Hmmmm, they were lying. You don't really want unethical employees. And do you really want employees stupid enough to smoke at work when they have signed papers saying they didn't? But it seems a bit extreme. Why not just charge them the extra money all the way back to when they signed the paperwork?


Whirlpool suspends 39 workers, says they lied about smoking (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_bi_ge/smokers_suspended;_ylt=AmmIcRo0oM6DczsqTZ5vMR.s0NU E)

A Whirlpool Corp. factory in Evansville, Ind., has suspended 39 workers who signed insurance paperwork claiming they don't use tobacco and then were seen smoking or chewing tobacco on company property. Now, some could be fired for lying, company spokeswoman Debby Castrale said.

As annual health care premiums rise more than 10 percent a year, many companies are trying to rein in costs by encouraging healthy living.

"I can't think of a client of ours who has not shifted their focus to controlling the cost of their health care plan," said Indianapolis benefits lawyer Mike Paton.

Some employers have developed wellness programs to motivate employees, while others ask employees to state on benefits forms whether they use tobacco.

Whirlpool, based in Benton Harbor, Mich., uses financial incentives to encourage U.S. workers and their dependents to abstain from tobacco use, spokeswoman Jill Saletta said. The specifics vary according to location.

In Evansville, the 1,500-employee factory charges tobacco users an extra $500 in annual health insurance premiums. The refrigerator factory has levied the extra premium since 1996, and it depends on employees to honestly fill out forms. It doesn't mandate blood tests to detect nicotine or trail employees outside work, Castrale said.

Management suspended the 39 employees Friday after they were spotted using either chewing tobacco on company property or taking a drag in one of the factory's dozen shelters for outdoor smoking, Castrale said....

How do they know that they were smokers before they signed the papers. Maybe they just started, that wouldn't be lying. If its possible.

Another example of who's really in control of the US economy: the lawyers.

wow great to see how much power corperations in the US have over there employee's. Slave labor at work:)

I must use this to show how Marx was right the next time im writing up a sociology essay

The issue is with the health insurance.

Most health insurance providers charge a dramatically different rate for smokers vs. non-smokers.

You can thank the anti-tobacco lobby for this.

And if the workers hadn't lied about smoking in the first place, then there wouldn't be an issue.

ben if you had universal health care it wouldnt matter ANYWAY so blame the AMA and the republicans for making you all slaves

blah blah blah. I'll take less than 50% income tax thank you very much.

ben we pay no where near 50% income tax

You're not in the top tax bracket.

Umm you STILL dont pay 50% even in the top tax bracket

here are the tax brackets

Taxable income
Tax on this income

$1 – $6,000
Nil

$6,001 – $30,000
15c for each $1 over $6,000

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

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

$150,001 and over
$47,100 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000

Do i have any sympathy for people in the top tax bracket who if they have an income of $150 000 pay less than 1/3 of there income? No i dont, People in that bracket have enough scehems they use to get out of the tax they are SURPOSED to pay as it is

Ahh right. A third of their income plus 45%? That's fair.

Do i have any sympathy for people in the top tax bracket who if they have an income of $150 000 pay less than 1/3 of there income? No i dont, People in that bracket have enough scehems they use to get out of the tax they are SURPOSED to pay as it is

I dunno---it didn't work so well for the Germans...

it works VERY well in canada, NZ, Australia, England, France ect

Infact the ONLY industrilised nation that doesnt have universal health care is drum roll.......... THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, land of the free,

Or rather it should be home of the slaves. They should really rewrite the poem on the statue of liberty to

Bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses who we can demorilise to the point that they work as slaves till the day they die and are thankfull for it.

The way the US treats its citizans sickens me. Its the ultimate example of Marixist theory

Now you're just confusing the issue. You said that you didn't feel sympathy for the top tax bracket because they found ways to get out of paying it. Is that how all Australians feel?

well its not the way the ritch feel about it is it?

Most of us who dont live in torkac are a little peved with the atitude that because you can aford an acountant then you dont pay tax. MOST of us accept that tax's are nessary in order for goverments to go about there primary roll of service delivery

Thats why the libatarian party couldnt get any votes in the last election, even less than the right wing nutcase party known as the national shooters party

Socialisum isnt a dirty word here you know. The cold war is over and the rest of the world realised that nither side was right and a middle aproch was better. The US is still clinging to an atitude of screw the little man which went out in the middle ages in the rest of the world.

I dont know who this quote is from, he was a british labor politision though. If you want the origional quote, watch "sicko".

"The british goverment realised that during the war there was full employment and said if we can have full employment by killing people we can have it by helping people and so they created the NHS"

He went on alot about demololising populations and keeping them uneducated so that you can use fear to control them too which is born out not just in the practical example of the US but also in the sociology lituriture im studying.

Actually that whole movie sickened me, the old man in his 70's forced to work because medicare doesnt cover his expences. The young man who was forced to chose which fingers he wanted retached because he couldnt afored $60 000 for one and $12 000 for the other.

I have a few questions

Did you watch sicko?

And the second one
Does it make you feel proud that you not only dump so much debt on people at the begining of there lives but that you withold health care when it could really help?

Did you feel proud watching that widow talking about how the health insurance wouldnt pay for a bone marrow transplant to save the life of a young father?

Did it make you proud that a guy had to chose which finger ment more to him?

Did it make you proud watching that 70 year old working when he should be out enjoying life?

Did it make you proud watching that middle aged couple having to move in with there children because there health care costs (and rember they HAD insurance) were so high they lost there house?

Did it make you proud that you rank the lowest in the first world on infant mortality EVEN when you take into acount the apaling state of aborigional health?

Did it make you proud that CUBA, home of the devil and blockaded by YOUR ships has a better health care system than the US?

Did it make you proud that in the 3rd world a child has a better chance of living to escape infantcy than in the US?

God bless america

Most of us who dont live in torkac are a little peved with the atitude that because you can aford an acountant then you dont pay tax. MOST of us accept that tax's are nessary in order for goverments to go about there primary roll of service delivery

Don't pay tax or don't pay as much tax? Rich people spend money too. If rich people didn't hire accountants, who would? (Because I'm sure you will take the last remark in a manner other than it was intended, I feel the need to explain to you that it was meant in the broadest possible context.)

The US is still clinging to an atitude of screw the little man which went out in the middle ages in the rest of the world.

Odd...because it's the little man who votes. Near as I can figure, the country is made up of MOSTLY little men. Whether you want to admit it or not, most Americans are Christian, most are conservative, and most hate it when bitchy foreigners tell them how shitty their country is, or what they should or shouldn't be doing, or how they're ruining the world. And most Americans voted for Bush. Twice.

Asguard---let me point out a few of your misconceptions. Obviously I don't know about whatever exceptional cases you've found, but a few direct rebuttals. I will be the first to admit that the American system is not without its flaws, but there are flaws in all health care systems.

Did it make you proud watching that 70 year old working when he should be out enjoying life?

What do you mean enjoying life? Does a person have the right to retire if he can't afford it? Should the government PAY for you NOT TO work? Does working mean that you don't enjoy life? If that's the case then you're in the wrong job man. Retirement is a privlege earned by working hard and saving money---if you haven't worked hard or saved money, then you shouldn't retire.

Did it make you proud that in the 3rd world a child has a better chance of living to escape infantcy than in the US?

Which third world country would that be? Cuba? Israel? Canada? New Zealand? And if you'd bother to check your numbers, you'd find that the US is more or less even with the European Union in these figures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

Did it make you proud that CUBA, home of the devil and blockaded by YOUR ships has a better health care system than the US?

I think I'll trade universal healthcare for freedom to choose my political party, thank you.

scared, demolised and under educated, the perfect way to control people. Did you ever watch sicko?

Pay close atention the the English polition because he knows what hes talking about

A well-structured and gramatically correct rebuttal. Good job!

sarcasium will get you no where.

Its 2 very simple questions

1) did you watch the movie sicko
2) did it make you feel proud to be an american?

sarcasium will get you no where.

Ahh I beg to differ sir!

If you have to let Michael Moore make your points for you, then maybe I should find another conversation. No, Asguard, I didn't watch his movie.

then i sugest you do

Or you could go out and do the resurch yourself of course. I could sugest you get some epidemological data on morbitiy and mortality rates in the US compared to Fance, England and Canada for starters. Then do some resurch into social theory, focusing on the wealfare state and economic rationalisum.

Basically yes Moore was trying to prove a point and yes his examples were there to PROVE his point, if you wish to DISPOVE it get his sorces and show where they were wrong. Come on, you claim to be a scientist. Use the scientific method for a change on something OTHER than maths and physics.

I would also sugest you look up the social determinates of health.

Prove me wrong, show me that having a compleatly privatised health care system is better for the WHOLE population than having universal health coverage. If you can i would be grateful, i can use it in my sociology resurch to show that the WHO and all the social theorists were wrong. That BenTheMan has more knowlage of health policy and even economic policy than every industrlised nation on earth (except the US of course)

ben if you had universal health care it wouldnt matter ANYWAY so blame the AMA and the republicans for making you all slavesAnd with the government footing the bill you don't think they wouldn't be pulling the same kind of crap?

Anyway, it's only $500 per year extra. If these guys wanted to smoke, they should have told the truth and paid up.

How do they know that they were smokers before they signed the papers. Maybe they just started, that wouldn't be lying. If its possible.

I suppose they could have. But if they start they have to let the company know and pony up the extra $500.
Since I don't smoke, I appreciate my insurance being less than those who do. I don't like my premium going up to cover their health expenses.
I do wonder though when people have to pay more for being above a certain weight.

I do wonder though when people have to pay more for being above a certain weight..


Yeah, the guy who sells my co. insurance is about 400lbs. And he's asking "we don't have any smokers here, do we?" My thought was "why? do you eat them".

Bad joke, sorry.

Let the businesses give the employees health insurance instead of the taxpayer! Taxpayers are already paying for the poor with welfair, child care as well as many other programs that are already being mismanaged by bureaucrats. Stop the waste in government spending.

Yeah, the guy who sells my co. insurance is about 400lbs. And he's asking "we don't have any smokers here, do we?" My thought was "why? do you eat them".

Bad joke, sorry.

I think that's bang on.

Although it's true that the smokers shouldn't have lied, surely if someone is knowingly obese or lives an otherwise unhealthy lifestyle should be treated with the same stick.

By all means they can impose a smoking ban within working hours/on company property but to dictate what an employee does outside of the workplace is sickening to me.

Unless it interferes with the employees performance I don't see what business it is of the company's.

Another step in the short walk to 1984.

then i sugest you do

Sorry Asguard, if I find this quite unappealing. Unlike you, I'd prefer to make my own points, rather than act as a Moore-puppet.

Or you could go out and do the resurch yourself of course. I could sugest you get some epidemological data on morbitiy and mortality rates in the US compared to Fance, England and Canada for starters. Then do some resurch into social theory, focusing on the wealfare state and economic rationalisum.

Ahhh like you have, I'm sure! Despite the fact that I challenged you to name one third world country that has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States and you didn't? Despite the fact that I pointed out that the US and the EU were not too terribly disparate on the infant mortality rankings and you didn't respond? Despite the fact that you haven't responded to a single point that I've made, except to pimp Moore movies? Asguard, are you reading any of my responses, or do you always fellatiate Michael Moore in this manner?

Prove me wrong, show me that having a compleatly privatised health care system is better for the WHOLE population than having universal health coverage.

Ahhh this is impossible. One thing I know from dealing with crackpots on the internet is that once a person has their mind made up, there is no convincing them. Besides, there is no ``best'' way---you like high taxes and no personal responsibility. One makes trade-offs. You're ok with taxing your upper income bracket heavily, and I'm ok with letting them spend their money in other ways. There is no ``proof''.

[QUOTE=LeotheLion;1833523]I think that's bang on.

Although it's true that the smokers shouldn't have lied, surely if someone is knowingly obese or lives an otherwise unhealthy lifestyle should be treated with the same stick.

By all means they can impose a smoking ban within working hours/on company property but to dictate what an employee does outside of the workplace is sickening to me.

Unless it interferes with the employees performance I don't see what business it is of the company's.

[QUOTE]

But they don't have to quit smoking. They just have to pay an extra $500 a year premium. They lied adn were stupid enough to smoke at work. If they hadn't they never would have been caught. So they are liars and idiots.

Certainly this story throws into stark releif the viewpoint that "if we allow socialized medicine, it will sap our freedom because someone else will call the shots over your health choices" seems that the reality is that there's just a shift to someone else pushing you around. And coming from a country with a very good healthcare system - I can tell you catagorically that there is no more government interference on personal health choices than there is in the US.
Likewise there's nothing to stop of taking out additional private cover if we so wish - and its significantly cheaper than the US due to the fact that it has genuine competition and people have a genuine choice.

In terms of taxpayers paying for the poor health choices of others, us Brits have a simple solution - tax the fuck out cigarettes - whenever some lefty NHS doctor makes a statement over smokers costing the NHS too much money and they should therefore have treatment withdrawn, you just quietly point out how much revenue smokers generate for it and they shut up.

I watched sicko recently and did my best not to like it - I'm not a huge MM fan either - but it really is very good - certainly he has exaggerated a few points on the NHS.

last point - the workers shouldn't have lied - if in fact they did

But they don't have to quit smoking. They just have to pay an extra $500 a year premium. They lied adn were stupid enough to smoke at work. If they hadn't they never would have been caught. So they are liars and idiots.


I think I must have misread the article in the first place.

This sounds like a few idiots got what was coming to them.

Certainly this story throws into stark releif the viewpoint that "if we allow socialized medicine, it will sap our freedom because someone else will call the shots over your health choices" seems that the reality is that there's just a shift to someone else pushing you around.

Nobody is pushing anybody around. They asked the employees an honest question and expected an honest answer. The employees were asked if they were smokers and they lied.

What if the company had asked them if they had records as felons, and were hired bsaed on a clean record? Would it still be ok to lie to the company then?

Nobody is pushing anybody around. They asked the employees an honest question and expected an honest answer. The employees were asked if they were smokers and they lied.

Not at any point have I defended the the fact that these employees may have been untruthful - I'm merely observing an irony.

I'm just echoing the kind of scaremongering paranoid language that certain conervatives in the US use against having a universal free healthcare system - you are perhaps right to call me up on it - just like you'd be equally correct to call a righty up on saying similar about UFHC - because we both know it would be a lie.

However, my pointing out that this represents a good example of a private healthcare system and employer attempting to influence an individuals personal health choices (again - in case you missed - this is one of the main criticisms of UFHC in the US) is 100% valid and accurate.

However, my pointing out that this represents a good example of a private healthcare system and employer attempting to influence an individuals personal health choices (again - in case you missed - this is one of the main criticisms of UFHC in the US) is 100% valid and accurate.

Do you not think that a smoker in the UK pays 8-9 pounds for a pack of cigs a week pays a similar amount over the course of a year?

Ben on your felony question. Its actually acceptable to either refuse to answer a question "have you gone to jail" or to lie about it in australia because its illegal to ask it (just as its illegal to ask if your married, if you have kids, do you have sex ect). The ONLY time its alowed for them to ask about criminal history (BTW this doesnt just include employers, even at centerlink the question is vollentery) is if your going to be working with children or vulnerable groups in a specifided job where they can ask for a police clearance. If you aplie to be a shelf stacker and they ask you "have you got a criminal record" lie to your hearts content and then report them to industrial relations


As for the stats i will find them latter. At the moment im searching for a new fish tank so i dont have time to trawl the WHO looking for data

The ONLY time its alowed for them to ask about criminal history (BTW this doesnt just include employers, even at centerlink the question is vollentery) is if your going to be working with children or vulnerable groups in a specifided job where they can ask for a police clearance.

Well, you appear to be more familiar than I am with the laws in America. This very well could be the case.

Let me refine my counter-example. In America, one cannot get Federal Student Aide if they have been convicted of a felony. So, suppose you lie on your Aide application, and the government gives you a loan, only to find out that you did (in fact) lie. Can they take the money back?

As for the stats i will find them latter.

I gave you a link to them in my post. Unless, of course, you think that whoever edited Wikipedia didn't cut and paste the table correctly...

Do you not think that a smoker in the UK pays 8-9 pounds for a pack of cigs a week pays a similar amount over the course of a year?

Not sure what you are driving at old son

what does that have to do with the fact that a corporation attempting to call the shots over an individual's health choices, bears a striking similarity to one of the supposed commie evils of socialised medicine?

umm ben i only have a rough guide to the US legal system. HOWEVER i do know ALOT about industrial law in the AUSTRALIAN system. Im wondering how you missed the refference to centerlink in there. My apologies, i thought you would realise i was talking about it from an australian perspective

From an american one, your slaves, you do what your told both at work and when they ALOW you to leave. You do this for all of your life and then you die. Have fun

Oh and before you dispute me on this, someone else here posted that they do random drug testing at WALMART. You have no privacy laws it seems, the only difference is which company buys you and how generious they CHOSE to be with what you can do outside of your work. Hell in those random piss tests they could also CHOSE to test women for pregnancy or test men for prostate cancer or a whole heep of other things you can use a piss test to find out to see wether your a "reasonable employee"

Oh and just as a side note, no i dont trust wikipedia. Yes i use it if the link fits but i dont trust it. Its not a university grade site. I will get the stats straight from the WHO when i have time. For the moment im busy trying to find out if Red Sea make a marine tank bigger tha 100L

asgard do you even have a job? Or do you refuse to get one as a sign of protest?

My employer pays me to do a job. If they don't like how I do it, they can fire me. If I don't like how the treat me I can quit. If I didn't want to sign a piece of paper saying I did/didn't smoke, I was free to find another job.

yes i work. I am a cook at the moment and when i finish my degree i will be a paramedic. I will be subject to both breath and piss tests as well having to recive a police clearance because of the reponcablity i have. However i was never subject to it at safeway when i worked on the checkouts. Nor at the places i have worked as a chef. Its MY choice what i do outside work not theres. No employer can restrict what you do on your OWN time in australia, its against industral relations law. Also i know i will ALWAYS have health cover no matter my age and i will have super to live on plus whatever assets i have aquired in my working life. Futher more if i get injured or killed im covered by work cover so I and\or my family will be taken care of.

They aren't restricting them from smoking. They just have to pay more on their insurance. Smokers fall into a high risk category and have to pay more. That's how it is everywhere. Whirlpool has just made it policy that its unfair for non-smokers to pay the high risk fee, so this is what they have done. The smokers lied so they wouldn't have to pay it.
Whirlpool isn't doing random blood/urine tests looking for nicotine or following them around town trying to bust them. Its a paranoid delusion to think so. The idiots said they didn't smoke and then smoked at work. They aren't being punished for smoking, they are bing punished for lying.

what does that have to do with the fact that a corporation attempting to call the shots over an individual's health choices, bears a striking similarity to one of the supposed commie evils of socialised medicine?

Who's calling shots? The health insurance company isn't holding a gun to these people's heads telling them not to smoke. The people made a choice to lie, and now they are suffering the consequences of their inhonesty.

I was pointing out that the smokers for this company are asked to pay an extra $500 a year for health insurance, and that in the UK, a similar situation occurs when the government slaps an excessive tax on cigarettes.

I think that you and Asguard are both missing the point.

I love a good cancer stick.

...I think that you and Asguard are both missing the point.

on purpose.

Why interfere with normal office life.
1. Chat at the watercooler
2. Sex in a cupboard
3. A post-coital cigarette

Bliss

Who's calling shots? The health insurance company isn't holding a gun to these people's heads telling them not to smoke. The people made a choice to lie, and now they are suffering the consequences of their inhonesty.

I was pointing out that the smokers for this company are asked to pay an extra $500 a year for health insurance, and that in the UK, a similar situation occurs when the government slaps an excessive tax on cigarettes.

I think that you and Asguard are both missing the point.

No I think you are missing the point my old chum - or at least you are missing MY point and merely focusing on your own (perhaps my own fault as I have strayed slightly off topic by pointing out the delicious irony of the situation)

I don't disagree with the fact that there is little difference between directly charging smokers more on a health ins premium and taxing cigarettes directly.

I am pointing out that this represents a form of coercion or an attempt to exert an influence on somebody's choice.

I am pointing out that one major criticism of free universal healthcare is that it limits choice - but I have demonstrated very clearly that in reality both systems do that to the same extent, and in more or less the same way.

The difference between the two systems though (which I haven't mentioned in previous posts but I will now because this is the clincher), is that one of them doesn't employ people who's job it is to justify - and who's 5 and 6 figure bonuses rely upon - the denial of treatment to sick patients.

From an american one, your slaves, you do what your told both at work and when they ALOW you to leave. You do this for all of your life and then you die. Have fun

Oh and before you dispute me on this, someone else here posted that they do random drug testing at WALMART. You have no privacy laws it seems, the only difference is which company buys you and how generious they CHOSE to be with what you can do outside of your work. Hell in those random piss tests they could also CHOSE to test women for pregnancy or test men for prostate cancer or a whole heep of other things you can use a piss test to find out to see wether your a "reasonable employee"

First of all, I do not support urine tests that monitor what you do off the job. What you do on your own time should be your own business.

But, Americans are not slaves. You don't like Walmart's policy on drug testing? Work somewhere else! You don't want to work for anyone, start your own business.

Meanwhile, in a nation with a national healthcare system, the state has every justification to limit what you do at all times to hold down healthcare costs. Remember 1984? Why do you think everyone was forced to get up in the morning and exercise in 1984? To keep down healthcare costs, no doubt.

No I think you are missing the point my old chum - or at least you are missing MY point and merely focusing on your own (perhaps my own fault as I have strayed slightly off topic by pointing out the delicious irony of the situation)

I don't disagree with the fact that there is little difference between directly charging smokers more on a health ins premium and taxing cigarettes directly.

I am pointing out that this represents a form of coercion or an attempt to exert an influence on somebody's choice.

If you drive a fast car, do you expect to pay more for car insurance?

I am pointing out that one major criticism of free universal healthcare is that it limits choice - but I have demonstrated very clearly that in reality both systems do that to the same extent, and in more or less the same way.

How is asking someone to pay more if they smoke limiting their choice? $40 a month is limiting?

madanthonywayne can i just point out that although we DO have universal health care, we have LESS laws restricting indervidual behavor than the US. Most of our laws tend to be about WHERE you can do things not IF you can do things. For instance your cant smoke in an enclosed space where people work for THERE health, however you can smoke. Australia has never had prohabition to my knowlage either.

So although you keep CLAIMING that universal health care will mean high tax and low freedom the facts dont bare that out. Look at france where smoking bans have only JUST passed and they soak up wine like the world is about to end. They have the BEST health care system in the world paid for from tax and yet they have less impingement on freedom than the US does

madanthonywayne can i just point out that although we DO have universal health care, we have LESS laws restricting indervidual behavior than the US.

So although you keep CLAIMING that universal health care will mean high tax and low freedom the facts don't bare that out.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. Handing over the responsibility for healthcare to the government means you give something up. I hear stories of long waits for surgery, rationing of care, etc in countries with nationalized healthcare. And, whether it's happened yet or not, if the government is paying for your healthcare, it would have every right to control your behavior to protect its investment.

do you honestly belive that?

yes there are waiting lists for SOME surgury but that would be the case even if we had the same number of doctors with a private system.

as to the goverment controling us, we control the goverment, those sort of changes would have to be legislative and would have to be aproved at BOTH the state AND federal level which means it has to go through 4 houses of parliment to pass in ONE state. This is a pritty good garentiee that it WONT happen especially when parlimentry terms for one or the other would be about 1 1/2 years away. People dont take kindly to being told what to do.

The problem with the US is that her people fear the goverment rather than the other way around

Why not just charge them the extra money all the way back to when they signed the paperwork?

Because that they did lie about their well being could also mean they could have lied about other things and still could be lying to the business owners now about their work or their contacts.

if the government is paying for your healthcare, it would have every right to control your behavior to protect its investment.

You can level exactly the same argument at private healthcare - to protect profits, health insurance companies use financial dis-incentives to influence behaviour - the difference is that it is in the interests of a health insurance company to deny as much treatment as possible - and indeed they employ doctors who's job it is specifically to look for ways to do this.



There's no such thing as a free lunch. Handing over the responsibility for healthcare to the government means you give something up. I hear stories of long waits for surgery, rationing of care, etc in countries with nationalized healthcare.

I hear stories about the world being 7,000 years old? so what if you hear stories?
Would you care for a serving of truth with reality sauce?
I can't speak for other countries, but in the UK the government has little direct control over the healthcare system - it is managed by individual health authorities - in effect by the doctors and nurses themselves - in that way they meet the health needs of individual communities instead of providing a "one size fits all" health policy handed down from central government.

In terms of waiting lists - yes - we do have them, and there's a number of reasons for that - firstly its due to the fact that anyone who needs immediate treatment gets first priority and is treated immediately - anyone who needs treatment but can get by without it waits in line - or has the choice to go private. So its not a case of leaving people to die due to some kind of rigid rationing system - moreover its a system that treats people according to thier needs instead of according to their ability to pay.

Another cause of wating lists is due to availability of donors for transplant surgery - this is a problem for all healthcare systems - public and private.

The whole issue of free healthcare causing increased and intrusive government control is a myth my friend

How is asking someone to pay more if they smoke limiting their choice? $40 a month is limiting?

In principle yes it is limiting - you're just haggling over the price.

Here's a few hypothetical examples for you to help you understand.

Would say the government slapping a $1000 sales tax on all firearms limit your choice and your right to bear arms?
The answer is of course yes
would a $10 tax do the same?
The answer is still yes

Like I said - you're just haggling over the price instead of looking at the issue.

I read recently that gun owners are something 18 times more likely to kill or injure themselves with their own gun than they are likely to ever have to use their gun to defend themselves - I don't honestly know if this is a fact, but lets assume that this is true for a moment - we are talking hypothetically after all :)
Would a health insurance company who took notice of these figures be limiting your freedoms and choices if they decided to increase premiums for gun owners?
Would a health insurance company who took notice of these figures be limiting your freedoms and choices if they decided to deny or withdraw health cover altogether for gun owners - just as they already do for people they deem too fat, too thin, or have other pre-existing medical conditions?

Do you see what I'm getting at? Profit is a much just as good a motivator when it comes to attempting to influence choices (if it wasn't we wouldn't have advertising) - so beleiving that UFHC limits choice in a way that is significantly different to a purely private system is a complete delusion.

In australia the money is paid by the federal goverment and spent by the states in the case of health care for acute hospitals and services. In the case of doctors, medicare pays them directly. I like having hospitals controled by state goverments or the federal goverment because it means that stategic planing can be done by the health department. For instance if there are two hospitals with in a 10 min drive in the country, it makes no sence for them both to have dialis facilities if they arnt being used to there full capacity. This sort of planning cant be done by the private sector OR by local hospital boards which is why the mersy take over sent a chill down my spine.

As synthesizer-patel said, when the aim is to make a profit the best way to do this is to cut costs. In the case of health care this means cutting treatment anyway they can. If this is the goverment doing this they lose office, in the case of private companies who stops them? Especially when they are coluding together like they do in the US. This is not a case of ripping off coustimers, it actually COSTS LIVES

synthesizer-patel your not quite right about rationing of services not costing lives. Under a general work load your right but triage for an MCI DOES let people die. It does this delibratly and clinically so that emotions arnt involved in who lives and who dies. On a country road in say a bus crashes and 30 people are injured or killed. There is only 2 abulances capable of responding with in an hour. There just isnt anyway to transpot all 30 cases to hospital imidatly so some people will be left to die

However this isnt general day to day practice

On a country road in say a bus crashes and 30 people are injured or killed. There is only 2 abulances capable of responding with in an hour. There just isnt anyway to transpot all 30 cases to hospital imidatly so some people will be left to die


Perhaps - but I don't see that this is a function of public healthcare - in a private system a rural area is just as likely to have a low availability of resources like ambulances - supply and demand after all.

Of course in a public healthcare system, the paramedics who do arrive on the scene are not going say "can all those people who either have health insurance or cash to pay for the treatment please raise your hands and/or bloody stumps please" in order to determine who lives and who dies.

I agree it has nothing to do with the system, actually a public system will be better at moving resorces to provide coverage than a group of private services all compeating with eachother. However in order to be fair (and so that argument wasnt thrown up latter) i thought i would bring up the laws of triage early. As part of my degree we have to learn how to triage pts and unfortuantly it does include letting some die where resorces are not avilable to deal with everyone and the pt is likly to die without LOTS of resorces (if they are possable to save at all) which are needed for other pts.

I dont know if you know adelaide at all but the disaster senario we trained on was a hypothetical earthquake which ran through adelaide oval when a big match is on, and runing up through flinders med center (one of the 2 main trauma centers, though there is a third specifically for peds). This would mean at least 100 THOUSAND dead, injured or trapped. NO service, no matter how well resorced could cope with that. This and pandemic flu are the two things that terrify me, make the day of the roses look like a fender bender

Would say the government slapping a $1000 sales tax on all firearms limit your choice and your right to bear arms?
The answer is of course yes
would a $10 tax do the same?
The answer is still yes

Aside from not answering my first question (it wasn't rhetorical), you seem to be confusing the issue. How is a government taxing firearms the same as a private company charging more for a riskier investment?

Does a government charging sales tax on Coke limit one's right to drink Coke?

The employees of this company don't HAVE to pay for the company insurance, I'm sure. In fact, they are perfectly free to find another insurer, if this company is at all like any company that I've ever heard of.

...The problem with the US is that her people fear the goverment rather than the other way around

:bugeye: and you know that how?

...The employees of this company don't HAVE to pay for the company insurance, I'm sure. In fact, they are perfectly free to find another insurer, if this company is at all like any company that I've ever heard of.

Having worked for Whirlpool, and considering the St Joe plant is a unionized company, and considering the union approved the health care plan and its stipulations, I honestly think Whirlpool would have been more than happy if some went and got their own insurance. The employer helps pay for the insurance and it would be one less person they have to pay for.

You can level exactly the same argument at private healthcare - to protect profits, health insurance companies use financial dis-incentives to influence behaviour - the difference is that it is in the interests of a health insurance company to deny as much treatment as possible - and indeed they employ doctors who's job it is specifically to look for ways to do this.You're speaking of HMO's. HMO's are set up so that the less the doctor sees the patient, the more money he makes. That's why HMO's have gone out of favor. They suck. Most private insurance is fee for service. Under this system, if anything, the doctor has an incentive to provide more treatment than is needed.
In terms of waiting lists - yes - we do have them, and there's a number of reasons for that - firstly its due to the fact that anyone who needs immediate treatment gets first priority and is treated immediately - anyone who needs treatment but can get by without it waits in line - or has the choice to go private. So its not a case of leaving people to die due to some kind of rigid rationing system - moreover its a system that treats people according to thier needs instead of according to their ability to pay.
So your waiting lists only insure that those who need treatment most get the treatment? Then how do you explain this:
Britain fares rather badly in international comparisons of cancer patients' survival rates. Relative survival rates in England and Wales1 are generally lower than in Europe,2 which in turn are lower than rates in the United States.3 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=27322
So your chances of dying of cancer are higher in the UK with your much praised healthcare system than in the rest of Europe and the US beats you all. But surely that's the only problem. Right?
So-called patient stacking happens when no beds or medical staff are available so paramedics either have to stay with patients in corridors or in ambulances.

Derek Laird, of the West Midlands Ambulance Trust, said it increased the risk of someone losing their life.

Some patients have reported ambulances being delayed by up to five hours.

The union has said that patients are being left with paramedics if they could not be seen in A&E within four hours. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/7291775.stm
So the government passes a regulation requiring that patients be seen within four hours and they respond by keeping them sitting in ambulances so the clock doesn't start! Meanwhile, people are waiting five hours for an ambulance to show up! Where I live, the response time is a few minutes with our evil private pay system. How many patients that could have been saved are dying due to ambulances being used as waiting rooms?

And this story is the worst of the bunch, you all keep claiming that the having the government pay for healthcare carries no risk of oppresion. Well, how about this:
Edward Atkinson, a 75-year-old anti-abortion activist, was jailed recently for 28 days for sending photographs of aborted foetuses to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, Norfolk. That draconian sentence was not deemed punishment enough: the hospital has banned Mr Atkinson from receiving the hip replacement operation he was expecting. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/mick_hume/article716301.ece
So, if you hold the wrong political views, you don't get medical treatment. That's just fuckin' great. Of course, there's no risk in handing over your healthcare to the government. Literally giving the government the power to decide who lives and who dies is no problem. Just be sure not to execute any murderers. But if someone holds the wrong political views, fuck em.

:bugeye: and you know that how?

actually from all of YOU. Besides the thread asking exactly that there is the atitude of fear that you all seem to show towards goverment run services. Now this maybe fear of incopatance but then if thats the case VOTE IN BETTER GOVERMENTS

Besides the thread asking exactly that there is the atitude of fear that you all seem to show towards goverment run services. Now this maybe fear of incopatance but then if thats the case VOTE IN BETTER GOVERMENTS
Well, Asguard, I think The Who addressed the problem with your suggestion in Won't Get Fooled Again:
We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that' all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Well, Asguard, I think The Who addressed the problem with your suggestion in Won't Get Fooled Again:
We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that' all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

That's not to say there's no difference whatsoever between governments, just that they're all corrupt, all politicians are scumbags. The best course of action is to limit the power and responsibility of government as much as possible.

Mad you do that by voting the corupt ones out of power and\or aresting them. You do that by having different parties controling the sentate than the house (or the white house in your case). You do it by having a strong oposition and keeping those who DO show themselves to be trustworthy and altruistic in there goals. You do it by having INFORMED voters and making politics an important part of education both for those who will be voters and those who will go on to stand. You do it by making PUBLIC money avilable for campaine finance so its not the person with the most donations wins and you BAN private donations so that pollies all have a equal amount of money to run there campaines

You DONT do it by chucking out good pollies or public servants because "there time is up" and you dont do it by limiting services because if you do that you might as well not HAVE a goverment

Mad you do that by voting the corupt ones out of power and\or aresting them. You do that by having different parties controling the sentate than the house (or the white house in your case). You do it by having a strong oposition and keeping those who DO show themselves to be trustworthy and altruistic in there goals. You do it by having INFORMED voters and making politics an important part of education both for those who will be voters and those who will go on to stand. You do it by making PUBLIC money avilable for campaine finance so its not the person with the most donations wins and you BAN private donations so that pollies all have a equal amount of money to run there campaines

You DONT do it by chucking out good pollies or public servants because "there time is up" and you dont do it by limiting services because if you do that you might as well not HAVE a goverment
Sure, sure. But as Lord Acton said:
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The more power you give government, the more corrupt it will be.

thats why you limit there ability to be corupted. You have layers of goverment, you divide goverment into different bodies (executive, judical and legislative), you get a strong oposition.

That last one is what the US lacks, you have no oposition unlike countries with the westminster system because you dont have a parlimentry system. If you look at whats happering currently its every man for himself, no one is evaluating the CURRENT goverment because the current boss wont be there come october. So insted of trying to save his own job he does what will atvantage him AFTER october. In other countries where the PM is the leader the party and the PM have to constandly think of what the public wants because there main aim is to keep power.

I agree full heartedly that power courpts but the first thing it does is make the person WITH the power want to keep it. If you understand this you can use it against them (as long as you dont have a country like zimbubwe of course). If Kevin Rudd wants to keep his power he needs to do what he was elected to do so people will vote for him again. Where is the insentive to look to your own intrests in the US?

Dont take this that i dislike those who wrote the US consititution, they did there best in there current time but they made some HUGE mestakes. The 2 that stand out most of all are setting term limits and using a presidential rather than a parlimentry system where the oposition to the party in power is fractured and unfocused.

Lets take a look at what the canditates who DONT get elected do?
What did Al Gore do for the term after he lost the election? Made some money, did some work for the enviromental loby ect. In that time he was working for himself and causes he surported who was scretinizing the president? Who was saying "if i had the job right now i would be doing this insted of that and there for i opose this bill to prove it"? Who was getting up in question time and asking the hard questions which will apear on the news every night? Then who could go to the next election saying "Bush did this and this and this which i oposed so let me run the country and give him the oposition for a time to cool off"?

This is a HUGE flaw in the US system

Also even ignoring the role opositions have in showing goverment flaws there is also there roll in policy development. The senate can make changes to bills which means that goverment bills which have passed the house (as they always do) then have to be re-evaluated, put out for public consultation, amended ect before they can become law. This means that the goverment has to negotiate with either the oposition or one of the minor parties to get those bills passed. Also sometimes the other parties and the oposition can infulance goverment policy through campaine or political favors (pass this bill and i will pass that bill ect).

Then there is COAG which is another level of co operation and oversite because most services are state run and federally funded so its another opotunity for incopitant goverments to be shown up.

Of course some of this leads to blame shifting but by and large this all leads to a less courpt form of goverment. The proof of this is in the various crime and cruption commissions being run. Coruption has been found in various local goverments (especially in planning) as well as in the police forces but verry little (none if you ignore WA's brian buke scandle) has been found in the state goverments and NONE at the federal level.

If you remove these incentives then insted of thinking about there own political futures pollies will start looking only at there POST political futures and this would be bad for the country

Dont take this that i dislike those who wrote the US consititution, they did there best in there current time but they made some HUGE mestakes. The 2 that stand out most of all are setting term limits and using a presidential rather than a parlimentry system where the oposition to the party in power is fractured and unfocused.Term limits were not part of our original constitution. They were passed as an ammendment by Republicans pissed off because Roosevelt was elected to four terms which was a break with the traditon started by Washington to serve only two terms.

I am ambivalent about term limits. There is something fundamentally undemocratic about saying a certain person can't run for president simply because he's served in that capacity before.

I know I was unhappy Reagan couldn't run for a third term, but happy Clinton couldn't. Perhaps a limit applying only to consecutive terms? I'd rather have Bill Clinton running again than his wife.
Who was saying "if i had the job right now i would be doing this insted of that and there for i opose this bill to prove it"? Who was getting up in question time and asking the hard questions which will apear on the news every night? Then who could go to the next election saying "Bush did this and this and this which i oposed so let me run the country and give him the oposition for a time to cool off"? This is a HUGE flaw in the US systemYou can argue the merits of a parliamentary system v/s the US system, but our system has worked pretty well and has allowed us to go from a colony to a superpower in 200 years.

I think campaign finance laws are definitely hurting us as they make it too hard to raise the money needed to run. You've got to whore yourself out all over the place to get the money you need.

We should scrap the entire campaign finance system and simply require that people report on the internet who donated and how much. If some millionaire wants to give a candidate a million bucks to run, fine. Let the voters decide whether or not that's OK.

I don't like the idea of public financing of elections because (can you guess?) I don't trust the government. Allow the government to choose who gets financing to run for office? Fuck that.

actually the AEC is quite independednt from the goverment. More so than even offices like the inspector general and the Obudsmens offices. As for who gets money at the moment the way it works is based on percentage of votes. You get a certian amount of money for each vote above a certian amount (i belive). The down side of this system is that a) it is retrospective so you need to get the money first from some where else and b) it advantages the major parties over new parties.

It could be improved by making it a flat rate per seat and leglislating that its the only source of funding alowed (we dont have the US problem to the same exstent but it is there currently).

Personally i dissagree with ALL campaine financing that doesnt come out of tax revinue because the ONLY person i want my pollies indebted to is the public. As for the goverment using it to stop people running, i highly doubt that. Well unless your in zimbubwe anyway. You just make laws that say when you submit your name to run in a seat you are given x amount (ajusted for inflation) to do with as you see fit. If you pull out of the running or retire during a parlimentry term you are required to pay said money back and then you could list the reasons why a person was given a exsemption from paying the money back like they die in office or they get cancer or what ever or you could just leave that up to the discreation of the CEO of the AEC ect

As for the parlimentry v the presidential style of goverment your right. The US has become a super power and Australia has not, though that could be related to other things apart from goverment like the fact you have such a large population. However that being said even you fear goverment control of ANYTHING be that because of coruption or because of incopitance and yet MOST of the countries with the parlimentry system (ok we need to rember zimbubwee again) not only manage to deliver ALOT more (and aguably better) public services but even in countries like brittan with so much video servelance very few people seem to fear there goverment. So how do you judge success as a country? By what you do for your people or what you do for yourself (as an elected offical)?

So your chances of dying of cancer are higher in the UK with your much praised healthcare system than in the rest of Europe and the US beats you all. But surely that's the only problem. Right?


Our health service has plently of problems - I've never denied that - neverthless - cancer statistics included, the poorest person in the UK has an average life expectancy of 3 years longer that the richest american - the balance overall is in my favour.


So the government passes a regulation requiring that patients be seen within four hours and they respond by keeping them sitting in ambulances so the clock doesn't start! Meanwhile, people are waiting five hours for an ambulance to show up! Where I live, the response time is a few minutes with our evil private pay system. How many patients that could have been saved are dying due to ambulances being used as waiting rooms?


Hardly ideal is it - I guess it beats not having treatment at all - or not having access to any medical professionals - or being charged because you didn't pre-arrange the ambulance


So, if you hold the wrong political views, you don't get medical treatment. That's just fuckin' great. Of course, there's no risk in handing over your healthcare to the government. Literally giving the government the power to decide who lives and who dies is no problem. Just be sure not to execute any murderers. But if someone holds the wrong political views, fuck em.

First of all, its not the Government that have imposed this rule, its the hospital, and they will still (in fact are obliged to) treat this gentleman for any life threatening conditions - they have merely denyed him a routine procedure which he can still receive for free at any other NHS hospital - secondly (and thankfully) this is something of a case of Man Bites Dog reporting - in other words its the exception not the rule and that's what makes it newsworthy - I'm not defending the decision - far from it- merely balancing your slightly more extreme interpretation of this.
The nature of the material Mr Anderson sent was considered threatening to the staff - they do have a right to work without without being threatened for doing their jobs.

Our health service has plently of problems - I've never denied that - That's exactly how I feel about our health care system. Have you considered that part of what makes you so sure your system is best is nothing more than patriotism?
Hardly ideal is it - I guess it beats not having treatment at all - or not having access to any medical professionals - or being charged because you didn't pre-arrange the ambulanceIndeed, neither is our system ideal. But, as I said, we get ambulance service within minutes. The last time I called an ambulance (the only time, actually), the total charge was $50. I'd say that's not too bad.
First of all, its not the Government that have imposed this rule, its the hospital, and they will still (in fact are obliged to) treat this gentleman for any life threatening conditions - they have merely denyed him a routine procedure which he can still receive for free at any other NHS hospitalThis story precisely represents my worst fears of any government run system. Sure, you say, he's not being denied life saving services (yet, anyway), he's just being condemned to live in chronic pain and with limited mobility.
secondly (and thankfully) this is something of a case of Man Bites Dog reporting - in other words its the exception not the rule and that's what makes it newsworthySure, it's the exception. Thank God for that. But that's cold comfort if you're the one being denied service.

As I said, both systems have their limitations. Like you, I feel our system is overall not too bad, and could use some small reforms to address issues like pre-existing conditions, and the working poor.

what the hell does the gvmt have to do with Whirlpool smokers being fired???

That's exactly how I feel about our health care system. Have you considered that part of what makes you so sure your system is best is nothing more than patriotism?.

Quite possibly yes :) - although I'm pretty sure which of the two would cope better in a crisis scenario i.e. natural disaster, epidemic, pandemic - there are a few recent examples in the US of general failures in that respect: 9/11 rescue workers denied long term care, failures in the aftermath of katrina.


This story precisely represents my worst fears of any government run system. Sure, you say, he's not being denied life saving services (yet, anyway), he's just being condemned to live in chronic pain and with limited mobility.
Sure, it's the exception. Thank God for that. But that's cold comfort if you're the one being denied service.


You missed the point - its not the government, its the hospital that have made that decision - I don't know for sure, but I'd warrant that any hospital anywhere in the world would deny anything but emergency treatment for an individual who was thought to have been threatened their staff - as a libertarian I thought you would get that point - you have rights to free expression until the point that those rights infringe upon others and potentially cause them harm or place them in danger - pretty much the essence of libertarianism.
And this individual is still entitled to a hip replacement at any one of the other NHS hospitals around the country - so he's being condemned to nothing of the sort.


As I said, both systems have their limitations. Like you, I feel our system is overall not too bad, and could use some small reforms to address issues like pre-existing conditions, and the working poor.

perhaps, and its definitely a debate that's worth having - but if you look at the direction legislation is moving in the US it is if anything moving AWAY from that kind of position, not towards it.

wow great to see how much power corperations in the US have over there employee's. Slave labor at work:)

I must use this to show how Marx was right the next time im writing up a sociology essay

How?
Because firms are forced to pay health insurance?
If they weren't being forced to pay for their workers' risky behavior, this wouldn't be an issue.

agreed Roman. Asguard has no idea what he is talking about.

so its poor corperations who dont want to be slave owners but are forced to because you dont have universal health care?

Is that basically your argument?
Rembering of course that if you lie on ANY insurance form they can drop you the moment you try to make a claim realting to that lie anyway.
So it has actually cost the company nothing because thats between the pt and the health insurance agency if they want to lie.

So why did they lose there job?

so its poor corperations who dont want to be slave owners but are forced to because you dont have universal health care?...

slave owners??? exaggerate much :rolleyes:

No real point responding to this as she is banned but i will anyway. If a company has the ability to control your actions when your NOT being paid by them then that is slavery, simple as that.