Is U.S.A. Social Security Disability easier to get now ? - Page 8  

Quote:

Originally Posted by hemet dennis 

What were you looking for in a track record ? We've had this from 1957.

 

 

 

 

                                      

Up to you chap but, from what I read here, the US is way behind the UK and Continental Europe, let alone Australia and New Zealand, in universal health care and your President is trying to improve matters. The objections raised suggest that finding about how compulsory systems work elsewhere might settle some doubts. Up to you. I'm just trying to be helpful.

Den, you encouraged me to enter this discussion and I thought from that you would welcome some thoughts from my own experience. I don't mind either way. If members on this thread want a foreigner to butt out I'll happily do that.

The president is not trying to implement universal health care. He is trying to force people to buy insurance from private companies. Far from the same thing.

WE have lots of info on real universal health systems. Germany has a pretty good one an I like the way Japan does it. Ether would require a amendment to our Constitution to correctly implement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebelcowboysnb 

The president is not trying to implement universal health care. He is trying to force people to buy insurance from private companies. Far from the same thing.

 

 

WE have lots of info on real universal health systems. Germany has a pretty good one an I like the way Japan does it. Ether would require a amendment to our Constitution to correctly implement.

I agree and think that he needs to go much further. A State scheme funded from taxes is the only way to achieve a fair result and avoid the exclusions and limitations that private insurance companies require. Given the objections to his scheme, I assume that he's taking one step at a time and even that step seems to be a difficult one.

If a Constitution no longer serves the common good, should it not be changed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaiturkey 

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebelcowboysnb 

The president is not trying to implement universal health care. He is trying to force people to buy insurance from private companies. Far from the same thing.

 

 

WE have lots of info on real universal health systems. Germany has a pretty good one an I like the way Japan does it. Ether would require a amendment to our Constitution to correctly implement.

 

I agree and think that he needs to go much further. A State scheme funded from taxes is the only way to achieve a fair result and avoid the exclusions and limitations that private insurance companies require. Given the objections to his scheme, I assume that he's taking one step at a time and even that step seems to be a difficult one.

 

If a Constitution no longer serves the common good, should it not be changed?

This is actually a step away from universal health care....

The whole point of our Constitution is to restrict government. Our Constitution is not hard to change an has been changed allot. But the states have to change it, the fed does not have that power by its self.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hemet dennis 

I'm not sure how we got on the topic ? We aren't talking about health care that was another thread that got closed. But if you guys want to derail this one and get it closed so be it.

 

 

 

 

                                                                    

Yep, sorry, way off topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhen 

Thai.. how is it done in the UK? Higher taxes for everyone? How...who pays for it..
Just curious ...

Unemployment benefits, disability benefits, family income support, State pensions and health care are all paid for out of income taxes and taxes on employers. No-one needs private insurance for any of that. Private insurance costs are high and, because the companies have to give priority to the demands of their shareholders, they will exclude some classes of individual and charge higher premiums for others. The UK system is priced on income only. It ensures that everyone is protected in that they can receive financial support, a pension and health care without discrimination. Those out of work are still entitled to benefits but financial support for the unemployed and disabled has conditions attached. The unemployed have to show that they are seeking work and receive help in this and the disabled have to prove the extent of their disabilities. Each person has the freedom to buy additional private insurance if he or she wishes but few see the point of so doing.

I understand the reservation that private insurance may put a heavy strain on individual disposable income and tax funded schemes aren't cheap either. However, if the UK, almost bankrupted by war debts in 1947, could do it, so can you guys.