IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

BTW, the US health insurance industry has been steadily profiting more then 3 billion a quarter for the last several years; the real question, George, is why the European companies aren't keeping up

Must be the three-week spas for new mothers which are dragging the profits down.

Cycloptichorn

$3 billion works out to about $13/American. That is a vastly smaller number than the $5 million/German Walter cited. Double it to make the time periods equal, and you get $26 versus $5,000,000 -- big difference.

There is nothing wrong with profits - they are what attracts the capital and the investments in new techniques and therapies in a free society. The alternative methods of slavery and socialism (merely a variation on the slavery theme) don't do nearly as well in terms of productivity and achievement.

Um, Walter didn't cite a number of 5 million per German. Haven't you been reading the last few posts?

I disagree completely that socialism = slavery, and think it's a little bit funny that you would make such a comparison.

Cycloptichorn

Just to explicitly clear this up,

WH quoted $435,000,000 in profits; You stated that:



$435 million divided by 82.4 million equals.... $5.27 per person. Your calculations are off by a factor of roughly one million.

Are you pulling our legs?

Cycloptichorn

Well old europe did indeed expose my gaffe - I misread Walter's figure to add a factor of millions to the German profits. (probably a result of my chronic anti European bias.) The correct result is that in both countries the Insurers - based on this reported data - make only a few dollars per capita. Hardly enough to make it worth the effort were it not for the government provided monopoly.

You should not be surprised about my entirely accurate view of socialism.

georgeob, This discussion is not a choice between capitalism and socialism. It's never about our country reverting entirely into socialism. Most of the developed countries with universal health care still produces medical advancements.

What exactly are you afraid of?

Actually a good question.

Health insurance companies in Germany manage their budget independently, like any other company. However, in order to maintain the status as statutory or public health insurance company, they have to follow certain regulations.
Circulating capital funds, for example, shall not exceed 1.5 times their monthly expenses. If an insurance company makes higher profits, it has to adjust its premiums.

OK Cicerone. Easy does it. I was just throwing a few light-hearted barbs at our earnest and affable friend from Beserkeley. I think he saw the humor in it. (However, sometimes it is hard to tell with you always serious guys.)

The funny thing is, it's hard to tell with you always-serious guys when you're joking and when you're not.

Cycloptichorn

This from the "compassionate conservative."

Bush vetoes child health insurance plan

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 34 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.

Besides that what old europe wrote above: all the health insurers in the mandatory system have to tell their members the amount/percentage of what was actually spend for health, administrational things etc. This inludes the salaries of the CEOs.
Additionally, all companies have a (kind of) member parliament = there are elections any ... couple of years for it.
(All regulated in Title Five of the Social Code [SGB V])


Law and the German Universal Healthcare System: A Contemporary Overview gives a quite good (legal) overview, though it's not really state-of-the-art (published 2005)

Yeah, this is really bad - the bill would help 10 million uninsured kids get coverage. I actually work with FamiliesUSA and we have a 30 second ad to help pressure Congress to override - its pretty good: Edit [Moderator]: Link removed. This bill has bipartisan support and will really help a lot of working families get healthc care for their kids. Bush really needs to see that he go this one wrong.

fortogether, Welcome to a2k. FYI, this isn't the first issue Bush screwed up on. Can you identify for us what he did do right during the past six years? I'm really curious.

When Clinton gives each child a $5000 bond, the kid can then use the money to buy health insurance.

This morning, President Bush stood for bad government, insurance companies and cheaper tobacco and vetoed expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program to cover 10 million kids.

In the words of the White House, the plan was to "veto it quietly," so not to draw attention to such an unpopular act.

The latest poll from ABC and the Washington Post says 72% of Americans support expanding kids' health insurance by increasing tobacco taxes. Republican voters support expansion nearly as much as Democratic voters. The House members whom Bush is counting on to sustain his veto do not want to do it under a white hot spotlight.

Too bad. This veto will not be quiet.

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/veto_will_not_be_quiet?tx=3

It's a shame Bush gave up the photo-op to VETO children's health. He also didn't take advantage of media coverage when he cut veteran's benefits.

What's wrong with him? I know he isn't shy.

Maybe it's part of his "compassion."

Conservatives Are Such Jokers


By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 5, 2007
In 1960, John F. Kennedy, who had been shocked by the hunger he saw in West Virginia, made the fight against hunger a theme of his presidential campaign. After his election he created the modern food stamp program, which today helps millions of Americans get enough to eat.

But Ronald Reagan thought the issue of hunger in the world's richest nation was nothing but a big joke. Here's what Reagan said in his famous 1964 speech "A Time for Choosing," which made him a national political figure: "We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet."

Today's leading conservatives are Reagan's heirs. If you're poor, if you don't have health insurance, if you're sick ?- well, they don't think it's a serious issue. In fact, they think it's funny.

On Wednesday, President Bush vetoed legislation that would have expanded S-chip, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, providing health insurance to an estimated 3.8 million children who would otherwise lack coverage.

In anticipation of the veto, William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, had this to say: "First of all, whenever I hear anything described as a heartless assault on our children, I tend to think it's a good idea. I'm happy that the president's willing to do something bad for the kids." Heh-heh-heh.

Most conservatives are more careful than Mr. Kristol. They try to preserve the appearance that they really do care about those less fortunate than themselves. But the truth is that they aren't bothered by the fact that almost nine million children in America lack health insurance. They don't think it's a problem.

"I mean, people have access to health care in America," said Mr. Bush in July. "After all, you just go to an emergency room."

And on the day of the veto, Mr. Bush dismissed the whole issue of uninsured children as a media myth. Referring to Medicaid spending ?- which fails to reach many children ?- he declared that "when they say, well, poor children aren't being covered in America, if that's what you're hearing on your TV screens, I'm telling you there's $35.5 billion worth of reasons not to believe that."

It's not just the poor who find their travails belittled and mocked. The sick receive the same treatment.

Before the last election, the actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's and has become an advocate for stem cell research that might lead to a cure, made an ad in support of Claire McCaskill, the Democratic candidate for Senator in Missouri. It was an effective ad, in part because Mr. Fox's affliction was obvious.

And Rush Limbaugh ?- displaying the same style he exhibited in his recent claim that members of the military who oppose the Iraq war are "phony soldiers" and his later comparison of a wounded vet who criticized him for that remark to a suicide bomber ?- immediately accused Mr. Fox of faking it. "In this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking. And it's purely an act." Heh-heh-heh.

Of course, minimizing and mocking the suffering of others is a natural strategy for political figures who advocate lower taxes on the rich and less help for the poor and unlucky. But I believe that the lack of empathy shown by Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Kristol, and, yes, Mr. Bush is genuine, not feigned.

Mark Crispin Miller, the author of "The Bush Dyslexicon," once made a striking observation: all of the famous Bush malapropisms ?- "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family," and so on ?- have involved occasions when Mr. Bush was trying to sound caring and compassionate.

By contrast, Mr. Bush is articulate and even grammatical when he talks about punishing people; that's when he's speaking from the heart. The only animation Mr. Bush showed during the flooding of New Orleans was when he declared "zero tolerance of people breaking the law," even those breaking into abandoned stores in search of the food and water they weren't getting from his administration.

What's happening, presumably, is that modern movement conservatism attracts a certain personality type. If you identify with the downtrodden, even a little, you don't belong. If you think ridicule is an appropriate response to other peoples' woes, you fit right in.

And Republican disillusionment with Mr. Bush does not appear to signal any change in that regard. On the contrary, the leading candidates for the Republican nomination have gone out of their way to condemn "socialism," which is G.O.P.-speak for any attempt to help the less fortunate.

So once again, if you're poor or you're sick or you don't have health insurance, remember this: these people think your problems are funny.

I saw an interesting article in the local paper this past weekend that dealt with this. The author pointed out that medical insurance is more expensive for many reasons - one of which he said was the abuse of it. We don't use medical insurance like any other type of insurance. Car insurance is for accidents and serious damage, not filling up with gas or getting new tires. Home insurance is for damage from storms or earthquake, not replacing a burned out light bulb. People use medical insurance for *everything*, not just serious illness. If people used their own funds for routine health maintenance and only relied on insurance for serious illness or procedures, the cost would likely go down sharply.

Another prime example of Democrats using children to do their demagoguery and lies. Turns out this Graeme Frost's parents are not so poor, and it is them that failed their child, not Bush.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907687/posts