As you can see the US Government spends far less on healthcare compared to other developed countries relying more on the private sector and yet it's also far less efficient. What a shame. With the size of the US GDP it should have had by far the best healthcare system in the world if it had a universal healthcare system in place like all other advanced nations. But unfortunately due to the lobbying and buying out of US politicians by the medical insurance lobby as well as those ideologically opposed to any idea of helping out others using the State (though not opposed when it comes to other services such as the Police, Fire fighters, Postal Service etc), many Americans are suffering as a result.
Universal healthcare is fantastic unless you actually need healthcare ...
I don't have a primary care physician because (almost) no GP within 100 KM is accepting new patients, and if I need to see a doctor it is (usually) a 4 to 8 hour wait at the local clinic. For similar reasons my 1 year old nephew doesn't have a pediatrician, and he has been on a waiting list since before he was born. I have a friend who broke their arm tobogganing and spent 6 hours in the ER before seeing a doctor, and my father spent 3 years waiting on a variety of waiting lists to get through the process of getting knee replacement surgery.
In Canada the Universal Healthcare system has brought about significant equality among the masses by making it equally poor for everyone who is not super wealthy or well connected.
In all countries around the world poor or advanced, there is the private option to take out if you want. Doesn't cost an arm or a leg in the UK and compliments our NHS quite well. Presumably you can take out private care in Canada as well. Also based on the figures I provided, despite what you say the Canadian healthcare system is still a lot more efficient than the US equivalent.
While private healthcare isn't illegal in Canada, except for a handful of private clinics that provide care for well connected (often politicians), private healthcare has effectively been banned under the Canadian health act; and efforts to increase access to healthcare through privately paid for or delivered healthcare are often met by threats to remove federal funding to the province that initiates the changes.
Although, in a round about way, Canadains can pay for healthcare by traveling to the United States, India, Mexico and several other popular destinations which (often) provide a better quality of care at a lower price with shorter wait times.
The reason why socialised health care is cheaper is that you have a monopsony (single buyer) of health care. If you want to practice in a socialised system you effectively need to sell your service to the government and as a monopsony it has the ability to pay less than what the market price may have otherwise been. On the other hand if you have large private companies with an imperitive to increase profits year after year, they'll have an incentive to not only charge more but also try to influence regulation in their favour as well.
That is what you get with most of the population fat and unhealthy. Relying on prescription drugs rather than address the real problem. Americans have become too lazy and will take a cure all pill for anything even though that pill is only hiding symptoms (and probably causing more problems). Too bad the only way to really address it is with a lifestyle change. Eating as little processed foods as possible and rarely going to fast food is a start. Eating what you are supposed to goes a long way. If you eat shit then you will probably become shit. You are what you eat.
Thats nor just a US problem but WW.
Well i guess you´re right but most people are lazy and like to eat shit and drink alot. I dont think we can do anything about it...
Sure you can.
It'll have everyone screaming bloody murder in the streets.
Its called "Letting Darwin Do His Thing"
Cut off all subsidies. All freebies. Make people pay for their care, or go to a charity that can help them with their problem on a case-by-case basis. Then, if someone wants to eat cheetoes for lunch and have Mt. Dew for dinner, or have unprotected, STD-ridden sex all the time, they are free to do it. But if they won't get a free ride. In one generation, you'd have all the lazy, (physically) useless people gone, and the ones that survived knowing what it takes to live life proper and in good health. Not because its just the right thing to do, but its the most affordable way to go.
Of course, such a method requires smaller government and a responsible populace. Those are the core reasons we have the problems we do today.
You are such a heartless fuck, stick. Do you know what would happen if we did what you suggest? SOCIETY WOULD COLLAPSE. No, it is a moral imperative that we continue the nanny state until the government collapses and society along with it.
The truth is any part of the economy which actually relies upon the physical labour of anyone is horribly inefficient. The free ride comes from fossil fuels, not government mandate and it doesn't matter how hard you work because noone could sustain even $3 a day GDP without them. A libertarian is just as guilty as anyone else of the fact that human society is based upon a finite resource with no easy replacement, a catch 22 caused strictly speaking from people doing as they please to the detriment of future generations.
What is a REALLY good justification for benefits/entitlements? You don't have an option to opt out of the system. This isn't the good old days of small government and big liberty where anyone could settle down anywhere and eke a life out for themselves. It simply isn't possible to get a rifle and live out of your backpack like some pioneer because all the land is preallocated to someone or something.
U.S. government spending for Medicare, Medicaid and other healthcare programs will more than double over the next decade to $1.8 trillion, or 7.3 percent of the country's total economic output, congressional researchers said on Tuesday.
In its annual budget and economic outlook, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said that even under its most conservative projections, healthcare spending would rise by 8 percent a year from 2012 to 2022, mainly as a result of an aging U.S. population and rising treatment costs. It will continue to be a key driver of the U.S. budget deficit.
Medicare, the federal healthcare program for the elderly, accounts for about half the projected growth, with Medicaid at roughly one-third and the remainder attributed to new federal subsidies to help lower income Americans purchase insurance under President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare overhaul.
Spending is expected to dip this year to $847 billion, from $856 billion in 2011, because extra federal money to help cash-strapped states pay for Medicaid ended last July. The healthcare program for the poor, Medicaid is jointly funded by federal and state governments.
But researchers warned that the longer term prospects for rising healthcare spending could have dire consequences for the U.S. deficit when combined with the cost of Social Security, if current revenue levels remain unchanged.
"The resulting deficits will increase federal debt to unsupportable levels," the CBO report said.
"To prevent that outcome, policymakers will have to substantially restrain the growth of spending for those programs, raise revenues above their historical share of GDP, or pursue some combination of those two approaches."
The data present the latest sobering news for Obama and lawmakers in Congress, who have spent months wrangling over how best to reduce a federal deficit that is expected to hover above $1 trillion in 2012 for the fourth year in a row.
The report is likely to feature prominently in the 2012 presidential campaign, where Republicans Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are vying for the support of fiscal conservatives to win the party nomination and face Obama in the November general election.
CBO also cited the cost of granting physicians a long-term reprieve from a Medicare reimbursement mechanism that is scheduled to impose a 27 percent pay cut on doctors in March.
The report said keeping physician payments at current levels through 2022 would cost the federal government $316 billion, up from last year's CBO estimate of $290 billion.
Lawmakers in Congress are trying to reach a deal on a one- or two-year "doc fix" under Medicare.
Foregoing reduced payment rates would cost the government $9 billion in 2012 and $19 billion 2013. The charge would rise sharply in later years to $47 billion in 2022 and $15 billion in additional debt service costs.
That is what you get with most of the population fat and unhealthy. Relying on prescription drugs rather than address the real problem. Americans have become too lazy and will take a cure all pill for anything even though that pill is only hiding symptoms (and probably causing more problems). Too bad the only way to really address it is with a lifestyle change. Eating as little processed foods as possible and rarely going to fast food is a start. Eating what you are supposed to goes a long way. If you eat shit then you will probably become shit. You are what you eat.
Thats nor just a US problem but WW.
Well i guess you´re right but most people are lazy and like to eat shit and drink alot. I dont think we can do anything about it...
Sure you can.
It'll have everyone screaming bloody murder in the streets.
Its called "Letting Darwin Do His Thing"
Cut off all subsidies. All freebies. Make people pay for their care, or go to a charity that can help them with their problem on a case-by-case basis. Then, if someone wants to eat cheetoes for lunch and have Mt. Dew for dinner, or have unprotected, STD-ridden sex all the time, they are free to do it. But if they won't get a free ride. In one generation, you'd have all the lazy, (physically) useless people gone, and the ones that survived knowing what it takes to live life proper and in good health. Not because its just the right thing to do, but its the most affordable way to go.
Of course, such a method requires smaller government and a responsible populace. Those are the core reasons we have the problems we do today.
You are such a heartless fuck, stick. Do you know what would happen if we did what you suggest? SOCIETY WOULD COLLAPSE. No, it is a moral imperative that we continue the nanny state until the government collapses and society along with it.
The truth is any part of the economy which actually relies upon the physical labour of anyone is horribly inefficient. The free ride comes from fossil fuels, not government mandate and it doesn't matter how hard you work because noone could sustain even $3 a day GDP without them. A libertarian is just as guilty as anyone else of the fact that human society is based upon a finite resource with no easy replacement, a catch 22 caused strictly speaking from people doing as they please to the detriment of future generations.
What is a REALLY good justification for benefits/entitlements? You don't have an option to opt out of the system. This isn't the good old days of small government and big liberty where anyone could settle down anywhere and eke a life out for themselves. It simply isn't possible to get a rifle and live out of your backpack like some pioneer because all the land is preallocated to someone or something.
Actually, natural gas is a pretty easy replacement for the short term.
The truth is any part of the economy which actually relies upon the physical labour of anyone is horribly inefficient. The free ride comes from fossil fuels, not government mandate and it doesn't matter how hard you work because noone could sustain even $3 a day GDP without them. A libertarian is just as guilty as anyone else of the fact that human society is based upon a finite resource with no easy replacement, a catch 22 caused strictly speaking from people doing as they please to the detriment of future generations.
What is a REALLY good justification for benefits/entitlements? You don't have an option to opt out of the system. This isn't the good old days of small government and big liberty where anyone could settle down anywhere and eke a life out for themselves. It simply isn't possible to get a rifle and live out of your backpack like some pioneer because all the land is preallocated to someone or something.
Actually, natural gas is a pretty easy replacement for the short term.
The truth is any part of the economy which actually relies upon the physical labour of anyone is horribly inefficient. The free ride comes from fossil fuels, not government mandate and it doesn't matter how hard you work because noone could sustain even $3 a day GDP without them. A libertarian is just as guilty as anyone else of the fact that human society is based upon a finite resource with no easy replacement, a catch 22 caused strictly speaking from people doing as they please to the detriment of future generations.
What is a REALLY good justification for benefits/entitlements? You don't have an option to opt out of the system. This isn't the good old days of small government and big liberty where anyone could settle down anywhere and eke a life out for themselves. It simply isn't possible to get a rifle and live out of your backpack like some pioneer because all the land is preallocated to someone or something.
Actually, natural gas is a pretty easy replacement for the short term.
The truth is any part of the economy which actually relies upon the physical labour of anyone is horribly inefficient. The free ride comes from fossil fuels, not government mandate and it doesn't matter how hard you work because noone could sustain even $3 a day GDP without them. A libertarian is just as guilty as anyone else of the fact that human society is based upon a finite resource with no easy replacement, a catch 22 caused strictly speaking from people doing as they please to the detriment of future generations.
What is a REALLY good justification for benefits/entitlements? You don't have an option to opt out of the system. This isn't the good old days of small government and big liberty where anyone could settle down anywhere and eke a life out for themselves. It simply isn't possible to get a rifle and live out of your backpack like some pioneer because all the land is preallocated to someone or something.
Actually, natural gas is a pretty easy replacement for the short term.
Depends how long you consider long term. There are plenty of resources to last for decades.
Your graph is just.... silly.
It assumes that once oil runs out we're back to oil and firewood.
Ignoring things like... natural gas, nuclear power, and renewable energy, that in a few decades would hopefuly be viable.
I mean, how simple would it be, when we hit an oil decline, say that 98 to use 8 units of Natural gas... which right now is actually CHEAPER then oil.
Pretty simple really.
We can add all the energy we need any year, because there is TONS of untapped energy, that's actually cheaper then what we use now.
The words are 'hopefully be viable'?
Renewable energy doesn't exist without the massive subsidy from fossil fuel energy, ditto for nuclear. The scale of present natural gas and coal extraction wouldn't be possible without the input of oil because you need to invest energy to get energy back. The reason why natural gas is cheaper than oil is simply because it isn't nearly as useful.
The truth is any part of the economy which actually relies upon the physical labour of anyone is horribly inefficient. The free ride comes from fossil fuels, not government mandate and it doesn't matter how hard you work because noone could sustain even $3 a day GDP without them. A libertarian is just as guilty as anyone else of the fact that human society is based upon a finite resource with no easy replacement, a catch 22 caused strictly speaking from people doing as they please to the detriment of future generations.
What is a REALLY good justification for benefits/entitlements? You don't have an option to opt out of the system. This isn't the good old days of small government and big liberty where anyone could settle down anywhere and eke a life out for themselves. It simply isn't possible to get a rifle and live out of your backpack like some pioneer because all the land is preallocated to someone or something.
Actually, natural gas is a pretty easy replacement for the short term.
Depends how long you consider long term. There are plenty of resources to last for decades.
Your graph is just.... silly.
It assumes that once oil runs out we're back to oil and firewood.
Ignoring things like... natural gas, nuclear power, and renewable energy, that in a few decades would hopefuly be viable.
I mean, how simple would it be, when we hit an oil decline, say that 98 to use 8 units of Natural gas... which right now is actually CHEAPER then oil.
Pretty simple really.
We can add all the energy we need any year, because there is TONS of untapped energy, that's actually cheaper then what we use now.
The words are 'hopefully be viable'?
Renewable energy doesn't exist without the massive subsidy from fossil fuel energy, ditto for nuclear. The scale of present natural gas and coal extraction wouldn't be possible without the input of oil because you need to invest energy to get energy back. The reason why natural gas is cheaper than oil is simply because it isn't nearly as useful.
A) You can use Natural Gas for pretty much everything oil is used for energy related wise.
Now Plastics would get expensive as hell, but that's a different story.
B) Yeah, i'd like to think in 40 years or so renewable energy should be viable. I mean, it is 30 years-40 after all.
Aside from which, we're already building up our coal and natural gas resources.
Though really, lets pretend they don't... you think if an Oil Company wants to make more infrastructure for Oil or Natural Gas or Coal, that they're going to pay market prices for Oil?
Or am I just going to charge myself "at cost" for my own products? It's not like these products are being produced at "Full power" either... meaning that as supply gets low, they would just pull out excess supply to build replacements... because companies aren't stupid.
I mean, how do you think new Oil riggs and natural gas mining gets set up constantly as it is?
