Wow. That report succinctly said what we have been trying to say here. I work with many medical device and pharmaceutical start ups. They have some great technology and that only thing motivating them to get it on the market is money.
The United Socialist State(s) of America $$$ Indeed! First, I'll disagree w/ the quote above and say that we are indeed in the Dark Ages, "the New Dark Ages." Second, I will concur w/ the quote and take it a step further to say that America is a socialist(ish), or socialized, country. Bike the Planet forgot one minor detail, the biggest "leech" of tax change goes to the US military, the pinnacle of socialism in America, if not the world. Lets not forget that agricultural subsides are socialism too. Do you like cheap food? While were at it lets add toll-free roads! And I suppose we can add free sunlight and oxygen.... The military, regretfully, is a necessary evil. Perhaps the growing police state is as well. Question is, how much do we need to spend on the military? Or, how much military socialism is enough? I don't have the answer, just another question: do we need to spend more than the entire world combined on the military?! Being that this is a war-based plutocracy, and the very powerful defense industry like to keep our money pouring in their direction, military spending is not likely to fall off any time soon... President Eisenhower, Army General, warned us against the ills of a term he coined, "the military-industrial complex." Major General Smedley Butler of the USMC did the same. If fact, he said he was a 'racketeer for capitalism and Wall Street' during his 33 years of service (see his "War is a Racket" reenactment). Back to health care, the Brits, including world famous physicist Stephen Hawking, were really pissed that Fox and other corporpate media mouthpieces blasted the NHS (socialized medicine in England). All of my 14 relatives in Sweden love their health care. I pay for my own (Blue Cross) health care here, and I think the DMV is better, and certainly faster. Hell, I don't even have to go to the DMV anymore it's so efficient. They have come a long way since the 80's. I suppose what I am getting at, is that the 'S-word,' is just that, a bad word, and mysterious as well. It's thrown around in distain by many people (just read this particular forum). I don't know how many people know what it really is. Worker-control and self sovereignty make sense to me, and it made sense to Albert Einstein as well. He's not my type of socialist, but oh well. You can bet that you will never hear anything supportive of socialism from the corporate media empire because the drug companies and insurance companies certainly don't want the S-word, in fact, I doubt any of their capitalist contributors (nor bosses) do. You can bet in public schools there are no State Standards to have kids debate the merits of Socialism versus Capitalism...the red scare continues, yet we are more red than they would like you to believe. btw, this is a better pie chart: The government practice of combining trust and federal funds (see 1st forum post pie chart) began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller. "The solution is not more government intervention, but to eliminate the existing government intervention from which the problems derive. A genuine free market society, in which all transactions are voluntary and all costs are internalized in price, would be a decentralized society of human-scale production, in which all of labor's product went to labor, instead of to capitalists, landlords and government bureaucrats." Kevin Carson
On health care, I'll quote Bill Maher: "If you, the citizen, deliberately vote for someone who won't give you health care over someone you will, you need to have your head examined. Except you can't afford to have your head examined." As far as the national budget/deficit is concerned, I recently found a link to the CIA's website. They have a list of every nation on the planet, arranged by wealthiest to poorest, according to current account balances. America is officially the poorest nation on the planet now, if you take debt (current account balances) into consideration. That's pretty pathetic. The top 5 wealthiest? China, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Russia are numbers 1 thru 5. We are number 190...the last ones on the list. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html We need to start only buying things we can afford.
The link you give is to the "Current Account Balance" index compiled by the CIA. If you read the description of what it tracks, it essentially measures the import/export imbalances for the nations as well as cash inflow/out-flow. The US is a consumer nation an imports a lot more products than it exports as well as paying out huge amounts of money to many nations. The index is simply not a measure of how rich or poor any country is and where a country sits on the list, by itself, is meaningless.
I understand the list...but I don't completely agree that it's meaningless by itself. If we were to fall somewhere in the middle of the list, then yes...it might be construed as "meaningless" by itself. There would be more room for other factors to come into play. But to fall at either extreme DOES hold its own water, and is not at all meaningless. By itself, it's a GOOD thing to be at the top of that list, and a BAD thing to be at the bottom, without taking anything else into consideration. IMHO, of course!
I watched “Incredibly Small: Kenadie's Story" last night. It's about a tiny girl with Primoridal Dwarfism (MOPD II, to be exact) (The documentary was made before the health care debate.) Guess what? She's Canadian so her parents brought her to the US for care. :clap:
Your observers need some reality checking. In 2000 the AARP came out in support of Propositon 39 which lowered the supermajority required to pass school bonds. Their argument was the usual story that schools and children needed the money. Maybe the schools need money but seniors need their money too and seniors are the people least able to bear a tax increase. It was a complete abandoment of AARP's constituents. F--- the AARP.
1. maybe it's in everybody's best interests if schools are properly funded--even if it requires a small sacrifice. 2. maybe the supermajority requirement is a ridiculous standard. "normal" legislation only requires a simple majority. you'd have a hard time getting a supermajority of the legislature to agree on what day of the week it is... btw- you can't really use one case to condemn an entire country's health care. plenty of people leave this country to find better and/or cheaper care. EDIT: and if it takes a supermajority or if only the people with kids vote for school bonds, then we'll be left a shortage of schools--and many that are unsafe/substandard (like now). for godsake, there's lead in the water in our fountains,,,
"I don't disagree with this. The question is whether our schools are not properly funded or whether tremendous waste and inefficiency are squandering the enormous amounts of money currently being poured into education. I tend to think that it's the latter."--dgaspar you're right. instead, we should keep pouring money into prisons and the military. :lol: but i get your point. i'm sure that there is waste. but it's easier said than done--just like when arnold first went into office he promised that he was going to balance the budget by cutting waste (wasn't that nutty lady from florida in charge?), never happened. and ca is now last in per-pupil funding. couldn't we at least shoot for average? :cheers:
According to the US Census Bureau, California ranked 23rd in 2006-2007 for total spending per pupil (elementary and secondary public schools). [See http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/elsec07_sttables.xls, tab 11]. I agree that our schools are a mess but the amount of spending just doesn't seem to be the problem.
according to the national publication Education Week, california was 47th last year. after recent cuts, i've been told that now we're on the bottom. and no, money isn't a magic cure-all, but it sure does help. and a gross lack of funds--which is where we are now--results in fewer teachers, less training, fewer resources, more kids in each class, no summer school, no tutoring, etc., etc. i hope they're building bigger prisons for all the kids who are going to be dropping out/left behind... mod warning: please stay on topic (whatever the stupid poll was)
Sounds like a simple case of "the grass is always greener," which proves nothing. Having been without health care for the last 9 years, I can say with experience that it sucks to go on a simple bike ride, knowing that if I take a spill and injure myself, it can potentially cost me thousands of dollars for something as simple as a broken nose or fractured arm. My GF's health premium keeps climbing...what used to cost her about $125 several months ago is now up to $230+ per month, for no reason. Coupled with being unemployed and not receiving benefits, the obvious answer is...drop the health care. :?: Personally, I'd rather be in Canada. Half of something is better than all of nothing.
Besides a bit of logic issue here (false dilemma or black and white thinking, and ad hominem circumstantial), there is a chance that there might be a specialist in the States that does not exist in Canada. Or maybe they searched for the best and closest specialist. Specialist doctors like America because they can make more money in this for-profit hc system. Which bring me to the point that the doctors most likely to fight against single payer hc are going to be the specialists. Specialists make more than 'regular' doctors, about double. They will take the biggest hit w/ a single payer system. All health care workers will. Or will they? The health insurance companies had foresight. The important point in the health care debate is that the slippery slope argument is used (by Faux News and the like). They use the slippery slope argument to say the outcome of single payer, or the dreaded s-word medicine, will be a system like England or Canada. The outcome, they purport, will have many negative consequences. Will it really be worse than it is now? Is it really that bad in 'socialized' countries? The overwhelming majority of people in England love the NHS (see above post link). And I can only speak for the 14 Swedes I know. Besides that, I don't have the data. I don't like Obama's plan because it leaves the for-profit system of insurance companies in place. And co-ops are a bad idea because insurance companies are going to drop the sickest individuals as fast as they can. Not only that, the already bureaucratic mess would get even bigger w/ co-ops. Regardless, he's only asking for a 4.5% increases over a ten year period (1 trillion over 10 years). I'm sure there is a means to shave costs and save that 4.5%. We could shave and save way more if we abandoned the middle man altogether: get rid of hc insurance companies. Why 'socialize' health care? Let's suppose we stop 'socialized' police and fire support and make it optional like health care...can't pay, oh well, it's an option, not a right. Let's waste ~30% of our money on police and fire insurance companies- middle men thieves- like we do now. The police and fire insurance companies will act just like health insurance companies, trying to maximize savings by reducing services, or totally cutting off those that need or use the services too often. Now that's genetic justice. Thanks God. Too bad our health really isn't optional (sometimes). Yes there is a gray area for unhealthy by choice people, but screen us, and give the health nuts with great heart rates etc. a kick back. That doesn't mean penalize the unfit or genetically (un)blessed. I can see it now, "...hey Billy you gettin' your stimulus money for bein' healthy dis year? Yeah, I'm gonna put it towards one of them mountain bike things I've been savin' for...and Liz is gonna get a wiFIT..." And Canada...Canada has had budget SURPLUSES for the past decade! And they use the surpluses to pay off their debt. Now there's a good socialized idea(l). As an aside, if you are interested in education I suggest a reading of John Gatto's "The Underground History of American Education." Then much of what we debate here and elsewhere will start to make sense. I am struggling to pay for my health insurance now, but I do...I broke my neck on my bike when I lived in Vail. Luckily I was covered. It cost ~500,000! I'd be paying that the rest of my life.
Here's a few interesting articles on people who seek medical treatment outside of the USA. All this talk of people coming here for treatment we seem to forget that a lot of people still actually leave for treatment. Just some info for the debate http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-08-31-mexico-health-care_N.htm http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/news_05262009.html http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE57C40C20090813
Another case of the "grass is greener". Canada covers the stuff that happens in hospitals. It doesn't include "extras" like medical equipment, prescriptions, physical therapy or chiropractic care, dental, vision, etc. Typically you'd buy private insurance for the rest. That $230 month in the U.S. is not looking so bad. In August 2003 14,000 French died in a heatwave. It was cheaper to let the doctors stay on vacation.
Yes, because my health plan covers my dental (as long as I do it myself), my vision (as long as I'm willing to not see), pt for a month, etc. These kind of services are included in GREAT insurance plans. I'm curious as to the % of Americans on plans that offer the kind of coverage you're talking about. The heat wave comment is ridiculous. France had zero preparation for a heat wave in place. Having more medical professionals in hospitals would have saved some people. General education would have saved many many more.
I have health insurance, and I would take the DMV over any of my recent experiences with our medical system. At least the DMV can tell you what you will owe. Also, I have waited on hold with my insurance longer than I did in the waiting room at the Santa Ana DMV recently. Don't get me wrong. I loath bureaucracy, and don't trust the government with my health. I think the government should be way way smaller, and we should take care of ourselves. That being said, I do not think the status quot is working for anyone accept the insurance companies, and the very very wealthy. Furthermore, there are a lot of worse things the government tries to do with my money than pay for health insurance.
