percentage of their net worth in taxes than someone who makes residual income (and the overall tax rate goes down with the more residual you make).

This kind of rationale is what Reagan used to cap the social security brackets at $100,000. Someone who makes $100,000 is paying as much into social security as someone who makes $200,000 and the same as someone who makes $2,000,000.

Why is social security going broke? Because the people who can afford to pay into it aren't. Freeing those who benefit the most from civilized society should not be those who are least obligated to pay for it's upkeep.

Even if you exclude shelter and food, sales taxes are, by definition, regressive. Lower wage earners have to spend a much larger (if not all) of their net worth just to pay the bills. If you want to discourage people from becoming high wage earners, make the cost of living prohibitive for college students, and tell them to go pick up the tab on crippling tuition and tell them if they get seriously sick or hurt, they might need to win the lottery to pay it down.