Great, you tell us all what it means. Speak for Obama.

OK Merc, We got yer opinion . . . about 40 times. Others see it differently. We'll all just have to see how it plays out. If its true, would it be the first time a politician was a little vague on something to elected?
IIRC - W was going to be the great uniter - how'd that turn out? Could we be any more divided as a country than we are now?

We have only just begun to be divided IMHO.

As opposed to you speaking for the millions of Americans you have heard from who believe Obama' has pledged free universal health care?

Gimme a fucking break.

I try to gain an understanding of his heath care policy agenda by reading his policy agenda! Damn...why not start there and supplement it with articles and analyses of his proposed policy that provide more than one person's opinion! Makes sense, doesnt it?

Or does it really make more sense to draw such sweeping conclusions as your based on the opinion of an editorial writer who offers nothing to support her opinion and public hearsay?

Perhaps it does for you...not for me.

When I see the words 'universal healthcare' I don't see the words free. In fact, it really doesn't tell you much except that it'll be available to everyone 'universally'.

eta: and I don't think I'm any smarter than anyone else, so if i can understand the definition of the word, then why can't others?

We have what you'd probably call universal healthcare here. It's not free, but it's a lot more affordable than private healthcare.

Just as an example, if you go to see your GP over here, it'll cost you anywhere from $40 - $100 per visit depending on the length of the appointment, time of day and particular practicioner. Of that amount, let's suggest $60 as the mean average, you'll get back somewhere between half and two thirds. Some clinics 'bulk bill' which means the bill goes straight to the government for less financial patients such as pensioners, for the rest of us, if we choose to see a public GP, we get a substantial saving. Depending on how much you 'spend' at the doctors throughout the year will depend on how much you might have to either pay or not when it's time to pay your taxes. Of course, if you're a pensioner with no other income for example, you're not required to submit a tax return, so you're exempt.

The system here is designed to try and help those who can least afford healthcare while still giving the more wealthy a break too, depending on how much they draw from the system.

It's not too bad, but it has its faults just like every other government funded initiative.

eta: For the more wealthy, there are tax breaks for having private health insurance from the age of 30. Unfortunately, if you don't have PHI before the age of 30, any tax benefits that might have been available to you are no longer applicable. This is one of the bad parts of the legislation in my opinion.

What the hell? :lol:

But your system and the one in the UK and Canada are highly supported by your tax system. No?

Of course. There aren't any fairy god mothers here either. Where do you think Obama would be planning on getting the money to fund a universal health care system in the US?

C'mon Ali - He was just calming down too! Did you have to fan the flames?:eyebrow:

I know exactly where he plans on getting it. And that was the point.

lol...well I have to leave him something to go on with. I wont be here for a few days. (yes I know there's plenty who'll be happy to see that. Try and control yourselves so you don't look like dicks please)

:D

US? look like dicks? please. :)

Well I don't think you lot will be the ones glad I'm not here. ;)

I think there is a contingent who will be though. lol

(but please feel free to act like dicks anyway ;) )

Much of the cost savings that will be passed on to consumers will result from computerizing the health care system.

I dont know how it is in Australia, but in the US, a relatively small percentage of doctors and hospitals are using or maximizing their use of health information technology systems

A Rand report (pdf)found that implementing health IT would result in a mean annual savings of $40 billion over a 15-year period by improving health outcomes through care management, increasing efficiency, and reducing medical errors.

In terms of the $20 billion for health care IT in the stimulus package, a Harvard researcher suggests that the $20 bill investment in health care IT is in fact a both stimulus (creating thousands of jobs) and a means to make health care more efficient and less costly over a period of a few years.

I dont take these studies at face value, but I am inclined to take them as more credible than the unsubstantiated opinion of the editorial writer in the initial article that suggested the health IT investment in the stimulus bill would be "dangerous to your health" and was to "enable the government to dictate to doctors how to treat patients."