With respect, most of that refers to the private health subsidy that was introduced by the right wing governments to cover their asses after cutting funding to the public system. (waiting lists increased, "performance indicators" suddenly went down, etc)

This is the part that has now become expensive for the Aussie Govt to maintain and is bleeding the available money for the public system dry. They are looking at cutting it down at the moment.

Private health cannot work if you have to pay shareholders dividends. The Govt can run a system more effectively because they can negotiate bigger deals (lower costs overall) and the Govt does not have to PAY share holders (in fact "shareholders" pay them by way of taxes).

Perhaps it remains to be proven, but I have to believe that if our hospitals and pharmaceutical companies were not allowed to advertise to the public, our insurance companies were allowed to operate competitively anywhere they choose, the pharmaceutical and insurance companies were required to trim marketing efforts to the basic necessities (which would eventually happen with open competition), limits were set on prescription drug coverage (no Viagra, etc), limitations were placed on malpractice suits and doctors were no longer allowed to go on junkets paid for by drug companies...... the cost of private medical care just might be more than competitive with anything any government could run.

Once you strip out all of the fluff costs from our present healthcare system, perhaps those costs would be miniscule in comparison to the fluff added by a government beauracracy.

If you want to see a prescription for bankruptcy, here is a link to the US House Democrats Health Care Plan Organizational Chart:

web page

Frank <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />

Looking at that mess, I can see your issues. Way too many "stakeholders". It needs to be trimmed of all admin "fat" and devoid of dead weight. Federal Govt needs to take control of EVERYTHING.

Corporate US will definitely take a hit (espeially insurance + banks) but it NEEDS to happen. You will end up with cheaper insurance costs for those thatcan afford to pay (FWIW most Aussies pay <$1700 for full private insurance per YEAR).

Ours is only a very mediocre system compared to some longstanding democratic European countries, most of whom are doing far better than the US in terms of their current financial situations (Scandinavian countries, mainly).

Extremely unlikely...... the cost for those who can afford to pay will be greater because of the cost of those who can't..... or won't.



You aren't getting the picture very clearly - just about everything on that chart IS the Federal Gov't.



So, given the expectations of US citizens presently covered by private healthcare, how can you believe we will think that a "mediocre system" with reduced benefits would be acceptable?

As for the Scandinavian countries, have you checked the income tax rates?

Here's a list of countries with tax revenue expressed as a percentage of GDP...... Scandinavian countries are at 43-50%:

web page

The US taxpayer won't stand still for that while others ride the train for free.

Frank <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />

This is a very important point that I made earlier. That may work well in scandiavia, but my impression of the people in this country is that they would never agree to hand over so much control of their money to the government. That's one of the many things I really like here <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />

There is actually one thing you Aussies got right. How you classify your politicians and parties... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />

If you indeed call your conservatives "liberal" then that would be at least somewhat accurate.

We are so ass backwards in this country it's no surprise that we're still debating this issue over government health care, private healthcare, when in fact, that issue was settled long ago.

Actual government healthcare is dead. It's not on the table. The only thing we are debating is how much MORE power and wealth the government grants the health care insurance industries and how much MORE money the tax payer will have to give to this private industry to cover additional people who are otherwise not covered.

There's another private entity that noone talks about either and that's the actual health care providers...hospitals and doctors, etc. These people will also get more money as the days of them having to provide free care and writing it off will be over.

It's amazing how simple of a society we've turned into. An entire national debate can be won or lost and fought over simple buzzwords that have absolutely nothing to do with what's really in the bill.

You overseas guys have to realize one very important thing. The system we are debating over isn't even in the same universe as the system you are used too. This is NOT a socialized system run by the government. That may have been talked about early on, but it was never the ultimate plan. So it's not anywhere near comparable to what you have.

Imagine a system where the largest private enterprise providers conspire with the government to gain control over the entire market place, oust any smaller competitor, then have the tax payer be taxed by the government to pay you an amount that guarantees some level of service, but most importantly, a level of profit and you as the private entity give away some minor concessions to make it appear as though you are a victim of socialism and that's exactly what you have here.

At least in a true capitalist system, the weak fail, the corrupt fail and the people as the consumers have the ultimate power to choose. With true competition creating efficiency in service and pricing. Everyone wins, if it goes right.

At least in a true socialist system, the government runs everything in a not for profit way, whereby the citizens, who supposedly control the government, have a sway over how the system is run. The lack of profit, allows the system to operate more efficiently in some ways.

The system we are creating is none of the above and is instead a monster morphed system where government is married to private industry and works towards of the goals of the private industry, rather than the public. The private industry has little to no competition, and the government (the people) have little no power to oversee the system, beyond the original law.

This means it will be a monster of inefficiency beyond our worst nightmares of anything we've come to believe as a healthcare failure, such as the UK or Canada or whatever.

America and China have created this new system of corporatism/government. It doesn't quite have a name, but it should. It really started with the Federal Reserve type systems that now permeate throughout the world, including the UK and Australia. Whereby private for profit banking systems have joined with the government to use government authority for it's own will.

That system has now expanded on a global level into areas like the World Bank, World Trade Organization, IMF, etc.

Rest assured...you guys in socialist countries are next. Because the overall goal is a world system based on these principles.

There's no point in debating capitalism or socialism...because both are now dead. Welcome to the future.

Frank your freakin me out - you're sounding in complete harmony with Ron Paul <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/zombie.gif" alt="" />



No Government anywhere (unless it is entirely funded by nationalized resources perhaps and even that is semantics) pays for anything. They are not capable of creating revenue flow without taking it from somewhere else first - and I'm guessing like most industrialized nations, in Australia they are taking it from you. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/oink.gif" alt="" />

Well said as usual Brian. You should write - submit your rants to the indy rags.

Phil, I said long ago here that I was in agreement with a lot - but not all - of what Ron Paul spews. The main problem I have with him is that he comes off like a whining wuss and is completely unelectable for a national office..... so aside from getting folks to consider more than the surface debate (which is important and useful), much of what he accomplishes is draining off votes that would otherwise go elsewhere..... or creating apathy that diminishes voter turnout for conservative candidates. He's a fine example of a 2-edged sword.

Frank <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />

As if ANYTHING would be different if McCain got elected. That's what's gotta make Obama so infuriating to Democrats. At least the few Democrats that have their kitten eyes just now starting to pop open.

Obama is just as much for war as McCain was. And why wouldn't he be? Both candidates were supported by the same people and the same interests. And I highly doubt there's any major issue Obama is pushing for or supports that McCain wouldn't either be all for, or would at least only give the most token resistence too.

Sort of like Bush would have signed a new Assault Weapons ban if it was put on his desk, but...he didn't "really" want to. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

When you voted in the last election, the only "change" was which political spectrum was going to get hookwinked this time around. In this case, it's the Democrats now getting taken for a ride. Having elected a President to stop the war, and now finding how he loves war and he loves detaining people illegally and he loves spying on Americans. Just as much or more than Bush did.

It's time to get an actual intellectual in office and not a freaking spokesperson for the globalists. When you elect actors, screwoffs, college drunks and playboys to the highest office in the land, do you honestly expect to have good decisions made?

Of course not. These guys were always intended be nothing more then yes men to the elite. That's why stupid men are put up there for you to choose from, instead of statesmen and schollars and men of serious intelligence like those that founded this country.

In any case...Ron Pual is a just a man and an old one at that. He's reached the peak of his career and probably doesn't have many years left, so I wouldn't hang my hat on the guy anyway. But he has started one of the most important political movements in our lifetime, as far as I'm concerned and hopefully it will continue to grow.

Yes, that probably means draining precious resources from the Republican party. As far as I'm concerned, the Republican party is one of the most evil traderious organizations that ever existed. At least with Democrats, I know what I'm getting. The Republicans pretended to care about this country, then sent men off to die for a lost cause that wasn't even just in the first place. They sold out this country to a communist nation that is now poised to unseat us as the most powerful single nation on earth...if they haven't already and they sold us out in many other countless ways.

They couldn't even hold true to their most basic party platform, when they held total power for a good 6 years.

In the end, realizing that both parties are really just a single party is probably the best way way to describe our situation and why it's so important that a 3rd party or a seperate movement be born out of that system. If the Republicans lose power and die off, I couldn't be happier and assuming the Democrats survived as a party, at least they'd have someone standing up against them.

Your upset now, just wait till there is immigration amnesty !
where we give 12 million illegals health care.

Don't expect to get to see your doctor anytime soon.
<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />