Simple truth straight forward -no bull- I appreciate your truth.
Fact is I cannot trust Obama. He sees evil Americans, disassociates himself with Americans to other countries, and apologizes for our evil around the world ; trying to impress leaders we wouldn't want to govern us (or even their own people), kissing up to them, seeking their approval. All those countries want is for Obama to be a fool so that their vain imaginations can perpetuate their reign over their people, without fear of truth and justice for all. His appearances in other countries reinforces their belief that Americans are evil and stupid, when Americans are able to enjoy the pursuit of happiness. Americans have actively aided the entire world in bringing the quality of life we cherish and have invoked hope to our entire world. Truth America is the ##1 country who believes and employs "green technologies" why are we chastized about this. Americans had the best the quality of life (our quality made other peoples countries have better quality of life), we believe in honor and compassion. Everyone Obama chooses to be a part of his government only see Americans as people who don't understand what is good for them, and that Americans need to be guided to their vision. Remind yourself of this when you see their actions and the things they say and then do. "God damn America" Obama has shown he has no faith in us, why should we believe him to do better for us than we. Look at him brow beating his own Democrats to vote for things against all better judgment. Do it his way do it now, His power trip, his rushing got us into a mess already, and he don't care. In the Obama view they see disgust in America, they choose to see racism-and use it to control people - or people will be perceived as racists ( in fact if they want to abolish racism, they would not play race cards, but encourage unification, not hire a racist judge and emphasize talk about the horror she endured being Latina). They say transparency- but they say they don't have to tell us anything important, they have it handled. They take what has been said and done and re-write history like Orson Well's 1984. President Obama said in his speech last night that when he was elected that more than 700,000 jobs were lost each month, that actually happened after his election. He "inherited the problem" he said and the tasks he has done has created a better economy now as we rise up out of this recession. Well, every thing I have seen and read indicates the exact opposite. Obama said un-employment is at 8.5%, perhaps you are one of them - or maybe you are un-employed and not counted, like me. Unemployment is honestly at almost 14%! Fact the un-employment rate figures do NOT count a very large percentage of the unemployed that needs a job. It does not count people still looking for work who have run out of un-employment like me. It does not count the full-time people who had to take a part-time job for just anything. It does not count all the people who have been cut back to 30 hrs a week to keep their job. It also does not count the 2nd wage earner, or the retiree who has given up looking for work and now stays with the family. Nor does it count first time out of school people looking for work, or your average young un-married college student, or the people who have had to go back to school. Nor people on medical leave who have no job to return to. Neither does it count the people on extended leave, or who are asked to take un-paid vacation, vacation, etc. What's even scarier is that business production is at such a low level that it cannot even sustain the employees there are now at 30 hrs a week. All the economic growth that was over the last 10 years was equally leveled in less than 6 months this year. WHY DOSEN'T the OBAMA ADM. Choose to count the factual truth and actually do something about this. FACT the stimulus was money dolled out for government growth ,to do emergency assistance to states for their first year- after that there is no more. Fact the same stimulus is a about 5% real infrastructure rebuilding to create jobs, the rest were pet projects by congressmen, which is so wrapped up in red tape and stipulations that it will be a long time until your average employee is employed. Fact so much of the stimulus funds are going other than America (outside) and/ or earmarked for outsider jobs. Where did I find this info , gov reports, and factual based news articles - not the Times or CNN or even ABC that slant everything. Oh, by the way I am apparently counted as one of the people screaming out for health care reform- even though I don't want it. I have no freedom to say that I don't want it because I am unemployed and my kids are on the state medical plan. Soon all the choices we make will be much simpler for us - as there won't be many. I do not see the heart of an American as evil. Americans saw hope, faith practiced charity,and we believed in justice for all. If we choose to allow these few to choose for us then we are probably really making our last choices.

He cited the report. He linked to the summary report put out by the CHA. In what way did he cherry pick the results?

And assume that he did cherry pick the results and only showed you SOME of them. Does that make the results themselves invalid? Are the results themselves wrong?

Sorry, excon. There is a bullsh!t sandwitch coming down the pike, but it ain't from Speechless or Tom or me.

Elliot

[QUOTE=ETWolverine;1875378]NK,

Do you even realize the pattern you are following?

ETWolf

Good answer! Wish I had said that. But I was nice. New member.You were 100% right. Your pregnant friend in Canada, according to that newspaper article, will have to be sent to the US for care. She had better find someone who practices midwifery.

What will happen when our health care system degenerates to that point? Where will she go then. We are soon to be on our own I guess.

One of the benefits of our Health care system is the number of small businesses, and some big businesses, that are off-shoots of the healthcare system. I would guess a very large number of them if you stop to think. What is going to happen to them? Right now we have a lot of Doctors to see patients within a week or two or immediately in an emergency(generally a 2 hr. wait for minor emergency) They need and use lots of supplies and equipment. The supply companies flourish. If we no longer have these Doctors seeing so many patients, what will happen to the small business people? What will happen to the economy? I go to business school online and I asked that question in class on a live iConnect feed. The professor said very sadly "We will not have many of them anymore".

Obahma is an idealist. He really believes this will work. Well it didn't work for the Medicare medication problem. I fought to not have that benefit. I had my own partial coverage and paid the rest myself and I was okey with it. But, I was not allowed to keep it. The Insurance Company dropped seniors from their coverage. The pharmacist said ,"You better get it, they will fine you if you don't and it will cost twice as much." So I buckeled. I had to quit taking some medications after I had to buy groceries instead. It cost me more to get that benefit than it did without it, but that's because I fall somehere in the high middle for cost of medications. They sit up there on the Hill in Washington pretending to know as much as a Medical Doctor, and write laws about how we can all have free medical care and they believe we will get it. They will. They are in a unique position to get the best. We aren't. I'm not an important person and I don't have the money for premium healthcare. I have nearly the best supplemental insurance and I am covered 100% because I know it is important and I choose to spend my money that way. Now they will interfere and, being old, even though I have a young heart and mind, I will soon have a hard time getting medical care.:-/

This just goes to show that no matter what anyone puts in front of you if it doesn't fit your view then it's irrelevant. I purposely chose a survey as official as it could be so I wouldn't be impugned. I acknowledge the pros and cons in the report, which I have linked to twice for all to see for themselves, but it does NOT paint the rosy scenario you want us to see. It DOES point to problems. I repeat:

57% of the public believe they receive quality care, that's less than 6 in 10. Less than half of the public believe the quality of Canadian health care will improve over the next five years including only 37% of doctors, 46% of pharmacists, and just 33% of nurses.

49% of the public, 81% of doctors, 78% of pharmacists, 81% of nurses and 71% of managers believe timely access has worsened.

63% (32% strongly), believe being allowed to purchase private insurance would "Result in shorter waiting times." 57% (33% strongly) believe it "Improve access to health care services for everyone." 55% (26% strongly) believe it would "Lead to improved quality in health care services."

I'm glad it works for you, but apparently a lot Canadians aren't as enamored with it as you are and don't believe it will get better. Can you acknowledge that or not?

I suppose I could have pasted the whole report but since I linked to it - twice - folks can read it for themselves. I did however print a couple of answers regarding being allowed to purchase private insurance that don't help my argument, that it would:

NK says it's all good and apparently some is and some isn't. He wants us to acknowledge the good (and I am), you guys needs to acknowledge the bad.

I don't know where you get your statistics but until this recession (not depression) our budget was in surplus, unemployment is not a serious problem and aboriginees aren't immigrants they are indigenous and make up about 2% of the population and account for much of the social problems, welfare, etc. Yes our government has been handing out stimulus packages just as others have, but our recovery will be swift because the world needs what we have to sell, that alone is worth thinking about. We don't need you to loan money to us we have the ability to print our own, The US Dollar is not negotiable currency here as it is in many countries. Our immigrant population statistically may be large but we don't have the annual influx you do and those that come here do so legally for the most part and so contribute skills to the economy not day labour

On the subject of health care I would just like those on the other side of the big pond to consider this. We can see a doctor in most cases within 24 hours although it may take longer to see a doctor of our choice. Emergency room waits weren't longer than an hour until H1N1 hit now because of panic they are longer. Specialists of course always have a waiting list. This costs a 1.5% tax impost for the uninsured and about$AUD200 a month a family for insurance. The benefit of insurance is to reduce the waiting time for elective surgery and bypass the public hospital system. Pharmueticals are regulated by the government which keeps costs within reason.
Your president may be trying to help your people in a similar way remember you can't get it without paying for it somewhere, but our system hasn't destroyed enterprise in the medical profession, just put a cap on the costs. Like many countries we struggle to train enough doctors to meet the demand

What is H1N1?

There are some very clever people in this world, and now that the emphasis is on health care, why can't they think of something better? None of our plans are perfect, but why ditch the whole thing. How many people in the US get good health care? Most of the population. The obesity and heart disease is something else entirely. We eat too much and that is our own responsibility. There is more education and research needed on that subject.

It is mostly good. There is some bad. The survey is an opinion survey - it's not 40 million people without health insurance or going bankrupt due to medical costs. You can't seem to make that difference.

And if YOU believe that there are 40 million US citizens without health care I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in!
When did this world change from believing that people work for what they earn to people believing that someone else should give them everything for free?

Hi Ishadylady,

I wasn't trying to guess the type of person you are. If I were id guess a nice and caring person. Because your posts appear that way.

I was merely commenting on your post regarding the UK and Canada having less freedoms than the US. I'd disagree with that!

That's all.

H1N1 is what might be known over there as swine flu. Yes everyone in the capitalist economies eats too much, it goes with having money and opportunity. What we forget is we came from places where food was scarce and maybe they didn't eat every day. The problem is we have accepted processed foods instead of real food. Now if we put McDonald's and KFC out of business and Coke along with them we might see a reversal of the trend. Everything we eat is loaded with sugar and no amount of education and research will stop someone eating a hamburger with a coke

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737
US Census Press Releases
NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Coverage
Hard Times And Health Insurance: How Many Americans Will Be Uninsured By 2010? -- Gilmer and Kronick 28 (4): w573 -- Health Affairs
FactCheck.org: How many of the uninsured are U.S. citizens?

I wonder if the 65% of Americans that voted for Mr. Obama will think when he can tell you which doctor you can go to. Or the younger of them who may lose a grandparent, because they were to old to be worth helping under the new health care system. This is ridiculous people. He has already in 6 months, 6 MONTHS!! TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT. OH BUT HAIL OBAMA...

I can live without the burger and coke . But they will pry my hot dog out of my cold dead fingers!!
Hot dog lawsuit launched against Nathan's and others

Paraclete,

A few points.

We can see the doctor of our choice, usually within just a few hours.


That's a problem. Because when there is an epidemic or a pandemic is when the poorest need access to the ER the most. Those with insurance can see their private physicians and avoid the ER entirely. At least they can here in the USA. I don't know how things work where you are. I'm not quite sure WHERE you are.

If you are experiencing a slowdown during an "emergency" caused by a pandemic, that is a systemic problem with your access to care that can have VERY adverse effects during a pandemic situation. If people who may be infected with a deadly disease (and H1N1 is NOT that deadly yet... though H5N1, aka "bird flu" is quite a killer) are sitting around for hours coughing on each other in an ER, then this slowdown in access to care is likely to result in disease spreading.

Ours don't. We can usually see a specialist within 24 hours, most often same day. This again seems to me to be a problem with accessability of services that we in the USA don't experience very often.

So what you are saying is that your system is a two tier system... one tier for the poor, who have to wait for certain services, and another for those who can afford the extra fees who can bypass those lines.

I actually have no problem with that. You should get what you pay for, and pay based on what you earn. I'm good with a multi-tier system.

But there are quite a few on the left in the USA who would see that as elitism and an inequality that should be eliminated from the system. Which, of course, would result in EVERYONE having to wait on lines for certain services.

But it also keeps pharmaceutical breakthroughs at a minimum. When you keep the cost of drugs low, you are keeping profitability low. Without profitability, there is no incentive for innovation, because innovation in pharmacology is EXPENSIVE.

For every one new drug created by a pharmaceutical company, there are thousands of failures. Each new drug costs roughly $2.5 billion dollars to develop. These costs include:

Animal screening in rats - 1-2 years @ $500,000 per year.
In monkeys - 2-5 years at $2 million per year
Phase I toxicology in humans - 2 years @ $10-20 million per year
Phase II effictiveness testing in humans- 10 years @ $100+ million per year
Phase III dosage and side effects testing in humans - 10 years @ $100+ million per year.

A prospective new drug can fail at any point in these trials, and the money spent trying to develop it is GONE. And there are thousands of failures for each successful drug. Which means that the drug company only recoups the losses on the failed drugs when a new drug goes on the market. The cost of the overhead for all those failures has to be accounted for in the price of the new drug.

That is why new drugs are so expensive. They have to be in order for the drug company to continue producing new drugs.

But if the government fixes the prices of the drugs, even if it is enough to cover the cost of development of THIS DRUG, there is no way for the drug company to recoup the losses of all the other drugs that didn't make the cut. Which means they can't afford to experiment on new drugs.

The reason that something like 85-90% of all new drugs are developed in the USA is because we don't have price fixing on new drugs. Drug companies are free to charge whatever they need in order to make a profit so that they can recoup those losses from all the failures.

If we suddenly have price fixing of drugs in the USA, the number of new drugs developed in the entire world will drop by roughly 90%. Because it will no longer be financially feasible for drug companies to develop them. We will continue to have what we have. But nothing new will be developed. Or rather, very little. There is SOME development outside the USA... usually by individuals with a personal mission or a few altruists who don't care about financial losses. But it is minimal compared to development in the USA. Eliminate the financial incentive, and you eliminate most of the development.

Actually, as I have pointed out above, it has destroyed enterprise in the medical field. There is no innovation taking place in government-run health care systems because there is no financial incentive to do so, and plenty of disincentives. THAT, in my opinion, is the definition of destroying enterprise in the medical field.

There's also this question... do your doctors have quotas of patients that must be seen in a particular time? Or perhaps a number of hours they must work?

If so, what happens to their patients AFTER they have completed their quota? In some European systems, doctors have been known to go on real or "virtual" vacations after they meet their quotas, leaving patients stranded. They get paid the same whether they see the extra patient or not, so why bother. Whereas in the USA's fee-for-service system, the more patients the doctor sees, the more he gets paid, so there is an incentive to see the extra patient, even if its after the posted hours.

Any system that caps costs and fees automatically destroys incentive to work harder, to develop the new drug, the new tool, the new technique or to see the extra patient.

Elliot

Swine flu.

That's a step for you, thanks.

Is it that obvious?

Absolutely, positively, irrelevant to my point.

Apparently I can.

NK,

From your own citations, 21% of that 47 million figure are illegal immigrants. That's roughly 10 million.

Of the rest, 10-15 million are people who work and can afford insurance, BUT HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO PURCHASE IT. You may dislike their decision, but it is their decision to make. And I should not have to pay for people who CHOOSE not to pay for themselves.

That leaves roughly 22-27 million involuntarily uninsured Americans.

The Kaiser Foundation found, however, that the vast majority of these (60% or so) were uninsured only for a short period (less than 6 months) before becoming insured again. Almost 80% were back on insurance within 1 year. But let's go with the 60% figure for the point of these calculations.

That leaves 10.8 million uninsured Americans who remain uninsured for longer than 6 months against their will.

If the government were to pay the cost of private health insurance for these people, at the very exaggerated cost of $1500 per person (the actual cost is $1500 for FOUR people), the cost would be $194.4 billion annually.

$194 billion vs $2.3 TRILLION annually.

Even if we decided to pay the cost of every one of those 47 million uninsured, whether they are here legally or not, whether they have chosen to be uninsured or not (though I don't know why we should), the total cost annually would be $846 billion.

$846 billion vs. $2.3 Trillion annually.

And we get to still keep our system as it is.

Keeping our current system is 63% CHEAPER than dismantling it in favor of a new nationalized health care system.

So if the cost of insurance is the main concern of the Obama Administration, then he's going about this all wrong. If the main concern is to cover the uninsured, he's going about it all wrong.

But if his main goal is to socialize the country... well, he's right on target there with his actions.

Elliot

Here's the relevance. 100% of those people have health insurance and don't have to worry about losing their houses to pay for services, what else are they going to about?