I hope you mean a watered down free enterpriser.

See, there you go again. I seriously can’t tell if you are a parody troll or not.

Well, Japan’s was the only population I knew off the top of my head (~130 mil).

Its why large hospitals are capable of having things like neonatal care etc. and smaller institutions in smaller centres cannot support.

And my response to that list of points — that we cannot afford it — is the same as I made above, and which canadian bacon made. Health care is going to get paid for one way or the other. Either through private insurers who do not have my best interest as their primary mandate, or through govt insurance which at least will have a broader mandate than simply enhancing shareholder value. And that the burden on taxpayers is offset by the decreased costs paid to private insurers. That people are getting older and there will be more demand for health care isn’t an argument against insurance reform, in fact it’s an argument for reform, in my view. I don’t want an insurance company death panel euthanizing my grandma!

Population is a key factor.

well, obviously, we have to ramp up the jack-booted ACORN and SEIU death-squad thugs to make some more room and thin the herd, tout suite!

Zython:Japan.

France. Canada, Spain, Germany. Sweden. Switzerland. Norway. Belgium. Denmark.

Wow. Did you just call the American military a humongous failure? The most advanced fighting force on earth?

Wow. You need to take your yellow ribbon magnet of your SUV right this instant.

Point is you tried, and failed, to demonstrate that other first-world countries have bad health-plans when they don’t. Hell, I work with Canadians and Brits and they can’t help but laugh and deride any nation that can’t even afford to take care of the basic health of its people.

Not having some form of a national health-care system is frankly embarrasing. The rest of the civilized world is moving on into the 21st century without as, as Americans become increasingly unhealthy and our life-expectancy continue to drop compared to the other countries I mentioned.

I’m lazy? You apparently have decided to get all your facts from this site and Wikipedia. Go do some real research and understand the reality that is coming in the next 30 years.

Let me give you the headline. We’ve got to FIX our current budget mess before we can make the bill 10 times larger.

But since you apparently don’t know how to use Google or You Tube, I’ve summarized the Long-term fiscal challenges facing the United States, Senate testimony delivered by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke delivered in January 2007.

1. Like many other industrial countries, the United States has entered what is likely to be a long period of demographic transition, the result of the baby boom, the reduction in fertility that followed the baby boom and of ongoing increases in life expectancy.

2. In 2030, Americans 65 and older will constitute about 19 percent of the U.S. population, and the ratio of those between the ages of 20 and 64 to those 65 and older will have fallen to about 3.

3. The CBO calculates that, by 2030, the federal budget deficit will approach 9 percent of GDP–more than four times greater as a share of GDP than the deficit in fiscal year 2006.

4. The federal debt held by the public increases each year by the amount of that year’s unified deficit. This leads to snowball increases in the nation’s required interest payments to bondholders.

5. A vicious cycle may develop in which large deficits lead to rapid growth in debt and interest payments, which in turn adds to subsequent deficits.

6. Interest payments on the government’s debt will reach 4-1/2 percent of GDP in 2030

7. Under this scenario, the ratio of federal debt held by the public to GDP would climb from 37 percent currently to roughly 100 percent in 2030 and would continue to grow exponentially after that.

8. Crucially, whatever size of government is chosen, tax rates must ultimately be set at a level sufficient to achieve an appropriate balance of spending and revenues in the long run.
A) Members of the Congress who put special emphasis on keeping tax rates low must accept that low tax rates can be sustained only if outlays, including those on entitlements, are kept low as well.
B) Members who favor a more expansive role of the government, including relatively more-generous benefits payments, must recognize the burden imposed by the additional taxes needed to pay for the higher spending, a burden that includes not only the resources transferred from the private sector but also any adverse economic incentives associated with higher tax rates.

9. The annual budget deficit reflects only near-term financing needs and does not capture long-term fiscal imbalances.

10. If early and meaningful action is not taken, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.

Japan.

First, I never said I was a fan of the Iraq war or another invasion. That’s a red herring. You’re arguing that we should spend more money because Bush got to spend his.

No, in fact, because we spent so much money on the wars, we don’t have the money to spend on this.

To go metaphorical on your argument…
Mom and Dad gave your older brother a new car, computer, and paid for him to go on a tour of the world for two years. Now your parents are broke. You, however, demand that they pay for your college. Your desires are more “moral”, but it doesn’t change the reality that your parents are broke.

Population is a key factor.
It’s not about tax revenue vs. expense.
It’s about process, efficiencies, and complexity.
No, I didn’t flunk out of school. I’m may not be an actuarial, but as a Six Sigma black belt, I do understand PROCESS COMPLEXITY, and how it impacts COST and the ability or inability to reach perfection in a process.

A process/solution that must be capable of supporting 250-300 million is VERY different from one that covers 30-60 million.

To DESIGN and implement a process/solution that covers or CAN cover 300 million requires a tremendous bureaucracy

To MEASURE a process of this size as it is executed requires a large administration to monitor the execution of the designed process.

To continuously ANALYZE a process of this size as it is executed and as gaps are identified requires more administrators and analysis efforts.

To utilize said analysis, and IMPROVE the process/solution of this size going forward, involves a heavier change management effort and ensuring that no additional gaps/risks are created by improvements.

To implement CONTROL and ensure that a process/solution OF THIS SIZE does not create defects or failures requires tremendous oversight and regulatory control.

——————–

But then whenever has the government EVER sought after perfection. When the government makes mistakes, the response is get over it or write your Congress-person.

In Six Sigma, errors are measured as DPMO or defects per million opportunities. The standard goal in Six Sigma is traditionally 3.4. Do you have ANY idea how many MILLIONS of opportunities would be in a process this size?!?!

Why strive for perfection? Let’s assume that 200,000,000 Americans file an average of just TWO claims a year. The National Insurance Program successfully process 99.5% of those claims. Then that only means 2,000,000 claims wouldn’t get paid. I’m sure doctors and hospitals could get over that.

Jaim,
The test involved three questions:
1. Population greater than 100 million
2. Quality health care
3. Quality of life

South Korea: 48 million
France: 65M
England: 61M (UK)
Canada: 33M
Belgium: 10M (really? Belgium?)
Japan: 127M (potential winner, here)
Germany: 82M
Spain: 46M

So, Japan might be a winner. Yet doctors have complained that the national system pays “peanuts” for services, forcing some to find alternative forms of income. And hospitals (overnight stays can priced as low as $10) often turn ER patients away due to overcapacity. With that said, no system is perfect, so Japan might be something to look at.

True, he did spread indiscriminate bombing our military power a tad too thin, but go on…

People who are incapable of grasping anything further out than the next quarter.

Can you afford another war/invasion?

“You can not abandon the free market principles in order to save it.”

Please somebody show me where free market principles have been applied and have worked; then show me where socialism has been applied and has worked.

You can not get out of debt by incurring more debt

Would you idiots stop saying this nostrum? It’s not true — businesses that borrow enough to sufficiently capitalize for an expanded market or truly higher profitability do in fact get out of debt by incurring more debt.

Who the fuck taught you this retarded phrase?