Well I had to get my medical cleared here in China Friday. So I had to go to a local government hospital. They had to do a regular check, blood pressure, height and weight. Then a EKG, and a sonogram, then a chest x-ray, a urine test, and a full panel of blood tests along with vision and color blindness test.

I had this done in the US before coming and it cost me about 600 dollars, and that was cheap since my local doctor did it. But at my local doctor, it took about 4 hours to go to each department and get it done.

Here in China from the time I entered the hospital front door, to time out the door was about 45 minutes and it cost me 300 yuan or slightly less than 50 US dollars.

What covers that difference? Taxes or some other individual contribution?

I'm not sure why people try to demonize it.

What is the cost of living like there compared to the US?

Hello Padre:

As a right winger, this doesn't offend you??

If we'd only undertake that system, we'd have enough left over to buy air craft carriers galore, pay for Social Security forever, and we could fix a road or two.

excon

Wow! If only that could be done here for that price and with that speed in getting it completed.

and I'm sure it was top notch service

What paid for it ? Like everything else in China is was a Potamkin service. What ? You think the billion people of the country are privy to such service ? Get real .

You think the billion people of the country are privy to such service ?The same can be said of the US system as well.

Well Chuck I hope your piece serves to educate although I see the right wing skeptism emerge immediately, nothing could be better and more efficient than the capitalist system, right Tom and you know you don't have to go as far as China to experience such service, just across the water is a small island called Cuba This is what happens when you keep the profiteers out of the system

Lol you are holding a system that caters to elites as an example?. lolol Yes I suspect that is the same in China where the cadres and invited foreigners get premier care .

Come to think about it... that is America under Obamacare where the cadres who made the law are exempt from the provisions of the law

And your systems doesn't cater for elites, like an ordinary person can become President.

Tom in China they have huge cities, some with bigger populations than your states and they have hospitals and medical care, did you notice that Chuck had to pay for service? But not the inflated price of your system, but what it costs, they have highways and inferstructure far superior to yours and they use railways for long distance transport. Just because something is different doesn't make it wrong although you may just prove the exception to the rule

Maybe you need a better local doctor, or insurance. My regular 6 month check ups are 15 bucks and takes less than half an hour.

So about the equivalent price to China

This was not just a check up, but chest x-ray, full blood work, urine check, vision check and soon.

But the 15 bucks would be a co/pay, at least in the US, you don't walk into a doctors office for under 85 dollars in the US.

But yes, the bus service and taxi service here is better than any US city I have been to.
* no subway here*

Still traffic jam issues, during rush hours,

The income tax here is basically 10 percent for all the people, there is no sales tax at all.

Small business pay ( I am told) a slightly higher tax on its profits.

But as noted in another post, we bought health insurance before coming here,
The policy is from Aetna, well it is good in any nation of the world, EXCEPT, the US, it cost us about 225 dollars a month. The same is over 800 in US

Yes Chuck we know the system is overbloated there by insurance companies and profit taking, what Tom doesn't realise is it is possible for other nations to have viable economies without rabid capitalism. Tom will want to implement the Chinese system immediately now he has heard they have a low flat tax, but you failed to tell him the only road out of town is a toll road

Yeah I thought about commenting on that ;but realized it's all part of the phantom Potamkin economy they run that is well on it's way to collapse

The chinese economy is about to collapse? The one that holds a lot of your debt? And manufactures most of the products you buy?

They can't keep building cities that no one occupies forever.

Even for China, herding a society that big into a single minded purpose that provides for the whole is a daunting process. Size does matter. Until they can raise an economy that reaches hundreds of trillions per year, they will struggle mightily. As do we and all the other civilized societies.

Almost all of the current "growth" in their economy is phony, comprised of phony make work projects that have no economic value.

I agree Tom, but we do know they have more people who don't participate or can't, in there economy, than they have those who benefit from it. Such imbalance is not a winning recipe for any society on earth.

Tom I would say the number of unoccupied dwellings in the US is about the same as China, big difference though, they can fill theirs with a stroke of the pen. Their unoccupied dwellings are in redeveloped towns, in places where they want people to be, planning for them to be, whereas your are the result of mere profiteering

We have vacancies because of an economic downturn. While this is happening we don't have builders employed building ghost cities to keep construction workers employed . But it 's OK if you think white elephant projects are good policy.

We don't build bridges, roads, and schools to keep them employed here either so what's the difference?

The have nots don't make economic downturns or throw people out of their homes either.

Yeah maybe we should have a couple more' Big Digs '.That should really get us out of the hole. Got a hint for you... we have Dem pols here in NY arguing over a decade about what a replacement for the Tappan-Zee Bridge should look like . It took over a decade to begin to see some progress at the ground zero site. Do you really think someone decides to build a road and hands a worker a shovel ? Not in this environment where career pols and union bosses enrich themselves in the planning phase .

What happened to all those shovel ready projects, I expect most of them were shovelling bull?

You apparently have a problem with nation building projects, Tom, is that because you think your nation is built, already developed and doesn't need more building? Is your objection that someone will enrich themselves or that the wrong people will enrich themselves? I expect you have no problem with CEO's enriching themselves and keeping their gains with lower taxes. Why don't you have some white elephant projects, I've no doubt if we cast around we could find a few already under construction

Most times when the government is involved it's a white elephant. If CEOs build and enriches themselves it doesn't cost me a penny.

That is a very incorrect idea, When CEO's take large salaries they reduce the available earnings available to stockholders, in fact some "earn" their large salaries when there is no apparent benefit to stockholders and appreciable dimunition of stockholder value. I can only assume you have no investments in stocks

Hello again, tom:


most times when the government is involved it's a white elephant. If CEOs build and enriches themselves it doesn't cost me a penny.Yeah, that gubment. It cain't build squat. They DIDN'T build the interstate.. They DIDN'T build our bridges and roads. They DIDN'T build Hoover Dam. They DIDN'T build our airports..

And they should never build anything again. They shouldn't even REPAIR our broken down bridges, or fix our roads, or an airport or two.

Maybe some CEO will do it..

Excon

Ex that's gubment, backwoods style, the "if it ain't broke don't fix it " mindset. That thinking leaves nothing for the next generation and never invents anything for it's self. Pappy's muzzleloader is good enough to put dinner on the table and they never learned anythung else. You don't need radds and bridges when all you do is sit on your blessed assurance

Hello again, tom:

Yeah, that gubment. It cain't build squat. They DIDN'T build the interstate.. They DIDN'T build our bridges and roads. They DIDN'T build Hoover Dam. They DIDN'T build our airports..

And they should never build anything again. They shouldn't even REPAIR our broken down bridges, or fix our roads, or an airport or two.

Maybe some CEO will do it..

excon

Most of them were inefficient ,over-priced boondoggles . Don't use the Hoover Dam as an example . You know very well that situation with the unions allowing public work corps will never happen again. As for the Interstate... Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to fund roads ;and there was a national security component to it's logic. It constitutes about 2 % of the road system in the country . Are you saying it's the Federal Government's responsibility to fund and build all our roads ?

Are you saying it's the Federal Government's responsibility to fund and build all our roads ?I give up, who's responsibility is it?

Most roads are local jurisdicition ;some town ,some County ,some State ,many are private owned .Most major routes are state owned and managed ;even many sections of the Interstate system are State owned and managed . I can say that the major states in the North East collect tolls on the Interstate system roads that are designated state Thruways . There is a Federal Excise tax on gasoline that is supposed to pay for road infrastructure maintenance. Theoretically if that money is being used for it's intended purpose there is plenty of money for maintenance. Tolls on highways and bridges are also supposed to be used for that purpose .

So some level of government is involved for the vast majority of the roadwork in the country. Right?

Obviously

To repeat myself... I asked " Are you saying it's the Federal Government's responsibility to fund and build all our roads ? " I neve implied that there was no level of government involved .
I also said that most construction projects run by the government are boondoggles and I stand by that too.The higher the level of government the more waste and inefficient .

So you are saying all this government largesse benefits nobody, so you have some potemkin roads over there, roads to nowhere, or at least nowhere anyone would want to go. Tom I have a curious question? Who built the Chigago hump. Was that a capitalist exercise in stupidity or a boondoggle

who built the Chigago hump. was that a capitalist exercise in stupidity or a boondoggle
What's that? I live there.

What's that? I live there.

Apparently there is a rail freight facility there through which most of the rail frieght in the US must pass, it consists of a large marshalling yard and sorting facility with an artificial hill at its centre. The rail system is so designed that all freight must pass through Chigago

apparently there is a rail freight facility there through which most of the rail frieght in the US must pass, it consists of a large marshalling yard and sorting facility with an artificial hill at its centre. The rail system is so designed that all freight must pass throught Chigago
I've lived here since 1963 (and my husband was born here). We've never heard/seen reference to that as the "Hump." It has always been called "The Clearing Yard," and is just south of Midway Airport, our second largest airport. My husband said one probably has to really be into trains to be calling it "the hump."

Have you ever heard of the Chicago Loop?

That's the passenger system?

That's the passenger system?
Loop = the historic commercial center of downtown Chicago, surrounded by the El ("elevated"), trains above ground so that you can walk from the train into an upper floor of a department store.

As far as the Clearing Yard goes ;it is co-owned by It is co-owned by BNSF Railway, Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway, CSX Transportation, Norfolk Southern Railway, and Union Pacific Railroad .

. The Belt Railway began as the idea of real estate promoter John B. Brown, who recognized in the late 1870s the need for a terminal railroad in Chicago.

Brown and his associates chartered the Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad, the original parent company of the Belt Railway. During a four-year period, they constructed a series of connecting railroads that formed a “belt line,” which linked every major railroad in the city and also served the industries in the South Chicago and Calumet districts.Five railroads-the Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway, Chicago & Atlantic Railway, Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad, Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway, and Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway- executed leases to use the tracks and terminal as tenants.

About | The Belt Railway Company of Chicago (http://www2.beltrailway.com/about-2/)

Very interesting Tom, the thinking in another century

Speaking of socialized medicine, I guess it's OK if you don't mind dying needlessly (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9783818/NHS-chief-executive-faces-calls-to-resign-over-Mid-Staffordshire-report.html) because of "efficiency" targets (aka rationing).


An official inquiry into failings at the hospital, where between 400 and 1,200 patients died needlessly due to a catalogue of failings and appalling standards of care, is due to be published later this month.

The report is expected to blame managers who cut costs and reduced staffing levels in an attempt to hit "efficiency" targets and win foundation status.
...

The report, the result of a two year-long inquiry led by Robert Francis QC, is expected to call for major reforms of the NHS including new controls to identify and remove bad managers and an improved training programme for nurses and health care assistants.

It will warn that a "culture of fear" filtering down from Whitehall made managers obsessed with hitting targets, even when to do so would mean putting patients at risk.

Doctors at Stafford were called away from critical patients to treat less urgent Accident and Emergency patients because a central target said all patients should be discharged from A&E units within four hours, the inquiry reportedly heard.

Patients were left unwashed, unfed and in soiled bedsheets, while nurses were told that "heads would roll" and the A&E department could close if targets were missed.

The NHS Commissioning Board, of which Sir David is the new head, could not be reached for comment.

But hey, let's be just like them!

Now that the elections are over ,the Dems are more than willing to admit that Obamacare has death panels and rationing

Bizzaire

bizzaire


Isn't it. I guess it must have something to do with the politics.


Tut

As they said you had to enact it to find out what's in it

Yes not that it is in effect, and little can be done about it, all the facts will soon become more and more clear.

The system we had needed to be fixed, but no one in America did without health care, since even the homeless could go to medical centers for treatment,

Isn't it. I guess it must have something to do with the politics.


Tut

I call it willful deception.

Hello again, Steve:


I call it willful deception.I don't know. To ME, willful deception is BELIEVING that BEFORE Obamacare, ANYBODY and EVERYBODY, in this great nation of ours, need ONLY to walk into an ER, or a "medical center" and get all the treatment they need...

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

I dunno. To ME, willful deception is BELIEVING that BEFORE Obamacare, ANYBODY and EVERYBODY, in this great nation of ours, need ONLY to walk into an ER, or a "medical center" and get all the treatment they need...

excon

But they could, unless (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/michelle_obamas_patientdumping_1.html) you went to the University of Chicago Medical Center under Michelle Obama's Urban Health Initiative, then you got dumped elsewhere.

Willful deception is telling the American people you have to pass the bill to know what's in it.

Willful deception is calling the contraceptive mandate "compromise" a compromise.

Willful deception is telling the American people if they liked their insurance they could keep it.

Willful deception is telling the American people Obamacare would "bend the cost curve." Ok, it did - sharply upward (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3363725-post1069.html).

Willful deception is your "war on women."

Willful deception is there will be no rationing of health care.

Now that you have heard the Tea Party version,

The South Side Healthcare Collaborative | Urban Health Initiative (http://uhi.uchospitals.edu/south-side-healthcare-collaborative)

Willful deception is telling the American people you have to pass the bill to know what's in it.

I read it before it was passed why didn't you, oh thats right it was to long and republicans held it up and burned it before they, or their staff bothered to read the darn thing. Now I will admit, the parts so far are very good and popular, but the rest will be judged on its merits when implemented NEXT year. The funny part is with you guys is that health care costs were increasing for 20 years, and thats should have been as unacceptable as Obama Care is.

Willful deception is calling the contraceptive mandate "compromise" a compromise.

Jumping he gun since we don't know what the compromise is until around MARCH.

Willful deception is telling the American people if they liked their insurance they could keep it.

Thats your choice so show me the ones that like what they have and can't keep it. Can they afford to keep it is the real question since EVERYBODY'S insurance is going UP! Thats the insurance company, BEFORE, and AFTER Obama Care. I thought you guy admired the rich guys making as much profit as they can, you know free markets and all? Guess NOT, huh?

Willful deception is telling the American people Obamacare would "bend the cost curve." Ok, it did - sharply upward.

Of course it hasn't........YET.................But we will have to wait for 2014, and what part of it hasn't been implemented is it you don't understand? Meds have gone down though. Thats a start in the right direction isn't it?

Willful deception is your "war on women."

Our war is against the conservatives war on woman that you lie about waging and call it for their own good, and judging from the election results, they voted against you guys so obviously they don't believe your lies.

Willful deception is there will be no rationing of health care.

That BS right wing straw argument didn't work before, and its a tired return to the crap you guys holler when you have NO facts, NONE, NADA, ZIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You must be drinking your own TEA, try a cup of coffee. Stay away from the Kool Aid.

Nice post Tal. Greenie for you.

Now that you have heard the Tea Party version

Since the compliant media ignored it you mean.


Willful deception is telling the American people you have to pass the bill to know what's in it.

Sorry, but you have no argument for that bit of deception.


Willful deception is calling the contraceptive mandate "compromise" a compromise.

Jumping he gun since we don't know what the compromise is until around MARCH.

Ah, so all these institutions are suing the government over something that doesn't exist. Wow, you're really stretching now.


Willful deception is telling the American people if they liked their insurance they could keep it.

Thats your choice so show me the ones that like what they have and can't keep it. Can they afford to keep it is the real question since EVERYBODY'S insurance is going UP! Thats the insurance company, BEFORE, and AFTER Obama Care. I thought you guy admired the rich guys making as much profit as they can, you know free markets and all? Guess NOT, huh?

No, it was NEVER my choice. Obama knew then that employers chose our insurance coverage, and I'm OK with everyone making a profit. You're apparently OK with corporate cronyism when it fits your agenda.


Willful deception is telling the American people Obamacare would "bend the cost curve." Ok, it did - sharply upward.

Of course it hasn't........YET.................But we will have to wait for 2014, and what part of it hasn't been implemented is it you don't understand? Meds have gone down though. Thats a start in the right direction isn't it?

My meds haven't gone down, they've gone up this year and as I showed a lot of those women you're so worried about just saw a huge INCREASE on the cost of their contraceptives. Like I said, you don't think big pharma is going to raise prices on a guaranteed sale?


Willful deception is your "war on women."

Our war is against the conservatives war on woman that you lie about waging and call it for their own good, and judging from the election results, they voted against you guys so obviously they don't believe your lies.

I have never lied to you, unless it had something to do with an NFL fantasy draft in which all is fair.


Willful deception is there will be no rationing of health care.

That BS right wing straw argument didn't work before, and its a tired return to the crap you guys holler when you have NO facts, NONE, NADA, ZIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You must be drinking your own TEA, try a cup of coffee. Stay away from the Kool Aid

IPAB is a “mindless rate-cutting machine that will endanger the health of America’s seniors and people with disabilities.” Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif

When did Stark become a Teabagger?

Nice post Tal. Greenie for you.

Are you going to hold his hand and sing Kum Ba Yah next?

Are you going to hold his hand and sing Kum Ba Yah next?Right after you and tom finally get married. :D

Right after you and tom finally get married. :D

He's not my type, he's a Giants fan.

This is the rest of what Stark said,

Ways and Means OKs IPAB Killer Bill by Voice Vote | LifeHealthPro (http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2012/03/08/ways-and-means-oks-ipab-killer-bill-by-voice-vote)


Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif. a strong PPACA supporter, said in his opening remarks at the bill markup session that he agrees with the Republicans on Ways and Means that the IPAB provision is a bad provision.

"Remember, the House included no similar provision in our health reform bill," Stark said.

Stark said that disagrees with the language Republicans have used to criticize the IPAB provision.

No one should "interpret Republican support to repeal IPAB as sincere interest in preserving Medicare," Stark said. "They want to end Medicare as we know it, hand seniors an underfunded voucher, and slash and burn funding available for health coverage for seniors and individuals with disabilities. Despite my opposition to IPAB, it is far less dangerous to Medicare than the Republican voucher plan. IPAB doesn't undermine Medicare's guaranteed benefits and IPAB's ability to reduce Medicare spending has guardrails. It doesn't permit cuts to come from reducing Medicare benefits or from increasing costs on beneficiaries, it prohibits rationing, and it has annual limits on Medicare cuts. The Republican voucher plan has none of these protections."

PPACA is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

This is the rest of what Stark said,

Which makes my point even better...

... said in his opening remarks at the bill markup session that he agrees with the Republicans on Ways and Means that the IPAB provision is a bad provision.

"Remember, the House included no similar provision in our health reform bill," Stark said.


PPACA is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Yes I know, another of those things Dems do that say one thing and mean the opposite.

Speaking of socialized medicine, I guess it's ok if you don't mind dying needlessly (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9783818/NHS-chief-executive-faces-calls-to-resign-over-Mid-Staffordshire-report.html) because of "efficiency" targets (aka rationing).



But hey, let's be just like them!


Why not? You do have bad managers don't you? Just like the UK has bad journalists and Q.C's who mount bad arguments. Let's have a look at a couple of things.

Tom Kark QC counsel to the inquiry, reportedly described Sir David's attitude as "very dangerous" and said his assumption that other failing hospitals would have been identified by demonstrably failings systems was "naive".

"Would have been identified", except for what? Perhaps Identifiable by doing a bit of question begging?

"Sir David a former Communist Party member, was installed as chief executive of the NHS.............." May as well throw in an an ad hominem while we are at it. This of course has absolutely noting to do with his outcomes (good or bad) as a manager.


Between 400 and 1,200 patients died because a catalogue of failings? That is a X 3 possibility difference Sounds serious enough to be able to pint point the failings and to come up with a fairly specific number. One would have though so anyway.

Shall I go on?

No

Why not? You do have bad managers don't you? Just like the UK has bad journalists and Q.C's who mount bad arguments. Let's have a look at a couple of things.

Tom Kark QC counsel to the inquiry, reportedly described Sir David's attitude as "very dangerous" and said his assumption that other failing hospitals would have been identified by demonstrably failings systems was "naive".

"Would have been identified", except for what? Perhaps Identifiable by doing a bit of question begging?

"Sir David a former Communist Party member, was installed as chief executive of the NHS.............." May as well throw in an an ad hominem while we are at it. This of course has absolutely noting to do with his outcomes (good or bad) as a manager.


Between 400 and 1,200 patients died because a catalogue of failings? That is a X 3 possibility difference Sounds serious enough to be able to pint point the failings and to come up with a fairly specific number. One would have though so anyway.

Shall I go on?

Not sure how noting the fact he is a "former Communist Party member" is an ad hominem. Now if he would have said "Sir David, an inept, raging wacko former Communist Party member" I'd call that an ad hominem. Regardless, I'm sure that all those dying needlessly would have felt much having known it was just bad management.

Former communist party members have a perpensity to seek particular solutions which involve aggregating resources under central control

So what? Capitalist do the same thing except they are the central place.

No quite the same thing Tal, socialists don't think of a capitalist solution, they think in terms of big projects involving bureaucracy, capitalists think in terms of minimilisation and profits

Not sure how noting the fact he is a "former Communist Party member" is an ad hominem. Now if he would have said "Sir David, an inept, raging wacko former Communist Party member" I'd call that an ad hominem. Regardless, I'm sure that all those dying needlessly would have felt much having known it was just bad management.


Would they have felt better if he was a former member of the Tory Party?

It would be an ad hominem because of the implications being a member of the Communist Party carries. So it would be an ad hominem by implication.

former communist party members have a perpensity to seek particular solutions which involve aggregating resources under central control


Good point. So it is actually possible that if an adhominem may be justified on the basis that the initial implication is carried through to a conclusion.

If I were to launch an attack on a political leader because they are an atheist and therefore not qualified to run a country, that would be an ad hominem attack. If they starting banning churches, then it would be possible to say my criticisms were justified.

However, as far as the article in the British Telegraph is concerned this is not justified. The information provided suggests Sir David in his job has actually been promoting the opposite of a strong centralized bureaucratic system. Wanting to establish the hospital as a foundation trust means he was pushing for a devolution of the decision making process.

No quite the same thing Tal, socialists don't think of a capitalist solution, they think in terms of big projects involving bureaucracy, capitalists think in terms of minimilisation and profits

Naw those are republicans. They are the slaves of the capitalist.

Would they have felt better if he was a former member of the Tory Party?

It would be an ad hominem because of the implications being a member of the Communist Party carries. So it would be an ad hominem by implication.

Like calling Obama a liberal?

Like calling Obama a liberal?

But Obama is not a liberal he is a democrat

Classical liberalism, a political ideology that advocates unregulated markets, limited government, rule of law, due process, and individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and others