Someone in the US Dies every 12 minutes from Lack of Health Care

[Smoke]

A friend of mine is the second oldest in a family of 12 and hes a protestant. My cousins are Mormons and they have three kids. My other cousins have four. My grandma had three....all mormons. Stereotypes=bad

51% of Mormons have no children living at home, compared to 65% of the general population.
28% of Mormons have 1 or 2 children living at home, compared to 21% of the general population.
21% of Mormons have 3 or more children living at home, compared to 9% of the population.

Source: Pew Forum: A Portrait of Mormons in the U.S.

"Mormon fertility rates have consistently been higher than national averages."

Source: Family - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

"A comparison of LDS family size in the United States with family size in other major religious groups shows that LDS families are substantially larger, especially for Mormons who attend church regularly (Fig. 7). Latter-day Saints who regularly attend church average one child more per family than Catholics, and the difference is even greater in comparison with both liberal and conservative Protestants."

Source: Vital Statistics - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

 

[shortfade2]

Fine. So stereotypes can be true for other things right? Like mexicans maybe?

 

[Smoke]

Fine. So stereotypes can be true for other things right? Like mexicans maybe?

Do you have the statistical data to back them up?

 

[shortfade2]

My dad researched it online, and the schools with the worst SAT and the lowest GPA in the St. Vrain Valley District also have the highest percentage of mexicans....But not all are like that! I have a bunch of mexican friends who get straight A's and are really cool, and funny

 

[Smoke]

My dad researched it online, and the schools with the worst SAT and the lowest GPA in the St. Vrain Valley District also have the highest percentage of mexicans....But not all are like that! I have a bunch of mexican friends who get straight A's and are really cool, and funny

That's good.

Before we get too far off-topic in our discussion of stereotypes, did it occur to you that I might have had a purely rhetorical reason for responding to idea as I did?

 

[shortfade2]

That's good.

Before we get too far off-topic in our discussion of stereotypes, did it occur to you that I might have had a purely rhetorical reason for responding to idea as I did?

Yes. It was just for the sake of argument. Not an actual religious hatred.

 

[Smoke]

Yes. It was just for the sake of argument. Not an actual religious hatred.

Exactly. I really couldn't care less how many children anybody has. I just wanted to point out to idea that her arbitrary standards about what she will and will not pay for are just that, and everybody could have his own arbitrary standards at odds with hers.

"I don't believe in using automobiles, so I shouldn't have to help pay for interstates."

"Well, tough ****."

 

[jamaesi]

Do you have any idea what it would cost the the US government to offer quality healthcare coverage to every US citizen?

Hey, I have an idea to save money! As people with a normal BMI are more likely to have things like infections, heart and lung disease, rheumatoid arthritis, cancer, anemia, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, and type 2 diabetes why don't we exclude them from getting any kind of health insurance. It would save a lot of money!

I mean, it's their own damn fault for having a normal BMI and being a higher risk patient. I'm not victim blaming here, they're just masochists!

 

[lamplighter]

Yes.

Do you have any idea what it would cost the the US government to offer quality healthcare coverage to every US citizen?

Hint: It's closer to the Congressional Budget Committee's figure than to Obama's. Though I assure you both estimates fall very short of the actual amount.

Yes because our current system of denying healthcare to the sick is perfectly humanitarian and befitting of the world's top industrial nation.
In France the cost of health insurance is only half for the exact same coverage. Universal healthcare isn't replacing private healthcare, it's an alternative to private healthcare. What? You worried about the private insures not being able to financially rape the common American anymore? Universal healthcare will force private to finally compete, because the current capitalist system has stagnated and if we conjunction it with better regulation of healthcare you'll see a severe reduction in price for everyone.

...comparing the quality of the U.S. system with five other countries found that despite spending twice as much per capita, the U.S. ranks last or near last on basic performance measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives. "The U.S. stands out as the only nation in these studies that does not ensure access to health care through universal coverage,"...

Hey, I have an idea to save money! As people with a normal BMI are more likely to have things like infections, heart and lung disease, rheumatoid arthritis, cancer, anemia, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, and type 2 diabetes why don't we exclude them from getting any kind of health insurance. It would save a lot of money!

I mean, it's their own damn fault for having a normal BMI and being a higher risk patient. I'm not victim blaming here, they're just masochists!

Do you think we could get away with suing them for being a burden on healthcare system too? Then we could be making money off a bad situation!

 

[Sunstone]

The fact the US spends twice as much per capita on health care as other industrialized countries suggests there are savings to be had by adopting a health care model similar to that of other industrialized nations.

 

[Storm]

No, but your actions imply that you refuse to even contemplate the possibility that a differing POV may have merit. You did not even read the source that I offered - which, by the way, you asked me for. I gave you the source as a courtesy - and to further our possible understanding of each other's perspective.

Your refusal to even read a short article tells me what I need to know about your modus operandum.

No, I asked you for a source about sales tax. You gave me one about VAT. They're not the same thing. Stop speculating on my motives.

 

[Kathryn]

VAT IS what a federal sales tax is called.

If you are going to pay for a federal program with a sales tax, it would have to be a federal sales tax. This is called a VAT.

And it won't take place because NO administration is willing to take on the label of "the administration who raised EVERYONE'S taxes!"

 

[Storm]

VAT IS what a federal sales tax is called.

If you are going to pay for a federal program with a sales tax, it would have to be a federal sales tax. This is called a VAT.

And it won't take place because NO administration is willing to take on the label of "the administration who raised EVERYONE'S taxes!"

No, it isn't. From the Wiki:

Value added tax (VAT), or goods and services tax (GST) is a consumption tax levied on any value that is added to a product. In contrast to sales tax, VAT is neutral with respect to the number of passages that there are between the producer and the final consumer; where sales tax is levied on total value at each stage (though in US and many other countries sales tax is only charged at final sale to the final consumer and use tax final user, thus there are no sales taxes paid at wholesale or production level), the result is a cascade (downstream taxes levied on upstream taxes). A VAT is an indirect tax, in that the tax is collected from someone who does not bear the entire cost of the tax.

​

 

[Kathryn]

They are BOTH a tax on the sale of goods and services, ie a SALES TAX.

 

[Storm]

They're similar, yes. That doesn't make the terms interchangeable.

 

[Gentoo]

*Sigh... how kind of those who abandon their fellow man in order save a buck..

 

[Kathryn]

I'm not for abandoning ANYONE. The issue is this - no matter what form of health coverage is offered, there are still going to be people who fall through the cracks, who don't participate, who don't get quality care. Is the federal government the vehicle we use to provide consistent, high quality medical care? In order to answer that, we have to look at the integrity of our government, our systems, the history of government programs, not only here, but across the world.

Then we have to factor in that each country is different and filled with different circumstances, different peoples, different ideals, economies, etc.

I think nearly everyone would agree that the US government is very adept at waste, going massively over-budget, red tape, etc. With that in mind, we need to accept the reality that WHATEVER is presented is going to cost a LOT more than we think it will.

We don't have enough clarity yet on WHERE the money will come from to finance this. And we haven't even addressed the issue of expanding elder care - with the largest generation ever born on this planet moving into middle age and retirement - in other words, not producing tax dollars significantly in the very NEAR future.

Nor did our experts factor in a recession of the magnitude we're experiencing now. They didn't factor in a 10 percent (and in some areas higher) unemployment rate - in other words, NO tax dollars coming in and MANY going out.

We do need reform, but we need to build a strong foundation to structure that reform on - and right now, we don't have that.

 

[methylatedghosts]

My point is this - DON'T DISCOUNT THE FACTOR OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Our healthcare is not the PUBLIC'S responsibility - it is the INDIVIDUAL'S responsibility. It is our responsibility to take care of our OWN health - no one else's.

It is our responsibility to make sure that the actions of others (for instance, companies and government entities) do not CREATE health risks to others, but it is not our right to demand that they TAKE CARE OF our OWN health.

Yes it's our responsibility to do what we can for ourselves, but if there are people who cannot help themselves, I feel it's our responsibility to do what we can to help them.

 

[yossarian22]

I think nearly everyone would agree that the US government is very adept at waste, going massively over-budget, red tape, etc. With that in mind, we need to accept the reality that WHATEVER is presented is going to cost a LOT more than we think it will.

Only people who don't do research and continue listening to propaganda that dates from the Reagan administration. The majority of governmental wastes is due to idiotic contracting (ie the beloved private sector), not overhead (and insurance doesn't need contracting).

We don't have enough clarity yet on WHERE the money will come from to finance this.

We pay for healthcare now. With UHC reform, we won't be paying for that healthcare.

Now where can we get some money....

And we haven't even addressed the issue of expanding elder care - with the largest generation ever born on this planet moving into middle age and retirement - in other words, not producing tax dollars significantly in the very NEAR future.

Nor did our experts factor in a recession of the magnitude we're experiencing now. They didn't factor in a 10 percent (and in some areas higher) unemployment rate - in other words, NO tax dollars coming in and MANY going out.

We do need reform, but we need to build a strong foundation to structure that reform on - and right now, we don't have that.

Restore tax brackets to what they were in the 60s. Problem solved. And we can keep funding the inane military crap we do now and still increase funding for education.