It finally passed...

[varit]

well considering that the uk is a 6-700 billion nation over the state's over/massive 1 trillion (annually) they can't really afford this, not to mention the fact that the state's just got out of an economic downfall just add's to this debate. just because it work's for them doesn't necessarily mean it will work for you dude's.

universal versus national healthcare,

-UNIVERSAL (just a few pointer's) if we lived off universal health care the only peep's that are going to be making money from this is the un and kinda take's away from national wealth through health care, we would be more then likely changing our health care reform on a 6 month basis meaning that everyone will be changing over cards and will be receiving and denied specific health care, most nations that can't afford the annual cost would go under completely, super power nations would be equivalated to third world nation's in a few month's, national leader's would lose massive appeal and federal funding for international cost's such as what happened in copenhagen. everything would be slowly changed over to un law meaning that nobody would be of there own nation but of there own state (it's bound to happen at some eventual point and time, but most nation's are fighting against it), not to mention that it would get out of control and they would need to hire more people for the universal health care plan, which would increase the cost's and put most to nearly all the nations of this world into the stone age (most nations would lose massive amount's of money to keep up, lowering infrastructure cost's and limited plans on growth for most nations, equivalence to the aftermath of world war 2, which we are still paying for).

-NATIONAL with national health care we can adjust the cost's of it to accommodate infrastructure, military, economic, schooling, etc cost's that each nation needs just as much as health care (mainly the second 2, even though the states health care plan is massive, they better pull out of the middle east so there putting that 100 billion somewhere useful). thats the basic idea behind national health care to make it affordable for that nation, if another nation was to pay for a part of another nation's health care plan like half of africa, they couldn't begin to afford it and would go into massive national debt looking to other nation's to pay for the basic cost's or they go back into the primal age's where there hunting down animals to survive because they can't pay for anything due to that looming reform, or be forced out of there land into another so they would be forced to pay taxes for that health care bill (i know that this should be in universal but whatev).

there is a universal health care reform, but it cost nearly nothing because it's based off other nation's, so thats why the un implemented, lol. if you were to take into account that over time we would all be in one big massive nation due to a universal health care plan you would be correct, because we would all be forced to pay taxes in doing so our nation's would go under and bought or fought over (creating world war 3), and we would be in even larger debt, cycling n cycling until earth is one big nation. cya

P.S. Rush Limbaugh live's in the state's I live in canada my only option is a boat so no.

 

[Ice Espeon]

Let me refer you all to this.

It states that the UK National Health Service was established in 1943. I don't seem to recall there being economic boom times then.

It succeded here.

BTW, Varit, the UK's GDP was $2.674 trillion in 2008

 

[varit]

thats how much the country made not how much they spent on the national annual budget, the rest of that go into media, technology, infrastructure, military, economic, schooling, which is not apart of the national annual rate .Unlike the states and canada the UK's government is done completely differently, as opposed to certain thing's like education, Uniformed police, infrastructure, and cost's residing within would be done through each state or province as the rest would be done through federal or municipal rule. but since the UK does not have state's they have what is called department's for media, technology, infrastructure, military, economic, schooling, etc so that the cost's don't have to be put on the nation's wealth (it was setup this way after world war I).

and that would be 3 years after the dirty thirty's so they gave themselves a few years to gain financial backing to create, at the time because cost's were much different, 50 million federal health care reform, but instead of putting the tax on the people they put it into other thing's like long distance calling parking ticket's, small things that would contribute to the nation rather then scrape it out of the nation. dude why do you think UK's dollar is so much higher then most nation's, because there worth more then the egotistic ramification's of the united bourgeois and there 10 year health care reform created during there little rendition of the dirty 30's. cya

P.S. when you read a economic income chart for a nation reading just there GDP count's for nothing, read the whole chart.

 

[Card Slinger J]

So is Obamacare really going to end up as financial armageddon? Well truth be told it's not really clear at this point what will happen like I said earlier. On the other hand Insurance companies will likely make a lot of money out of this and who knows maybe with all the money they're making all the money hospitals will be making there could be enough cashflow to jump start us for a little while. Plus Medicare seems like the only benefit out of this bill that got extended.

What Obamacare doesn't do is give us a long term solution. This is like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. So while we can argue all day on the relative merit of doing something ineffective vs. doing nothing at all, the real reason why this was passed is because it's an election year, and the Democrats would rather keep control of Congress than lose it. Republicans would of course, pull the same shenanigans. It's politics. A lot of fussing but not enough doing.

Basically to summarize all this up with the help of a famous internet celebrity, please forgive me:

To better describe what I was talking about:

Insurance companies have a limited (though large) supply of funds to cover the cost of health care. To stay competitive with other companies they have decided that having the lowest premium rate possible is to their competitive advantage. In order to achieve that advantage they have decided:

* To do business with only the healthy or those without "pre existing conditions" (I hate that phrase)
* To do business with only the "credit worthy"

This allows the insurance company to statistically predict the amount of money they'll need for payouts. That is, only a certain percentage (within a margin of error) of people will ever need a payout in a given time period (industry standard is to aim for a 1% payout rate).

With this new law, the current system is now forced to accept 32 million new customers. This does two things:

* Increases the pool of money available for payouts

* Increases the statistical likelihood of the insurance company having to pay out

While there is a pure volume increase in the customer base, there is also a growth in the likelihood of payouts - and this amount FAR exceeds the new income generated by the 32 million hand delivered customers.

If the payout rate increase is exceeded by the increase in revenue from new customers, then you're losing money - and that's a very bad business model. The only correction that can happen now is an increase in the base premium rates. This increase will be statistically equal to the increase in payout funds. So, if we see a 30% increase in payouts, we'll see a 30% increase in premiums.

While the government can write a new law that will cap premium rates, this will cause a very large problem with the insurance companies in the long run. Specifically, it will cause a financial meltdown of the insurance markets, eventually leading to another bailout.

On the whole, this is a very irresponsible decision by the government.

 

[varit]

wel al of that may be true but it's hard to predict the income of a regular americain household and say that that much money would burn into insurance company's giving us long lasting relief

While there is a pure volume increase in the customer base, there is also a growth in the likelihood of payouts

that's in inaccurate, how can you sit there and say, yes people are just going to pay, because we have to, even if they become destitute poor and on the street's unable to pay the majority. right now we as north America, has not gotten over that financial hump, if one nation pulls a new financial budget it's like pumping more blood into one part of the body so it can reach the rest, but since alot of the tube's are cut they can see devastating draw back. so the only way this new reform can work is everyone has the money right now, and not to many people have, even if we force someone to pay and they cannot we would just be forcing them onto the streets and shooting ourselves in the foot, is this how a nation is built? with debt's and payment's ever growing that it eventually pan's out until there is only a few left to live there with the rest living it out in freedom? i'm not looking at the short term effect's of paying now, i'm looking at what we can do and what is most likely to happen. because doing something like moving money out of insurance companies' (which 80% of the original money they had is now lost to national squabble because of economic crisis) is not a valid solution, why not try pharmaceutical company's or something that was not hit as hard (they have massive amount's of money and were not hit badly at all). I do agree with using a steady rate of cash flow to rejuvenate the nation, but it has such a large and dangerous risk. cya

P.S. I do agree with you but there is such a large risk in this that it's very hard to play around.