Well, then they should be asking somebody who knows something about it, like yourself.

As you can imagine I am very interested in the subject. As are all other people who are involved in Health Care. There is not a hospital, clinic or surgicenter I visit where it is not a topic. And as you can guess the more money one makes the more interested in the subject and more strongly their opinions are. Hence the reson I think many are so anti-Hillary Clinton. I know that who ever is stuck fixing it is going to have to make some tough choices that will affect a lot of people in a negative way but will be good for the group of currently un or under insured. The question to me is how much are we as a country willing to give up to fix the problem. Choices are going to have to be made. A bunch of people are going to be unhappy.

We have a two tiered system in Australia. If you have private health insurance you get a tax break. If you rely soley on public you have to pay a levy on your income tax each year. That varies depending on your income etc. Of course, this is a major simplification, but that's it in a nutshell.

It works ok except that we have major skill shortages in most of our hospitals and clinics, and far too many sick people to look after, regardless of whether they're private or public.

There is no tax break here if you choose to take on private healthcare. You still pay your national insurance contributions. Most people who have private medical care also access national health for some of their needs.

The system works well most of the time for most people. Most people do not have to face long waiting lists for operations. They did in the 80s and early 90s, because the conservative government consistently underfunded the NHS for thirteen years. There's been a lot of funding gone into the system over the last ten years and many of those problems (not all) have been resolved. There are problems with something called a 'postcode lottery' because each area runs its own purchasing and provision and so in some areas they have problems with some treatments. But I stress, for most people, most of the time the treatment they need is there within a short time of needing it. If anybody is worried and has the money they can take on private health insurance. But....nobody is making cost decisions about a basic health check, or getting their inhaler for their asthma or their insulin for diabetes. If you are too poor to get private healthcare then apart from a small minority of cases, you'll be treated for whatever you need whenever you need it. Usually by doctors who also work in the private sector.

Do you have a PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme)? That's where a lot of 'neccessary' medications such as insulin and inhalers etc are government subsidised? This is a great thing for poorer people and also pensioners.

I think the basic structure of our health system is very similar to that in the UK, but as I mentioned the skill shortage is the big killer atm. Facilities need some upgrading in regional areas also.

I think health care is an ongoing issue for most countries. No system is perfect but I can say with every confidence that i'm glad we don't have the US system here. I know my kids and I would have suffered greatly during my time as a single parent if we did have.

This morning on NPR (National Public Radio) there was a segment on doctor shortages in Colorado. They said that many rural counties have less than 5 doctors and some counties have none.

Our biggest shortage in healthcare terms is in dentists. We don;t have much of a shortage of doctors, although there is currently a problem with newly trained doctors finding work.

There are major problems in our healthcare system, I won't lie. But for most people, most of the time it works pretty well. If you need an operation and it's not a lifesaving operation you may have to wait. But that wait is unlikely to be more than a couple of months, In some cases it is longer but they are increasingly rare. Personally, I'd rather take the wait and feel safe in the knowledge that my needs will be met without me having to sell what i own. I am one of those people who wouldn't qualify for medicaid in the states (I am not at the porrest level) but wouldn't be able to afford medical insurance. I'll take a chance on a three month wait should I need an operation. And whilst i am waiting I'll continue to be provided with the cortisones, anti-histimines, salbutamol inhalers and contraceptive pills that I need. One prescription every month and it costs me about £90 a year for prescription charges (would be free if I was unemployed). Oh and bi-monthly checkups free of charge.

and what you fail to understand is that this is also true of our system. some people fall through the cracks. some people, like Brianna, endure hardship. For the most part people have access to the care that they need.

Hillary, realizing she's losing votes over the word 'mandate', will flip-flop and pretend she never said the word while explaining(revising) her health care plan. Do that and a few other things, I think that's the only way she could pull it off.

Lookout i would argue that given the many millions of americans (was it 40 million?) who do not have health insurance and the large percentage of those who do not qualify for medicaid there is a higher percentage of your population who fall through those cracks than in our system. Falling through the cracks here usually means you have to wait for six months to get a hip operation. It may mean (in very, very rare cases) you don't get a drug that will prolong your life without curing you. It will never mean that you don't get treated at all, it will never mean that you don't have access to pain medication or basic treatments of any kind. It will never mean that the only medical care you can realistically expect is emergency care.

That isn't what it means here either Dana. I've lived with and without medical insurance. I've lived poor and I've lived comfortably. At no point in time did I not have access to medical needs. There are countless programs available for those that seek. In arizona alone we have ACCHS for the poor, Mercy Care for those that can pay a little but don't have access through work, and private or group insurance for those that can afford it. We all see the same doctors. In fact, I just found out that my kids' pediatrician sees more ACCHS patients than private insurance patients.

As a side note, are you aware that most doctors will take a 60% reduction in payment if are a self paying client?

Actually no, I wasn't aware of that. I still think our system fills the gaps better :P

from here , http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...plate=printart

Article published Feb 20, 2008
My turn

Legally, a woman can't be elected president



By DICK MARPLE
For the Monitor
Feb 20, 2008


Related articles:

Go ahead and vote for her - it's legal (2/25/2008)



Most people believe not only that the 19th Amendment permitted women the right to vote but that since women serve in Congress, the courts and other offices of government, the office of president of the United States has been de-genderized.

Not true. This important legal question exists now and has not been constitutionally addressed. The language and syntax of the 19th Amendment merely removed the barriers that prevented women from voting. It did not identify women to be qualified to become elected president.

The language is clear. The 19th Amendment says: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

We cannot read into the amendment something that is not there. Now, had the amendment said, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote or hold public office shall not be denied," it would have accomplished what the feminists think took place.

The Susan B. Anthony Amendment (as it was then known, because the words were actually drafted by the suffragist in 1875) passed in the House by a vote of 304 to 89. The Senate then passed it, 56 to 25. The text of both the House and Senate deliberately avoided any language that would allow or permit women the right to seek the highest office in the land! It was the considered opinion of senators on both sides of the aisle that if language de-genderized the presidency, the amendment's ratification by the necessary 36 states would be in great doubt.
Today's feminists believe the election process is an evolutionary process, legalized by common practice and that someday a woman will be president. They are convinced that since women have run for the office, the male-gendered presidential office has been neutered .

Not so. They will be challenged, and a Supreme Court ruling on the language will be necessary. At the very least a constitutional amendment to change the language will be required.

(Dick Marple lives in Hooksett.)
This article is: 6 days old.

You really think that someone will raise a legal basis that Clinton can't be president based on that???????????

I suggest that he reads Article 2: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

And read the 14th Amendment Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A woman can run for president, even without the right to vote. In fact someone did take advantage of the loophole.

Clinton won't win because Barack is too hot, and she wouldn't give up the word 'mandate' in her health care bill.

In Colorado, "House Bill 1341 would ask voters to approve a 2 percent sales tax increase on all alcohol purchases with the money going to the Colorado's Children's Basic Health Plan (CHiP)."

I think this is a great idea. It gives us one more reason to feel good about drinking.

How do you know that Ali? PA, like most if not all other states, has a program to cover kids regardless of their parents income. If you had a half way decent job you'd get coverage as a benefit. So why is it a fact that you would have suffered? :eyebrow:

The most generous interpretation of this article would seem to say that it would be legal for the Federal Government to make a law that only men could be President. But there is no such law, so the point is sort of moot.

Because there were times when I didn't actually have a job. The system is different here. If you're a full time student, you get an allowance from the government, in particular if you happen to be a single parent. So basically, I was an unemployed full time uni (what you would call college) student.

It's just pretty clear that it's much easier to get health care here than it is in the US. I suppose you don't have to take my word for it though. Ask someone who's had to live with both systems without private health insurance.

Here's something that might interest you. Chemotherapy is covered for anyone under medicare. It's totally free. I think I know which country I'd rather live in if I have cancer.

If you were an unemployed full-time student, under the US system your income would have been low enough to qualify for Medicaid, especially with two children in your household. The people who can really get screwed by our system are not the poor, they are the middle-class, especially those who are self-employed (like lookout was when his second son was born.)

Is Medicare also the name of your national program, or did you mean something else?

The real question here is not coverage, it is total cost. Your chemotherapy is not free, it's just freely available since it has already been paid for by your taxes. Right now our health coverage is paid for by a mixture of individuals through taxes, individuals through private plans, and employers. Switching the system to being paid for entirely by individuals through taxes does not change how much money procedures will cost. In fact, it very well may amount to nothing more than forcing people who currently "can't afford" to buy private insurance (but aren't covered by other plans for whatever reason) to pay the same amount they would have paid for private insurance into the government plan instead.

medicare is the name of our national public health coverage.

I understand your point Clod. The thing that always makes me think is that there seems to be a resistance to allowing health care to be covered at least in part by taxes.

If it's so bad to allow these things to happen, then why is it that Australians live in equal if not better living standards than Americans in general? Why is it so bad to have life saving treatments like chemotherapy freely available? Considering 1/3 of the population at least is likely to be affected by cancer, I'd say it's a socially responsible situation. And cancer isn't the only treatment that's 'freely available'. How bout a heart bypass? Need one of those? Yep? Ok, just take a seat, we'll be with you shortly. Oh you don't have private health cover? No problem, we'll be with you shortly anyway.

Yes, it's because to be honest, the middle-class people currently paying taxes know they're almost certainly going to end up paying more than they are now. Being selfish and being socially responsible are usually at odds with each other. Americans are generally governed by a desire not to be tapped for the other guy's costs, not a fear of what will happen if they end up with unexpected costs.

Well, considering that over 70% of the population will be affected by cancer, i.e. if not themself personally then a loved one, there's a pretty good chance it's going to end up being their cost anyway...one way or the other.

The sort of thinking you describe just doesn't make any sense to me when you consider the facts.

Anyway, I'm still glad we have the health care systems we do in Oz. I think it's one of the best in the world although as I mentioned previously, we need more doctors and a lot of our hospitals need much better administration.

Well that's not true, it's paid for with taxes.... something like 66% of your income goes to taxes right?

nowhere near 66%. Income tax is paid on a sliding scale where lower income earners pay less tax. Higher earners pay more. Some people pay none.

ETA: also, that particular issue of 'free' was addressed in response to Clod. Freely available as suggested by Clod is a better definition. Meaning that if you happen to be poor when you get cancer, you are still entitled to the same treatment.

Income tax in Australia

As income goes up, tax approaches 46.5%, including medicare at 1.5%, and not counting deductions.

Huh. Was talking to a woman the other day who had recently moved back from Aus. They had moved there for her husbands job. She mentioned 66% taxes, and that often her husbands employer paid him with stuff (furniture. electronics, etc.) to get around that.

The figures HM has posted are about right for the higher income earners here. With regard to the income tax amount people actually pay though, it can end up being much less than that depending on how many deductions they have for items they may be able to claim as business expenses, such as cars, phones, office space in the home etc.

Maybe your friend was getting ripped off. Perhaps they should see a lawyer.

While Hillary demonstrates questionable judgment to follow the Giuliani strategy, Obama once again demonstrates good judgement. Finegold was sponsoring a bill that calls for a untimed withdrawl of troops from Iraq. Obama didn't sponsor the bill this time, and in fact was against it, saying without timetables, the bill was useless. The Republican Senators quickly agree to fast track the bill to a debate, where they use the debate time to tout successes in Iraq. The Democrat senators present decided to kill the bill.

A Cellar cookie I just read:

"Call my dad. My mom's too busy."
--Chelsea Clinton to her school nurse, when asked for parental approval for medication.

Holy crap! And I thought that we were bad.

Over $150,000 $47,100 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000 31.4% – 45%

I am sure ours will be that for 2008.

Nah, I specifically heard McCain say "no new taxes." I tried not to read his lips.

Although I never liked Huckabee I was really excited about bring the Fair Tax to the table. That would have been really great.

Yeah, but bear in mind those taxes include health insurance. You pay your taxes and have health insurance on top.

I am ok with that because my overall tax basis would decrease significantly from what it is now.

Income Tax Rates 2007-08 - excluding Family Tax Benefit[3] Taxable income Tax on this income Effective Tax Rate

$0 – $6,000 Nil 0% $6,001 – $30,000 15c for each $1 over $6,000 0% – 12%

$30,001 – $75,000 $3,600 plus 30c for each $1 over $30,000 12% – 22.8%

$75,001 – $150,000 $17,100 plus 40c for each $1 over $75,000 22.8% – 31.4%

Over $150,000 $47,100 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000 31.4% – 45%

The Medicare levy applies to certain thresholds[4]


So if you earn over $150,000, you don't pay 45% on the whole lot, just the amount over $75,000. If you look at the scale, you'll see that you pay certain amounts of tax on certain earnings. So the first $6k is tax free, then the next $24k is up to 12% then the next $44k is up to 22.8% etc.

Yeah, that's how it works here, too, with different numbers.