Log in

View Full Version : Will the united states ever have universal healthcare?


Pages : 1 [2] 3

ETWolverine
Sep 29, 2009, 08:20 AM
I find it strange that the rightists, fascists that they are, could possiblely concieve that to look after the average joe properly could actually be detrimental to the well being of society as a whole.

You inadvertently hit on the answer to your own question...

The key word is "properly". There is nothing that is "properly" going to take care of the average joe in Obamacare. They are, in fact, going to be taken care of very IMPROPERLY.

There is nothing in any of the current crop of health care bills that actually IMPROVES health care. The bills limit accessibility for old folks and people of "limited utility". They create economic DISINCENTIVES for doctors and other care and service providers, which will cause them to exit the practice of medicine and create a shortage of caregivers, just like in every other socialized medicine country in the world. And the US government has a history of paying MORE for health care than the private sector does, which means that costs are going to go up.

So if the goal and the outcome is NOT to improve health care, but rather to socialize it for its own sake, then the only conclusion is that the REAL goal is a takeover of up to 20% of the economy as a power grab.

In other words, the bills themselves prove my statement that improving health care is NOT the real goal of these bills.

Elliot

excon
Sep 29, 2009, 08:27 AM
So if the goal and the outcome is NOT to improve health care, but rather to socialize it for its own sake, then the only conclusion is that the REAL goal is a takeover of up to 20% of the economy as a power grab.Hello again, El:

Yup, it's a commie plot... Can't argue with stuff like that. Just got to shake your head...

excon

ETWolverine
Sep 29, 2009, 08:36 AM
Hello again, El:

Yup, it's a commie plot...... Can't argue with stuff like that. Just gotta shake your head...

excon

Nope. It's not a "commie" plot. It's an OBAMA plot.

No different from the "plot" to become "emperor" that you claimed Bush was trying to do with the USA Patriot Act.

Difference is, Obama actually has taken over private companies... something Bush NEVER came close to doing.

Elliot

Synnen
Sep 29, 2009, 08:44 AM
Nope. It's not a "commie" plot. It's an OBAMA plot.

No different from the "plot" to become "emperor" that you claimed Bush was trying to do with the USA Patriot Act.

Difference is, Obama actually has taken over private companies... something Bush NEVER came close to doing.

Elliot


This is a good point---not that GWB wasn't an idiot on puppet strings, but that he never took over private businesses, and Obama HAS.

Maybe I wouldn't have such a sour taste in my mouth for the whole thing had it not been for bailouts of companies that used the bailout money for bonuses and trips to spas and such.

But it DOES come down to the fact that no one has shown me yet WHY UHC would be BETTER---just that it would be better for different people than it's good for now.

Sounds like Chicago-style economics to me.

excon
Sep 29, 2009, 09:01 AM
This is a good point---not that GWB wasn't an idiot on puppet strings, but that he never took over private businesses, and Obama HAS..... But it DOES come down to the fact that no one has shown me yet WHY UHC would be BETTER---just that it would be better for different people than it's good for now. Hello again, Synn:

It's NOT a good point. GW Bush inherited a robust economy, but when push came to shove, HE started the bailouts. HE doled out the first $700 BILLION! There's not ONE right winger out there who thinks the dufus had a real conservative bone in his body... Unless it's to make the bizarre comparison to Obama as the Wolverine just did...

But, the truth is our domestic car industry was going out of business. It was either let that happen or take them over... Had the LIBERAL spending DUFUS faced the same crisis, HE would have done the same thing...

Was it the RIGHT thing to have done?? THAT question has not yet been answered.

In terms of THIS DISCUSSION, however, I would only change TWO words in your assessment above, Synn... It's not going to be better for different people. It's going to be the SAME for MORE people.

excon

ETWolverine
Sep 29, 2009, 09:09 AM
This is a good point---not that GWB wasn't an idiot on puppet strings, but that he never took over private businesses, and Obama HAS.

Maybe I wouldn't have such a sour taste in my mouth for the whole thing had it not been for bailouts of companies that used the bailout money for bonuses and trips to spas and such.

But it DOES come down to the fact that no one has shown me yet WHY UHC would be BETTER---just that it would be better for different people than it's good for now.

Sounds like Chicago-style economics to me.

Synnen,

Not just "a" private business, but quite a few of them. They have already taken over...

GM
Chrysler
AIG
CitiGroup
Bank of America
JP Morgan
Wells Fargo
Goldman Sachs
Morgan Stanley
PNC Financial
US Bancorp
Capital One
Regions Financial
AMEX
Bank of NY Mellon
State Street Corp
Discover Financial

And this is just through TARP and the auto bailouts. Cap & Trade would have taken over GE, Exxon-Mobile, Shell, and a bunch of other energy and electrical products producers. And the Health Care reform bills would allow the takeover of every hospital, doctors office, and medical provider, as well as pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies.

That is some scary stuff...

Elliot

ETWolverine
Sep 29, 2009, 09:15 AM
It's NOT a good point. GW Bush inherited a robust economy,

And with that statement alone, you just proved to have a very poor memory.

Bush inherrited a recession from Clinton. And he had a major terrorist attack in his 9th month in office... and got saddled with a recession that was all the worse because of the attack.

To fix it he cut taxes twice. It worked.

Bush didn't inherit a "robust economy".

Elliot

speechlesstx
Sep 29, 2009, 09:26 AM
But it DOES come down to the fact that no one has shown me yet WHY UHC would be BETTER---just that it would be better for different people than it's good for now.

Sounds like Chicago-style economics to me.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. It is in fact one rung on Obama's redistribution of wealth/economic/social justice ladder.

Obama in 2001:


If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

excon
Sep 29, 2009, 09:38 AM
Hello again,

So, can we agree that the opposition to Obamacare, is REALLY opposition to Obama in general?

It would HELP if we could distinguish what your arguments are REALLY in opposition to... Elliot has finally come out. He thinks it's all a plot. Steve just jumped on board. Tom has ALWAYS been there... In fact, ALL of you have always been there...

So, tell me this... IF Obama didn't take over GM, would his health care plan be cool with you?? Since you've muddeled it all up into one indistinguishable ball, and probably don't even know yourself, I'm just going to declare that you would.

excon

Catsmine
Sep 29, 2009, 09:47 AM
his health care plan

I'm still trying to figure out where any of these bills does the first thing to improve health care instead of rearranging health insurance

inthebox
Sep 29, 2009, 09:57 AM
Hello again, Synn:

If the phone companies lobbied congress, so as to manipulate the market to their advantage, in the same way that HEALTH INSURANCE companies do, you're right... But, they don't. In fact, the free market competition in THAT industry provides us with CHEAP disposable cell phones with an HOUR of prepaid minutes for only $30. EVERYBODY can afford to call their momma...

Plus, you are RIGHT even further, Synn, in the sense that there ARE certain commons which SHOULD be held by ALL of us, and be FREE for ALL of us to use.... Kinda like fire protection and crime protection... You don't get a bill when your house is on fire, and you shouldn't get a bill when you get sick.

excon

So who is going to work for free? 100 % of the time? Wow, you really want to cause rationing and wait lines - make people work for free - yeah that is the answer. Heck, why is everything not for free? Why don't we have universal gas ,electric, phone, cable, grocery, clothing for "free?" The only way people will work for fre is if the government FORCES THEM to do so. Is this what you are advocating?


G&P

excon
Sep 29, 2009, 10:08 AM
Is this what you are advocating?Hello in:

No. Firemen are paid. VA doctors are paid. I don't understand the point you're making.

excon

inthebox
Sep 29, 2009, 10:14 AM
Hello again,

So, can we agree that the opposition to Obamacare, is REALLY opposition to Obama in general?

It would HELP if we could distinguish what your arguments are REALLY in opposition to... Elliot has finally come out. He thinks it's all a plot. Steve just jumped on board. Tom has ALWAYS been there... In fact, ALL of you have always been there...

So, tell me this... IF Obama didn't take over GM, would his health care plan be cool with you???? Since you've muddeled it all up into one indistinguishable ball, and probably don't even know yourself, I'm just gonna declare that you would.

excon

Opposition to Obamacare is because it is a BAD PROPOSITION that will make things worse:

1] No tort reform

Philip K. Howard: Why Medical Malpractice Reform Is Off Limits - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574432853190155972.html)

2] increases deficit by trillion per CBO

3] Modeled after national healthcare ala Canada or Britain. Canada allowes private care in 2005, why retrace their steps. Britain's NICE is a defacto rationing board.

4] It does not and cannot mandate HEALTHY behavior - such as losing weight, quitting , smoking, eating more vegetables, exercising more - that is an individuals choice and decision.

5] The current VA - government health system - is okay but a far cry from ideal. Why aim lower?

6] Does not address the shortage in primary care, in fact it will make it worse.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There are hard choices to make: you cannot simply say that healthcare will be free - only the most gullible would believe that.

Healthcare will only be more acessable and affordable when competition is allowed and third party payors [ gov and or insurance companies ] role is reduced and the role of the individual is increased.



G&P

inthebox
Sep 29, 2009, 10:22 AM
Hello in:

No. Firemen are paid. VA doctors are paid. I don't understand the point you're making.

excon

Yes they are paid, by TAXDOLLARS. An increase of a trillion in healthcare expenditures means an increase in a trillion in TAXES. Medicare part D has cost the taxpayors hundreds of millions in TAXES and you still have the "donut hole". $4 per rx per month at Walmart or your local pharmacy cost the taxpayor zilch. Who is most effiecient with your money, you or the government?


G&P

excon
Sep 29, 2009, 10:22 AM
There are hard choices to make: you cannot simply say that healthcare will be free - only the most gullible would believe that. Hello again, in:

I guess this stems from my comment that you don't get a bill for calling 911.. Well, you don't. But, that doesn't mean I think it's free. Come on. Get serious.

excon

ETWolverine
Sep 29, 2009, 10:37 AM
Hello again,

So, can we agree that the opposition to Obamacare, is REALLY opposition to Obama in general?

It would HELP if we could distinguish what your arguments are REALLY in opposition to... Elliot has finally come out. He thinks it's all a plot. Steve just jumped on board. Tom has ALWAYS been there... In fact, ALL of you have always been there...

What do you mean I 'finally came out'. This isn't a new position for me. Where have you been?

In fact, OBAMA has made it clear that that is his position. He made this stuff very clear. He has stated that his GOAL is wealth redistribution, not improvement of the economic system... said it during the campaign and was proud of that position. In terms of health care, as far back as 2006, he was saying that his goal is a single-payer, government-controlled system, but that it would take time to get there. Obama has never made any qualms or tried to hide what his goals are. He has stated them very clearly.


So, tell me this... IF Obama didn't take over GM, would his health care plan be cool with you?? Since you've muddeled it all up into one indistinguishable ball, and probably don't even know yourself, I'm just going to declare that you would.

Excon

Ummmm... nope. Because it would STILL be a bad idea. A bad idea doesn't become a good idea just because Obama didn't do something ELSE that was a bad idea.

I was against Hillarycare too... and nobody was taking over private companies back then. It was just a bad idea that hasn't improved with time.

But what this "muddled ball" shows us is that his attempt to control the economy isn't relegated to a single issue... it's an across-the-board takeover plan. Energy, finance, medical/health, industry, travel, education... all of these are areas where Obama has his fingers in the pie. And he wants more.

I didn't muddle these areas together. Obama did that all by his lonesome, by making those the areas that he decided to take over the economy. The issue isn't with me making this connection... it's with you being UNABLE to do so.

Elliot

excon
Sep 29, 2009, 10:46 AM
Obama did that all by his lonesome, by making those the areas that he decided to take over the economy.Hello again, El:

You've been reading that right wing propaganda again... Some people would rather believe the emails they get from Glenn Beck, rather than their lying eyes... Poor righty's.

excon

ETWolverine
Sep 29, 2009, 10:50 AM
Hello again, El:

You've been reading that right wing propaganda again... Some people would rather believe the emails they get from Glenn Beck, rather than their lying eyes... Poor righty's.

excon

Are you arguing that Obama DIDN'T say that his goal was redistribution of wealth? Or are you arguing that Obama didn't say that his goal was a single-payer health care system?

Because both can be proven, they are both well documented. They were Obama's words, not Glenn Beck's.

This ain't coming from Glenn Beck, excon, much as you would wish it were that easy to dismiss. This is from Obama himself.

Elliot

excon
Sep 29, 2009, 10:56 AM
Are you arguing that Obama DIDN'T say that his goal was redistribution of wealth? Hello again, Elliot:

Yes. SHOW ME THE QUOTE.

excon

ETWolverine
Sep 29, 2009, 11:08 AM
Excon,

Are you really going to make me find one of the most famous Obama quotes? The one he made to Joe the Plumber?

OK, if you insist.

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too… My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off [... ] if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

?Spread the Wealth?? - Political Punch (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/spread-the-weal.html)

Personally, I think Obama made a mistake... he didn't mean to let the cat out of the bag. He didn't mean to let everyone know what his real goals are... but he couldn't keep his mouth shut.

And here is the citation... posted a number of times before... in which Obama states that his goal is a single payer health care system.

This one is from August 2008: Obama Touts Single-Payer System for Health Care - Washington Wire - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/19/obama-touts-single-payer-system/)

And this one is from back in 2003 at the AFL-CIO event... the really damning one where he promisses to be sneaky about it: YouTube - Obama on single payer health insurance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE)

Elliot

excon
Sep 29, 2009, 11:14 AM
Hello again, El

You FAILED to post a quote where Obama said his "goal was redistribution of the wealth"...

That's FAILED, as in you CAN'T do it, as in, you are full of CRAP, as you always are.

In fact, you UNABLE to back up ANY of the garbage you spew around here??

excon

speechlesstx
Sep 29, 2009, 11:15 AM
So, can we agree that the opposition to Obamacare, is REALLY opposition to Obama in general?

Nope, I am opposed on the merits.


It would HELP if we could distinguish what your arguments are REALLY in opposition to... Elliot has finally come out. He thinks it's all a plot. Steve just jumped on board. Tom has ALWAYS been there... In fact, ALL of you have always been there...

Just jumped on board? We've argued over Obama's ideology, policies, tendencies, associations and all of that from the beginning.


So, tell me this... IF Obama didn't take over GM, would his health care plan be cool with you?? Since you've muddeled it all up into one indistinguishable ball, and probably don't even know yourself, I'm just going to declare that you would.

He doesn't even have a health care plan. But his willingness to take over so many private institutions is a huge red flag.

speechlesstx
Sep 29, 2009, 11:16 AM
Hello again, El

You FAILED to post a quote where Obama said his "goal was redistribution of the wealth"...

That's FAILED, as in you CAN'T do it, as in, you are full of CRAP, as you always are.

In fact, you UNABLE to back up ANY of the garbage you spew around here???

excon

I quoted his words, you don't believe him?

excon
Sep 29, 2009, 11:17 AM
Hello again, El:

Maybe you just don't understand the native tongue very well. Spreading the wealth around is NOT saying his GOAL is the redistribution of wealth...

Saying his GOAL was a single payer system, is NOT saying that his GOAL is the redistribution of wealth...

I know you don't understand words too well, or how they fit together in a sentence, but give it a try for us... It's becoming harder and harder to figure out what the hell you're saying.

excon

excon
Sep 29, 2009, 11:19 AM
I quoted his words, you don't believe him?Hello again, Steve:

I'm sorry. I missed 'em. Please re-direct me.

excon

ETWolverine
Sep 29, 2009, 11:29 AM
Hello again, El

You FAILED to post a quote where Obama said his "goal was redistribution of the wealth"...

That's FAILED, as in you CAN'T do it, as in, you are full of CRAP, as you always are.

In fact, you UNABLE to back up ANY of the garbage you spew around here???

excon

Really... so you don't see a connection between Obama saying that he wants to "spread the wealth" and "wealth redistribution"?

Then that makes you the only person in the entire USA who can't make that connection.

Here's the exact words:

"My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going to be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re going to be better off if you’re going to be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

Let me repeat that, but with commentary for the mentally impaired...

"I" - Then Senator and now President Barack Hussein Obama

"think" - has in mind, contemplates

"when you spread the wealth around" - when you engage in wealth redistribution

"it's good for everybody." - it is a goal worth accomplishing.

But apparently, what Obama said and what he meant are two different things, right excon? He didn't really mean those words.

>snicker<

Elliot

excon
Sep 29, 2009, 11:57 AM
He made this stuff very clear. He has stated that his GOAL is wealth redistribution,
Are you arguing that Obama DIDN'T say that his goal was redistribution of wealth? Because both can be proven, they are both well documented. They were Obama's words, not Glenn Beck's.


Hello again, Elliot:

Yes. SHOW ME THE QUOTE.

excon
Really... so you don't see a connection between Obama saying that he wants to "spread the wealth" and "wealth redistribution"?Hello again, Elliot:

Yes, I DO see a CONNECTION. I can READ English after all. But, you CAN'T. You don't understand words. I see NOTHING about his GOALS. That would be NOTHING. I asked you to show me the QUOTE where he said that his GOALS were such and such, and you CANNOT do that. You absolutely CANNOT BACK UP the claims you make. THAT is abundantly clear. Anybody who can READ knows that to be so.

excon

excon
Sep 29, 2009, 12:14 PM
Hello again, Elliot:

Ok, 2nd grade English.

1. When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

2. My goal is the redistribution of wealth.

Questions.

a: Are those two statements the SAME?

b: Are those two statements close?

c. When you say number #1, could it be construed that you mean number #2?

d. Could it be even remotely construed to mean number #2?

e. If you said sentence number #1 and sentence #2 were the same, what's wrong with you?

Here are the answers. a, NO. b, NO. c, NO. d, NO. e. You're a dining room table.

excon

ETWolverine
Sep 29, 2009, 12:29 PM
Ah... I see your point... you're point is... COMPLETELY ABSENT.

And I suppose that the words "I am a proponent of a single payer system," don't mean that either.

Keep trying to twist out of it, excon. He said it, hea meant it, and you can't handle the fact that you're wrong, and you are twisting in the breeze to try and unhang yourself from your own string of BS.

If Obama is proposing a specific tax plan, and he states to Joe the Plumber that the reason that he wants that specific tax plan is because he likes wealth redistribution AND THIS TAX PLAN WILL ACCOMPLISH THAT, that perhaps redistribution of wealth through his tax plan IS HIS GOAL?

He was using the 'wealth redistribution' argument as the basis to defend his tax plan, for godsake. What else could he have possibly meant other that "I want wealth redistribution and this tax plan is how I'm going to get it"?

It was his stated goal, to be accomplished... by his own words... with his tax plan.

Wrong as usual, excon... and looking more and more foolish by trying to deny it.

Elliot

Synnen
Sep 29, 2009, 12:29 PM
Hello in:

No. Firemen are paid. VA doctors are paid. I don't understand the point you're making.

excon


Firemen and VA doctors are paid BY TAXPAYERS.

I'm not paying for some schmuck down the street who is addicted to smack to get the SAME healthcare I'm getting. Screw that.

Once again--who is John Galt?

ETWolverine
Sep 29, 2009, 12:40 PM
Once again--who is John Galt?

Is that a serious question or just a reference?

Good reference, though.

speechlesstx
Sep 29, 2009, 12:43 PM
Hello again, Steve:

I'm sorry. I missed 'em. Please re-direct me.

excon

Right here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/will-united-states-ever-have-universal-healthcare-389870-26.html#post2004333). I don't need an English lesson either.

Exit question: what do YOU think he means when he says he wants to bring about "fundamental change" in this country?

Synnen
Sep 29, 2009, 12:50 PM
Is that a serious question or just a reference?

Good reference, though.

Reference--sorry, should have used quotes.

speechlesstx
Sep 30, 2009, 07:34 AM
This is the second story on this trend I've reported here.


In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-canada27-2009sep27%2C0%2C5111855.story)

In British Columbia, private clinics and surgical centers are capitalizing on patients who might otherwise pay for faster treatment in the U.S. The courts will consider their legality next month.

By Kim Murphy
September 27, 2009

Reporting from Vancouver, Canada - When the pain in Christina Woodkey's legs became so severe that she could no long hike or cross-country ski, she went to her local health clinic. The Calgary, Canada, resident was told she'd need to see a hip specialist. Because the problem was not life-threatening, however, she'd have to wait about a year.

So wait she did.

In January, the hip doctor told her that a narrowing of the spine was compressing her nerves and causing the pain. She needed a back specialist. The appointment was set for Sept. 30. "When I was given that date, I asked when could I expect to have surgery," said Woodkey, 72. "They said it would be a year and a half after I had seen this doctor."

So this month, she drove across the border into Montana and got the $50,000 surgery done in two days.

"I don't have insurance. We're not allowed to have private health insurance in Canada," Woodkey said. "It's not going to be easy to come up with the money. But I'm happy to say the pain is almost all gone."

Whereas U.S. healthcare is predominantly a private system paid for by private insurers, things in Canada tend toward the other end of the spectrum: A universal, government-funded health system is only beginning to flirt with private-sector medicine.

Hoping to capitalize on patients who might otherwise go to the U.S. for speedier care, a network of technically illegal private clinics and surgical centers has sprung up in British Columbia, echoing a trend in Quebec. In October, the courts will be asked to decide whether the budding system should be sanctioned.

More than 70 private health providers in British Columbia now schedule simple surgeries and tests such as MRIs with waits as short as a week or two, compared with the months it takes for a public surgical suite to become available for nonessential operations.

"What we have in Canada is access to a government, state-mandated wait list," said Brian Day, a former Canadian Medical Assn. director who runs a private surgical center in Vancouver. "You cannot force a citizen in a free and democratic society to simply wait for healthcare, and outlaw their ability to extricate themselves from a wait list."

Yet the move into privatized care threatens to make the delays -- already long from the perennial shortage of doctors and rationing of facilities -- even longer, public healthcare advocates say. There will be fewer skilled healthcare workers in government hospitals as doctors and nurses are lured into better-paying private jobs, they say.

Fire away, let's hear the latest defense of Canada's model health care system.

tomder55
Sep 30, 2009, 07:57 AM
Technically illegal private clinics and surgical centers


Oh them illegal back ally clinics. Sounds like the abortion debate .

asking
Sep 30, 2009, 08:07 AM
The Canadians I know are happy with it. I've certainly had some long waits under the US system. Despite severe back pain, I was not treated for 6 months, mostly because of intense bureaucratic stuff that I had to deal with while in pain. I don't know of any reputable back surgeon around here who could schedule a $50,000 surgery in two weeks.

But consider France. There's no reason to limit ourselves to Canada.

The French Lesson In Health Care (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm)


Michael Moore's documentary Sicko trumpets France as one of the most effective providers of universal health care. His conclusions and fist-in-your-gut approach may drive some Americans up the wall. But whatever you think of Moore, the French system—a complex mix of private and public financing—offers valuable lessons for would-be health-care reformers in the U.S.

In Sicko, Moore lumps France in with the socialized systems of Britain, Canada, and Cuba. In fact, the French system is similar enough to the U.S. model that reforms based on France's experience might work in America. The French can choose their doctors and see any specialist they want. Doctors in France, many of whom are self- employed, are free to prescribe any care they deem medically necessary. "The French approach suggests it is possible to solve the problem of financing universal coverage... [without] reorganizing the entire system," says Victor G. Rodwin, professor of health policy and management at New York University.

I'm not going to post the whole story because that would be a violation of copyright law.

excon
Sep 30, 2009, 08:11 AM
Hello:

What I want to know, at THIS point in time, is Obama going to fight for the public option or is he going to cave to the insurance lobby?

His decision, in my view, will be the turning point in his administration. Indeed, I think it will be a turning point in American politics for a LONG time to come.

Now, I don't know WHICH side has the most votes, gall, constituents, money, patriotism, confidence, or any of those things. I just know that whichever side wins, will win BIG.

I said it before, and I'm going to say it again. If Obama is defeated at, yes HIS Waterloo, then Sarah Palin will be our next president, and guys like 450 and the Wolverine will be appointed to government. Scary thought..

If Obama WINS, the right wing, of the right wing will fall off a cliff, never to return as the country rights itself - or maybe that's DE-rights itself.

excon

speechlesstx
Sep 30, 2009, 08:37 AM
The Canadians I know are happy with it. I've certainly had some long waits under the US system. Despite severe back pain, I was not treated for 6 months, mostly because of intense bureaucratic stuff that I had to deal with while in pain. I don't know of any reputable back surgeon around here who could schedule a $50,000 surgery in two weeks.

Yes, they say they're happy, just like NK does, but this is the second Canadian province reported to have a surge in private clinics. The facts speak for themselves.


But consider France. There's no reason to limit ourselves to Canada.

These Democrats aren't interested in modeling themselves after anyone, they're hellbent on reorganizing the entire system.

tomder55
Sep 30, 2009, 09:01 AM
is Obama going to fight for the public option or is he going to cave to the insurance lobby?


He's more concerned about securing the Olympics for Chi-town... another exercise in vanity . If you listen to his pitch to the CBC this week he gave the same boilerplate address of generalities without mentioning the "public option" at all . Does that mean that he has no clear position on it ? Not at all. He is firmly in favor of socialized medicine . However ;much like his previous legislative history.. and his delaying action in Afghanistan , he is voting absent and allowing the Pelosi's of the world to do the dirty work.

speechlesstx
Sep 30, 2009, 09:01 AM
I said it before, and I'm going to say it again. If Obama is defeated at, yes HIS Waterloo, then Sarah Palin will be our next president, and guys like 450 and the Wolverine will be appointed to government. Scary thought..

If Obama WINS, the right wing, of the right wing will fall off a cliff, never to return as the country rights itself - or maybe that's DE-rights itself.

We have more pressing concerns than Palin as president, like a military dictatorship right here in the good 'ol USA according to Gore Vidal.

US under Obama could slide into military dictatorship, says Gore Vidal (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6854498.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093)

Synnen
Sep 30, 2009, 09:07 AM
A dictatorship here at home is EXACTLY what economists want to happen, actually.

But it won't, for 2 reasons:

1. There is a HUGE difference between a socialist (which I would name Obama) and a dictator (just ask Argentina or Russian or Chile).
2. The middle class wouldn't stand for it.

excon
Sep 30, 2009, 09:24 AM
Hello again:

We can sit here all day and talk about what the screaming mimi's said, but I'd rather talk about the REAL WORLD.

excon

ETWolverine
Sep 30, 2009, 09:33 AM
A dictatorship here at home is EXACTLY what economists want to happen, actually.

But it won't, for 2 reasons:

1. There is a HUGE difference between a socialist (which I would name Obama) and a dictator (just ask Argentina or Russian or Chile).
2. The middle class wouldn't stand for it.

1. I agree that Obama is not a dictator in the traditional sense. He is not capable of pushing a "hard tyranny". But he is definitely trying to push a "SOFT tyranny". And that would make him a "soft dictator". Who other than a dictator is capable of firing heads of private companies and replacing him with his own guy? Who other than a dictator is capable of limiting compensation paid by companies in violation of contract law? Who other than a dictator is capable of changing bankruptcy laws at whim to protect unions and hurt legal creditors... again in violation of contract law and bankruptcy law? All of these things have been done by Obama. Are they not the actions of a dictator... changing the rules at whim to favor his political agenda? Although Obama has not acted VIOLENTLY like many dictators do, what makes his actions any different from those of any other dictator? A non-violent dictator is still a dictator, Synnen.

2. How would the Middle Class stop it?

Elliot

Synnen
Sep 30, 2009, 09:59 AM
1. If all of that is true, then why has absolutely NO ONE brought impeachment charges? The president is as subject to our laws as the rest of us are.
2. We strike. We protest. We rise up against tyranny. Unlike many of the OTHER countries that because dictatorships after an election --precisely why I brought up the 3 countries I did: they ELECTED their dictators, and it was peaceful until jobs started disappearing and the inflation became insane, because of pressure from the IMF and the US to auction off state owned resources/companies--but anyway, unlike those countries, most of our middle class is ARMED. Granted, it's not AK47s, but a rifle can kill you just as dead.

Should our country TRULY start becoming a dictatorship, people WILL rise up, and it WILL be a civil war.

ETWolverine
Sep 30, 2009, 10:07 AM
1. If all of that is true, then why has absolutely NO ONE brought impeachment charges? The president is as subject to our laws as the rest of us are.

Impeachment requires a supermajority vote of Congress.

And who controls Congress?

There's your answer.



2. We strike. We protest. We rise up against tyranny. Unlike many of the OTHER countries that because dictatorships after an election --precisely why I brought up the 3 countries I did: they ELECTED their dictators, and it was peaceful until jobs started disappearing and the inflation became insane, because of pressure from the IMF and the US to auction off state owned resources/companies--but anyway, unlike those countries, most of our middle class is ARMED. Granted, it's not AK47s, but a rifle can kill you just as dead.

Should our country TRULY start becoming a dictatorship, people WILL rise up, and it WILL be a civil war.

Thank you, you just made my argument for the sanctity of gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. Off topic, I know, but I decided to take the opportunity where it presented itself.

excon
Sep 30, 2009, 10:17 AM
1. If all of that is true, then why has absolutely NO ONE brought impeachment charges?
Impeachment requires a supermajority vote of Congress.

And who controls Congress? There's your answer.Hello Synn:

It's because NONE of it IS true. It resides ONLY in the head of your friendly Wolverine...

You see how he dismisses you. I guess he figures you didn't take 2nd grade civics. Anyone who has, KNOWS that the minority party can bring up bills and/or resolutions for impeachment...

They CAN, and yet NONE of them have done so. Not, the Minority Leader Bohener, not whacko Michelle Bachmann, not ANY Republican... Why don't they?? It's because they believe Obama is a FINE AMERICAN even if opposed to them... Oh, they throw around WORDS, but they don't ACT on their words.

It's truly only the whacko's and right wing loons, like the birthers and some members of this board, who believe that. I guess we'll have to start calling them the impeachers...

excon

ETWolverine
Sep 30, 2009, 10:26 AM
Hello Synn:

It's because NONE of it IS true. It resides ONLY in the head of your friendly Wolverine...

You see how he dismisses you. I guess he figures you didn't take 2nd grade civics. Anyone who has, KNOWS that the minority party can bring up bills and/or resolutions for impeachment...

They CAN, and yet NONE of them have done it. Not, the Minority Leader Bohener, not whacko Michelle Bachmann, not ANY Republican.... Why don't they???? It's because they believe Obama is a FINE AMERICAN even if opposed to them... Oh, they throw around WORDS, but they don't ACT on their words.

It's truly only the whacko's and right wing loons, like the birthers and some members of this board, who believe that. I guess we'll have to start calling them the impeachers...

excon

Hi Exy...

Which item was untrue?

Did Obama NOT fire the head of GM?

Did Obama not cap compensation for executives of AIG, GM and Chrysler and several banks, despite there being contracts in place for those compensation levels?

Did he not violate the contracts between GM and it's secured creditors by paying them LAST in the bankruptcy proceedings instead of first, as they should have been paid per the security agreements? And did he not pay the unsecured UNIONS first instead of last, also in violation of the security agreements? Were these not violations of both contract law and bankruptcy law?

As a matter of fact, I think he did every single one of these things. All of them have been thoroughly documented too. He did 'em, they violated the law, and he's getting away with it. And you're happy enough letting him get away with it, because it backs up your political leanings.

So basically, excon, you're full of $h!t. And now EVERYONE knows it.

Elliot

speechlesstx
Sep 30, 2009, 10:27 AM
Speaking of wackos, irresponsible rhetoric, fear mongering and utter disrespect from the floor of Congress...


Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) warned Americans that "Republicans want you to die quickly (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27726.html#ixzz0SbzB50Lt)" during an after-hours House floor speech Tuesday night.

His remarks, which drew angry and immediate calls for an apology from Republicans, were highlighted by a sign reading "The Republican Health Care Plan: Die Quickly."

Yeah, it's just the right-wing wackos making a circus out of this.

NeedKarma
Sep 30, 2009, 10:29 AM
This board is full of dysfunctional people.

excon
Sep 30, 2009, 10:43 AM
Which item was untrue?Hello again, Wolverine.

Simple, really.

Synn asked why nobody has tried to impeach him. You said the reason is the Republicans don't control congress.

That's just flat out, UNTRUE, as I explained.

It's not even CLOSE the giving Synn an answer SHE deserves. But, you seem to have hooked me back into this stupid game of he said, she said.

I know you don't understand words. There ain't nothing I can DO about that. I'm out of here once again.

excon

speechlesstx
Sep 30, 2009, 10:47 AM
This board is full of dysfunctional people.

Welcome to the club.

Synnen
Sep 30, 2009, 10:52 AM
I would just like to point out that a great way for partially fixing the existing system is to take the patent for life-saving drugs away from pharmaceudical companies IF the research for the drug was in any way, shape, or form funded by the taxpayers.

So... you can keep the profits as a company IF you do the research with your OWN money. If you use government GRANTS to do the research, then the GOVERNMENT owns the "patent"---or like the polio vaccine, and Jonas Salk, there should BE no patent for it.

excon
Sep 30, 2009, 11:28 AM
So...you can keep the profits as a company IF you do the research with your OWN money. If you use government GRANTS to do the research, then the GOVERNMENT owns the "patent"---or like the polio vaccine, and Jonas Salk, there should BE no patent for it.Hello Synn:

You're coming along nicely. That's a wonderful idea. However, in terms of medical care, I have a belief that NO ONE should profit from anyone else's misery...

Really, Synn... Imagine the world gets hit with a really bad epidemic... ONE company has the patent on the ONLY vaccine that can save the world... THAT company, of course, wants to PROFIT from its patent.

Do you think the patent WILL be respected? Do you think it SHOULD be respected?

excon

PS> Will somebody please tell the Wolverine that I qualified my response above with the WORDS "in terms of medical care"... I'm sure he'll say that I said NO ONE should make ANY profits EVER. But, you'll direct him to the WORDS, won't you, as though that'll make a difference?? Hah!

Synnen
Sep 30, 2009, 12:50 PM
No... I actually agree with you Ex that companies should NOT have the exclusive rights to life-saving medical equipment or pharmaceudicals.

If there's a shot out there that can save lives--it should be used to do so, not to profit on human misery.

HOWEVER--the way to go about that is to abolish the patent system on medications, not to make it so that the companies (notice the plural there) making them can't afford to do so.

Right now, I believe that no company WILL find a cure for, say, cancer or AIDS, because it's more profitable to TREAT those diseases.

Get rid of the PATENT issue, and all of a sudden those companies have to compete with each other again, and that will lead to lower costs.

inthebox
Sep 30, 2009, 12:58 PM
I would just like to point out that a great way for partially fixing the existing system is to take the patent for life-saving drugs away from pharmaceudical companies IF the research for the drug was in any way, shape, or form funded by the taxpayers.

So...you can keep the profits as a company IF you do the research with your OWN money. If you use government GRANTS to do the research, then the GOVERNMENT owns the "patent"---or like the polio vaccine, and Jonas Salk, there should BE no patent for it.

Excellent idea.

I'm not sure about getting rid of patents though. Does this apply to all patents? Without patents, who is going to put the time, money, r and d to come up with new ideas, technologies, products? Maybe reduce the number of years a patent is enforced?


G&P

ETWolverine
Sep 30, 2009, 01:01 PM
Your words, excon:



It's because NONE of it IS true. It resides ONLY in the head of your friendly Wolverine...



Well, the fact is that ALL of it is true.

Obama did all those things. All of them were violations of contract and bankruptcy law.

So... all of them are TRUE.

Aren't they?! Yep, they are.

And based on that fact, Obama SHOULD be impeached. He broke the law and violated contractual agreements. But he won't be. Not because he didn't break the law, which he demonstrably did (even you can't deny that fact... it's been reported all over the newspapers), but because nobody would be able to get such an impeachment proceeding to go anywhere. After all, he only broke the law to screw over corporations and rich folks, so that's OK, right? Impeachment would be a political dead end because the Dems control Congress and nobody cares that a bunchg of corporations and rich folks got screwed.

That means that YOU were wrong in your statement that "none of it is true." Because it turns out that ALL of it is true.

Now admit it and move on.

But you can't. You never can.

Wrong on health care.

Wrong on the role of government.

Wrong on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wrong about Bush being a Dufus.

And wrong in saying that I was incorrect on the facts.

And NEVER able to admit it.

Elliot

Synnen
Sep 30, 2009, 01:15 PM
Excellent idea.

I'm not sure about getting rid of patents though. Does this apply to all patents? Without patents, who is going to put the time, money, r and d to come up with new ideas, technologies, products? Maybe reduce the number of years a patent is enforced?


G&P

Not ALL patents--but can you imagine where we'd be today if the polio vaccine, or the smallpox vaccine, or the MMR every child gets was under PATENT, and only ONE company could make them--and could charge whatever they wanted for them?

And LOTS of people have come up with new ideas for the simple reason of making life better/easier, with no thought to the money involved.

Frankly, the government needs to stop outsourcing the military before it starts taking back medicine, in my opinion. But--if you're looking for a place to improve the current system, then stopping major pharmaceudical companies from taking government grants paid for with taxpayer money from PATENTING those drugs instead of supplying them to the public that paid for their research would be a good place to start.

tomder55
Sep 30, 2009, 01:38 PM
Good luck discovering all those new drugs in the basement labs of the universities.

You are right about drugs discovered using grant $$ but surely you are not saying that a pharmaceutical company that incurred all the expenses with no guarantee of return should not get some exclusive use of the product on the hope of a return of their investment ,and profit on the side ? Venture capitalists will find better uses of their resources me thinks .

ETWolverine
Sep 30, 2009, 01:39 PM
Not ALL patents--but can you imagine where we'd be today if the polio vaccine, or the smallpox vaccine, or the MMR every child gets was under PATENT, and only ONE company could make them--and could charge whatever they wanted for them?

And LOTS of people have come up with new ideas for the simple reason of making life better/easier, with no thought to the money involved.

Frankly, the government needs to stop outsourcing the military before it starts taking back medicine, in my opinion. But--if you're looking for a place to improve the current system, then stopping major pharmaceudical companies from taking government grants paid for with taxpayer money from PATENTING those drugs instead of supplying them to the public that paid for their research would be a good place to start.

Synnen,

There's this thing called "licensing" wherein a holder of a patent can allow other companies to make, promote, use or manufacture the patented item. That means that there can be more than one manufacturer for a product, as long as the patent-holder is properly compensated as per any licensing agreements between the parties.

That means that there is rarely a reason for a vaccine to be held back from production by more than one company.

Furthermore, drug patents tend to be relatively short-lived compared to other intellectual properties.

Sorry, but I don't buy your argument against patents for drugs.

Do you know how much it costs to develop a new drug?

Here's a rough breakdown:

Animal (screening) in rats—about 1–2 years, cost about $500k/year.

Animal screening in monkeys—about 2–5 years, cost $2 million a year.

Phase I in humans is strictly toxicology: 2 years, $10–20 million a year.

If it doesn't kill anybody, then move to Phase II testing for effectiveness: up to 10 years, cost $100+ million/year.

If statistics suggest a beneficial effect, then on to Phase III to determine effective dosage, side effects, other benefits and "off-label" uses: 5–10 years at another. $100+ million a year.

Over the entire term of testing, that's roughly $2 Billion for the cost of the development of ONE DRUG. And for every drug that makes it to market, there are literally HUNDREDS of drugs that fail at some point during their tests, each of which costs MORE money. But those failures are a necessary part of the development process... without those failures, new developments wouldn't happen.

Without patents, how are drug companies to recoup the costs of developing these drugs? If we don't allow the company that spent all that money to make it all back with some profit added, they aren't going to develop any other new drugs. Because companies are not in the business of spending $2 billion to not make any of it back. They would rather exit the business of developing drugs than stay in it for a $2 billion a pop loss.

Would you spend $2 billion if there was no mechanism for you to recoup that money? I'm guessing you wouldn't.

THAT is the reason that patents on intellectual properties exist... to allow companies to make back the money they spent on all those drugs that they managed to develop AND the costs of all the ones that FAILED as well. Because no matter how benevolent, kind, charitable, and compassionate people are, there comes a point when they decide that they can no longer afford to spend money and never see any of it come back to them. There's a point at which they go broke and can't afford to develop more meds.

Patents are a very necessary economic part of the development of new products. As is profit, and for much the same reason.

Elliot

speechlesstx
Sep 30, 2009, 02:29 PM
You've heard the line that every American deserves the same type of health care that members of Congress receive, this is the kind of health care they receive (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/congress-health-care-clinic/Story?id=8706655&page=2). "And, for the most part, nobody asked what your insurance was," if the member needed to be treated at say, Johns Hopkins.


This fall while members of Congress toil in the U.S. Capitol, working to decide how or even whether to reform the country's health care system, one floor below them an elaborate Navy medical clinic -- described by those who have seen it as something akin to a modern community hospital -- will be standing by, on-call and ready to provide Congress with some of the country's best and most efficient government-run health care.

Formally called the Office of the Attending Physician, the clinic -- and at least six satellite offices -- bills its mission as one of emergency preparedness and public health. Each day, it stands ready to handle medical emergencies, biological attacks and the occasional fainting tourist visiting Capitol Hill.

Officially, the office acknowledges these types of services, including providing physicals to Capitol police officers and offering flu shots to congressional staffers. But what is rarely discussed outside the halls of Congress is the office's other role -- providing a wealth of primary care medical services to senators, representatives and Supreme Court justices.

Through interviews with former employees and members of Congress, as well as extensive document searches, ABC News has learned new details about the services offered by the Office of Attending Physician to members of Congress over the past few years, from regular visits by a consulting chiropractor to on-site physical therapy.

"A member walked in and was generally walked right back into a physician's office. They get good care. They are not rushed. They are examined thoroughly," said Eduardo Balbona, an internist in Jacksonville, Fa. who worked as a staff physician in the OAP from 1993 to 1995.

"You have time to spend to get to know your patients and think about them and really think about how you preserve their health going forward," Balbona said. "We're not there to put on Band-Aids. We were there to make sure that everything possible that could be done [is done] to preserve that member of Congress."

No wonder they (including the President) won't commit to using the plans they're proposing for us.

Meanwhile, the reports of the public option being dead may be premature. Two reports, one from Human Events (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33740) and one from Heritage (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/30/morning-bell-government-run-health-care-by-next-thursday/), suggest Senate Democrats plan on ramming it through next week by attaching it "to a House-passed non-healthcare bill." Obviously they've forgotten the month of August and don't care what their constituents want.

speechlesstx
Oct 1, 2009, 12:41 PM
Following up on my earlier post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/will-united-states-ever-have-universal-healthcare-389870-30.html#post2006275) on this pathetic Jerk named Alan Grayson (D-FL), who said the Republican Health care plan is "don't get sick" and "die quickly." Grayson of course not only refuses to apologize for his vitriol but now calls Republicans "foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging neanderthals."

Pelosi, another one of the most pathetic jerks in congressional history, who teared up over the possibility of violence stemming from the health care debate rhetoric, who censured Joe Wilson AFTER he apologized the President, and who personally impugned American citizens as Nazis, says there's no need for Grayson to apologize (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/61123-pelosi-rep-grayson-doesnt-need-to-apologize).


"If anybody's going apologize, everybody should apologize," Pelosi told reporters at her weekly press conference. "We are holding Democrats to a higher standard than their own members."

I suppose it's easy to hold your own to a higher standard when you have no standards, anything is a step up, right?

Well Grayson did apologize, but not to those he insulted. He apologized to the dead, all those gazillions of Americans that die every year because they don't have health insurance.


"I call upon the Democratic members of the House, I call upon the Republican members of the House, I call upon all of us to do our jobs for the sake of America, for the sake of those dying people and their families. "I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America."

His outright fabrications and insults to Republicans aside, you'd think a Jewish guy would have some grasp of and respect for the term "holocaust." When did we start systematically murdering millions of Americans? Or should I just ask am I the only one here that finds extremely hypocritical that a member of the party that wholeheartedly endorses a practice that has killed over 49 million innocent children since 1973 would dare link Republicans to an imagined health care holocaust?

How in God's name can any of you ever trust these Democrats with your lives? How can you give them even an ounce of credibility?

NeedKarma
Oct 1, 2009, 12:56 PM
Congratulations to Alan Grayson for telling it like it is and fighting fire with fire. He is of course correct. Watch the whole Situation Room where he sets all the panelists in their place. We need more like him.

Here's the video: YouTube - Rep Alan Grayson: Republicans Are "Knuckle-Dragging Neanderthals" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTrDF0Gszck)

speechlesstx
Oct 1, 2009, 01:23 PM
Congratulations to Alan Grayson for telling it like it is and fighting fire with fire. He is of course correct. Watch the whole Situation Room where he sets all the panelists in their place. We need more like him.

Here's the video: YouTube - Rep Alan Grayson: Republicans Are "Knuckle-Dragging Neanderthals" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTrDF0Gszck)

How can you not only defend but celebrate this pathetic, lying jerk? His point is they can't get anything done because Republicans are dragging their feet.

He's a pathetic, lying, sack of cow excrement and you think he's "telling it like it is?" HELLO! Not only has Obama not met with Republicans on this since May, but Democrats don't need a single Republican to pass their legislation and 56 percent of Americans are opposed to their proposals (http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2009/09/29/news/nation/doc4ac26849ddffa897693304.txt). That's telling it like it is.

NeedKarma
Oct 1, 2009, 01:28 PM
You and all your republican friends here are the lying sacks of excrements.
Democrats wants to do this in a bi-partisan way and you oppose that?
Also " A New York Times/CBS poll found that 65&#37; of respondents want a public health care option (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/us/politics/25pollgrx.html), while only 26% opposed such a plan"


Read more at: Poll: Public Option Favored By 65% Of Americans (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/poll-public-option-favore_n_299669.html)

ETWolverine
Oct 1, 2009, 01:41 PM
You and all your republican friends here are the lying sacks of excrements.
Democrats wants to do this in a bi-partisan way and you oppose that?
Also " A New York Times/CBS poll found that 65% of respondents want a public health care option (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/us/politics/25pollgrx.html), while only 26% opposed such a plan"



Read more at: Poll: Public Option Favored By 65% Of Americans (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/poll-public-option-favore_n_299669.html)


So tell us, NK, what overtures have the Dems made to work with the Reps on health care?

And as it turns out, Grayson's description of the "Republican plan" is actually more fitting for the Dems plan.

The Dem's big fix for cutting the cost of health care is "preventive medicine"... in other words "don't get sick".

And if we do get sick, the Dem's big solution is to have old people sign DNRs, DNIs and Living Wills that tell doctors not to administer care... in other words, "die quickly".

It's all right there in HR 3200.

So in fact, Grayson was describing HIS health care plan, not ours.

Elliot

speechlesstx
Oct 1, 2009, 01:53 PM
You and all your republican friends here are the lying sacks of excrements.

How do you get away here with so many personal attacks against other AMHD members?


Democrats wants to do this in a bi-partisan way and you oppose that?

What overtures have they made, huh? Tell us. If they want a bipartisan approach why do they keep trying to ram it through under the radar (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/will-united-states-ever-have-universal-healthcare-389870-31.html#post2006671)?


Also " A New York Times/CBS poll found that 65% of respondents want a public health care option (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/us/politics/25pollgrx.html), while only 26% opposed such a plan" [LEFT]

That's obviously a very confused sampling, 30% think Obamacare will make Medicare worse while only 15% think it will make it better, yet they want a Medicare type option? And 59% don't understand the plans at all. That's a real smart group of folks they sampled there.

excon
Oct 1, 2009, 02:02 PM
Hello:

He interprets the Republican plan as "don't get sick". It certainly as close to the truth as the Republican interpretation of the Democrats wanting to kill granny.

By the way, what is the Republican bill number?? What is it again?? You can't find it?? You say they don't HAVE a bill. Really? The Republicans haven't introduced their OWN health care bill?? I thought they had a plan.. They COULD introduce a bill, can't they?? I mean, there's no LAW that says the minority party can't introduce legislation.

Hmmmm... Don't get sick is looking much like the truth.

excon

asking
Oct 1, 2009, 02:23 PM
I agree with Excon. I am not aware of any republican plan to reform health care. My impression is that they want everything to stay the way it is. That was the whole point of the summer town hall shoutings, yes? Don't change anything, don't talk about this issue. Just shout down anyone who wants to discuss how we could make things better. A large majority of Americans want reform.

speechlesstx
Oct 1, 2009, 02:31 PM
You really believe the Democrats?


Rep. Tom Price, the Georgia Republican who heads the House GOP Study Committee, came to President Obama's speech Wednesday night itching to make a point. Price, who also happens to be an orthopedic surgeon, has often heard the president accuse Republicans of criticizing Democratic health care proposals while having no plans of their own. He expected Obama to do the same Wednesday night.

"We knew the president would at some point say something like, 'and the other side has no ideas,' " Price says. So Price and his Republican colleagues brought with them copies of the more than 30 health care reform bills they have proposed in the House this year (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-stifle-Republican-health-care-plans-8224780-58644807.html).

Obama didn't directly accuse Republicans of not having a plan. But he did say he would welcome "serious" health care proposals. "My door is always open," Obama said.

That's when Price held up the sheaf of papers he was carrying -- a copy of H.R. 3400, the Empowering Patients First Act, which Price and the Republican Study Committee proposed in July. Other GOP lawmakers held up their own bills. Some raised a list of all the health care bills -- there are more than 30 -- proposed by members of the Study Committee.

Why use the props? "To say in a quiet and respectful way, 'Here are our ideas,' " Price says. "To say to the president, 'You're not being honest with the American people when you say that there haven't been ideas put forward, and that you've listened to them, because you haven't.' "

The Dems are rejecting every plan, every proposal, every amendment Republicans are putting forth. Harry Reid, when confronted with a bill to allow re-importation of drugs from Canada said it was an "inopportune time" to consider lowering prescription drug costs while the health care debate is taking place. After censuring Joe Wilson and re-wording the bill to correct what he accused Obama of lying about, they've now rejected a Republican amendment to require photo ID's for health benefits (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/30/debate-over-immigrants-flares-as-senators-reject-photo-id-for-he/) leaving the doors wide open for giving coverage to illegals anyway.

These Dems have ZERO credibility and Grayson is now their celebrated poster child for that.

speechlesstx
Oct 1, 2009, 02:33 PM
Just shout down anyone who wants to discuss how we could make things better.

Or just ignore the facts and lie through their teeth. See my last post.

tomder55
Oct 1, 2009, 07:36 PM
In fact ,the Republicans have offered more that 30 different plans just in the House of Representatives . But as it has often been pointed out here ,the 2006 and 2008 vote did count for at least one thing... the blocking of any attempt by the minority to get a hearing on their bills.
We were challenged to give specific legislations well here are some .

H.R. 77; H.R. 109; H.R. 198; H.R. 270; H.R. 321; H.R. 464; H.R. 502; H.R. 544; H.R. 917; H.R. 1086; H.R. 1118; H.R. 1441; H.R. 1458; H.R. 1468; H.R. 1658; H.R. 1891; H.R. 2520; H.R. 2607; H.R. 2692; H.R. 2784; H.R. 2785; H.R. 2786; H.R. 2787; H.R. 3141; H.R. 3217; H.R. 3218; H.R. 3356; H.R. 3372; H.R. 3400; H.R. 3438; H.R. 3454; and H.R. 3478.

HR3400 as an example specifically addresses the issue of the uninsured .
H.R. 3400 (Price) | Cover the Uninsured (http://covertheuninsured.org/legislative_bill/hr-3400-price)
But every one of these bills are Republican efforts to participate in the reform process.
For a long time now the Republicans have tried to address the issues of costs with tort reform ,and to increase competition by permitting Americans to shop for individual plans across state lines.

When this cro magnon subhuman lying sack of excrement Grayson compares our health care system to the holocaust ,I'm quite sure he must be talking about the multimillion babies that have been eliminated in our country since 1973 . Either that ,or ,Alan Grayson... you lie!

Edit Steve I did not see your posting #319 before submitting this . Kudos.. you beat me to it .

asking
Oct 1, 2009, 11:11 PM
So this is a bill (HR 3400) that covers a lot of ground, including overriding state insurance laws and repealing stimulus spending. I can see why some people might have had problems with it. But is this something you personally advocate?


The bill would provide a tax deduction and an income-related refundable tax credit for health insurance purchased by individuals (i.e. outside the group insurance market). The tax credit would be available only to individuals living in states operating a high-risk health insurance pool; and federal grant funding would be provided to states for such pools. Incentives would be given for employers to offer employees the option of a contribution toward other health insurance coverage in lieu of the employer plan. State insurance laws would be overridden to permit the sale of individual health insurance across state lines. Federal rules would be established and application of state laws preempted for insurance provided through association health plans and individual membership associations. Expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) would be prohibited for those with incomes above 300&#37; of the federal poverty level (FPL) and restricted for those between 200% and 300% of FPL. States would be required to offer group coverage and other private coverage options under Medicaid and CHIP. Federal limits on medical liability claims would be established. Medicare physician payment would be modified. The bill would be financed through reduced discretionary spending, repeal of stimulus bill provisions and other provisions.

ETWolverine
Oct 2, 2009, 07:18 AM
So this is a bill (HR 3400) that covers a lot of ground, including overriding state insurance laws and repealing stimulus spending. I can see why some people might have had problems with it. But is this something you personally advocate?

ABSOLUTELY.

As I have posted elsewhere, part of the reason that medical insurance premiums being so high is because there are only a few companies competing in every state. In every state you only have about 3 or 4 choices of insurance companies, because insurance companies can only sell in states in which they have been "approved", and citizens can only by from insurance companies that are approved in that state. This limits competition and drives prices UP.

This change in law would mean that instead of 4 insurance companies to buy insurance from, we would now have roughly 1300 insurance companies to buy from... the full number of medical insurance companies operating in the USA. We would be able to choose any plan that those insurance companies offer, based on both price and quality. This would immediately increase competition between the insurance companies, driving prices down and quality of coverage up.

Competition is, in fact, one of the major free market solutions to driving insurance prices down. The concept is called "portability" in insurance jargon, and it is one of the centerpieces of conservative health care reform geared towards increasing affordability and accessibility.

Elliot

inthebox
Oct 3, 2009, 02:58 PM
So this is a bill (HR 3400) that covers a lot of ground, including overriding state insurance laws and repealing stimulus spending. I can see why some people might have had problems with it. But is this something you personally advocate?

Devil is in the details.
What is meant by LIMITS on malpractice? A hard dollar figure on non- economic damages, like $250,000 in some states?
What does modifed medicare payments? Up, down, or no change?
Certainly making national availability, and more competition among private insurance companies as well as letting people make their own purchasing is better than our current system.


G&P

asking
Oct 3, 2009, 04:27 PM
ABSOLUTELY.

As I have posted elsewhere, part of the reason that medical insurance premiums being so high is because there are only a few companies competing in every state. In every state you only have about 3 or 4 choices of insurance companies, because insurance companies can only sell in states in which they have been "approved", and citizens can only by from insurance companies that are approved in that state. This limits competition and drives prices UP.

This change in law would mean that instead of 4 insurance companies to buy insurance from, we would now have roughly 1300 insurance companies to buy from... the full number of medical insurance companies operating in the USA. We would be able to choose any plan that those insurance companies offer, based on both price and quality. This would immediately increase competition between the insurance companies, driving prices down and quality of coverage up.

Competition is, in fact, one of the major free market solutions to driving insurance prices down. The concept is called "portability" in insurance jargon, and it is one of the centerpieces of conservative health care reform geared towards increasing affordability and accessibility.

Elliot

I'm all for this. I'm also for decreasing incentives for providers to do expensive and unnecessary tests that don't actually help patients get better. That's not to say I don't think people should get tests when they need them.

ETWolverine
Oct 5, 2009, 07:31 AM
I'm all for this. I'm also for decreasing incentives for providers to do expensive and unnecessary tests that don't actually help patients get better. That's not to say I don't think people should get tests when they need them.

Of course people should get tests when they need them. And this would make such tests cheaper and more accessible due to increased competition.

But the need for such tests should be determined by the doctor and the patient based on medical need, not based on the doctor having to cover his a$$ with the medical malpractice attorneys.

speechlesstx
Oct 5, 2009, 08:18 AM
As further evidence of Obama's dedication to our senior citizens, nursing homes (which admittedly quite often suck) are facing a crisis which will only get bigger under Obamacare.

Cri$is ahead for nursing homes (http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=8748513)

Didn't he say there would be no cut in services for Medicare recipients? Yes, he did (http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/policy/articles/obama_fields_tough_questions_on_health_care_reform s_at_aarp_tele_town_hall.5.html).

sGt HarDKorE
Oct 6, 2009, 12:20 PM
As further evidence of Obama's dedication to our senior citizens, nursing homes (which admittedly quite often suck) are facing a crisis which will only get bigger under Obamacare.

Cri$is ahead for nursing homes (http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=8748513)

Didn't he say there would be no cut in services for Medicare recipients? Yes, he did (http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/policy/articles/obama_fields_tough_questions_on_health_care_reform s_at_aarp_tele_town_hall.5.html).

Do you want the government to ensure health care or not?

ETWolverine
Oct 6, 2009, 12:29 PM
Do you want the government to ensure health care or not?

NOT.

It's not the government's job.

The government can't do it properly or efficiently.

And the government can't do it without taking MY money to pay for SOMEONE ELSE'S costs.

So... NO.

Elliot

NeedKarma
Oct 6, 2009, 12:57 PM
And the government can't do it without taking MY money to pay for SOMEONE ELSE'S costs.
Only neo-cons think this way. People who have universal health care do not.

Synnen
Oct 6, 2009, 01:17 PM
Actually, I'm insulted that I'm being considered a neo-con because I don't want to pay for something where the price determines the level of care you get.

Socialize water. Socialize the freaking telephone system, or internet service.

Do NOT socialize something where the time and resources of the field are going to be completely taken up with people who would not be able to use the services if it were not socialized. Waiting longer for an appointment, for shoddier care, with fewer doctors in the field sounds like crap to me.

I can tell you this: As someone who has a MONTHLY doctor's appointment, do you REALLY think I'd get that kind of care if the welfare mom down the street could afford fertility treatments too?

speechlesstx
Oct 6, 2009, 01:18 PM
Only neo-cons think this way. People who have universal health care do not.

So libs and moderates don't think about the government confiscating their money to use for someone else? Right.

By the way, here's a nice little story on how much Obamacare would take out of our pockets (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091004/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_affordability), along with the Kaiser Health Reform Subsidy Calculator (http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx).

ETWolverine
Oct 6, 2009, 02:18 PM
Only neo-cons think this way. People who have universal health care do not.

Perhaps they ought to. Then they wouldn't have to come HERE for their health care.

paraclete
Oct 6, 2009, 03:09 PM
Only neo-cons think this way. People who have universal health care do not.

This is true some nations take a responsibility for the individual as an asset

Synnen
Oct 6, 2009, 03:34 PM
And some countries (like Iraq, Russia, Sri Lanka, Poland and Chile, to name a few) are so corporate controlled--but by UNITED STATES based corporations--that there is practically nothing provided by the government for the average person. Ask the millions of people in those countries how much their US Aid has helped the average person, and how much the aid has helped major corporations.

I'll look at UHC when the government stops outsourcing the REST of its functions--including that of the military.

paraclete
Oct 6, 2009, 08:34 PM
Actually, I'm insulted that I'm being considered a neo-con because I don't want to pay for something where the price determines the level of care you get.


Do NOT socialize something where the time and resources of the field are going to be completely taken up with people who would not be able to use the services if it were not socialized. Waiting longer for an appointment, for shoddier care, with fewer doctors in the field sounds like crap to me.



What this says to me is you think you are so important! So important that you should not be inconvenienced by that sick person who just happens to have less income than you. You need to get over yourself indulgent self and realise that medicine is for the sick, not the socialite who just wants to have a chat to her doctor

tomder55
Oct 7, 2009, 02:31 AM
Who is John Galt ?
Investors.com - 45&#37; Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199)

The President's photo-ops with docs in white lab coats cannot mask the truth .
http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2009/10/06/news/photos_stories/cropped/obama1--300x300.jpg

Synnen
Oct 7, 2009, 06:13 AM
What this says to me is you think you are so important! So important that you should not be inconvenienced by that sick person who just happens to have less income than you. You need to get over your self indulgent self and realise that medicine is for the sick, not the socialite who just wants to have a chat to her doctor

No... if I were so important, I'd say close public schools (I don't have kids), outsource public transportation (I NEVER use it). I'd say let people who can't afford it not EAT--get rid of welfare (I've never used it, even when I qualified for it).

If I were THAT important, I'd say screw people living on the streets--they don't deserve shelters! (Never used one). I'd say that people who can't afford to take care of their kids should be sterlized, and their kids given to those of us who are infertile (I placed a child for adoption--WILLINGLY--and I know how hard that is).

Seriously--my problem is that for the most part, if you have a JOB in the US, then you have health care. It may not cover EVERYTHING for the same price someone else pays (if you have a pre-existing condition compared to someone who does not), but you still can get basic coverage.

Even if you do NOT have health care, most doctor's offices are willing to work with you (I paid off a $15k dental bill over 10 years, from a time that I was unemployed and needed dental work)

If you live in the US, you have access to health care. Period. You just have to decide whether it's more important to have cable TV (or a TV at all!) than go to the doctor.

PS... Paraclete, I AM sick. I go to the doctor every month to see if the cysts on my ovaries are going to explode yet, and if my endometriosis has spread to the point where I have to have surgery. I'm not just a socialite popping in for a quick visit. I go to the doctor every month SCARED TO DEATH that the appointment will end with me in the hospital, undergoing surgery.

asking
Oct 7, 2009, 08:08 AM
PS...Paraclete, I AM sick. I go to the doctor every month to see if the cysts on my ovaries are going to explode yet, and if my endometriosis has spread to the point where I have to have surgery. I'm not just a socialite popping in for a quick visit. I go to the doctor every month SCARED TO DEATH that the appointment will end with me in the hospital, undergoing surgery.

So I don't get it. How can you not see how vulnerable you are? What if your employer outsourced your work to another country, let you and 3/4 of your colleagues go all at once, you could not get another job, and you were still SCARED To DEATH. But now you can't even go to the doctor because it's that or lose your house? Instead of worrying about welfare mothers on fertility treatments--a boogeyman if ever I heard one--why not worry about someone basically just like you? Even the insured in this country are often one job away from disaster. You would be amazed how fast if can happen.

Let's say you have to have surgery and it goes a bit wrong and you are away from work for 7 weeks. Your boss says, "Gosh, we love you, Synnen, but we had to replace you and we really don't need two people, plus the new person is younger, cheaper and not sick. Good luck!"

Suddenly you are jobless--which can last for a year or more. The loss of income means can't pay your mortgage, so you have to move and sell at a loss. The disruption damages your marriage and other relationships. That and the illness trigger mild depression, which makes it harder to find work. Plus if you go to a doctor about the depression you'll have a SECOND preexisting condition...

asking
Oct 7, 2009, 08:37 AM
And then there are people like me who have been self employed for the last 15 years. I have worked hard and supported myself and my kids. I worked at home so I could be there for my kids and I don't regret that.

But since 2003 my insurance premium has gone from $270 a month to $1400 every month. I need that money to pay for food, real estate taxes, house insurance, and gasoline so I can drive my son to school every day. It's not extra. AND work has become harder to find, so my income has dropped. I cannot afford it; I don't have a plan. I am soooo lucky, too, because I own my house outright. I paid off the mortgage when times were flush. Even so, I'm SCARED. Why do I have to choose between basic health care and paying my real estate taxes and home and car insurance? Besides food and electricity, those are my major expenses. (I don't HAVE cable. I don't have a new car. I wouldn't know what to do with a ski pole and I've never been to Club Med. And don't even ask what I think about the fertility industry.)

A couple weeks ago, I bought some new clothes--some pants and two sweaters-- for the first time in 2 years because I got some work and needed to not look like a street person. My spendable income is all going to Health Net. More like Health Noose.

I've never been on welfare and wouldn't be eligible anyway because I still have a house and a small income. I am ineligible for unemployment because I have been self employed. Just because people don't work for Microsoft or Coco Cola doesn't make them not human. I haven't done anything "bad" to deserve this situation.

And tell me to take a full time job with benefits. I am thinking about it (if I could even get one). But I would have to move away from the town I live in, and either turn my kids over to my abusive ex or tear my son away from his friends and his father, who he has a relationship with, abusive or not. Needless to say, there'd be a legal battle... Oh, is that expensive?

People here tell me things like, "ask Major Pharmaceutical Company" to give you free medicine, which sounds cool, except it has to be the right medicine and you have to fill out 10 forms for just that one medicine and prove you don't have any assets, which (shame on me) I still do. Plus, how do you pay the doctor, for tests, etc? (The costs are insane and I agree we need to bring those down.)

I am eligible for zip because I've been self employed and I'm not destitute (yet). If I spent all my time scraping together bits and pieces of health care from this free source or that, even if it covered everything, which I seriously doubt, I would not have time to work and contribute. How does that benefit anybody?

NeedKarma
Oct 7, 2009, 09:13 AM
Maybe someone here who thinks the current system works well can help this person:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/pregnancy-new-motherhood/wits-end-403532.html

Synnen
Oct 7, 2009, 09:31 AM
I've BEEN without health care. It sucks.

But I CERTAINLY didn't get pregnant without health care.

Apparently what I thought was common throughout the US actually isn't: a married couple where BOTH work and have insurance through work.

If I lost my job tomorrow, I would still have my husband's insurance. When I was laid off 2 years ago, it was the FIRST time in my life I didn't have another job within a couple of weeks, even if that job was as a grocery store cashier or Walmart stockperson just to have money coming in.

Everyone in the US is one major anything--health crisis, car accident, flood, tornado, you name it--from being destitute.

I still think that fixing the system we HAVE is better than scrapping it and letting the government choose our health care. Our government chose the health care in the countries I named a few posts ago, and guess what? MORE people were jobless, MORE were destitute, there were fewer hospitals built, fewer clinics, fewer doctors, fewer available treatments. Ask the people who suffered in Sri Lanka after the tsunami in 04 what happened to the aid money OUR GOVERNMENT sent over to help with the aftermath--building schools, clinics, training doctors, etc.

I refuse to stand by and let our government do the same to the people in MY country.

Everyone needs water more than they need health care. I don't see anyone screaming about Universal Water Service. What about heat? I don't see the northern states screaming about Universal Heat Aid. I don't see those in the south screaming for Universal Electricity Supply--believe me, my electricity for ONE MONTH in Dallas in the summer was more than my car payment.

So... yeah, the current system sucks in many ways. Universal Health Care, run by our government, would suck more.

As far as answering that poor girl who got pregnant after losing her job---That's not a "fix the health care crisis" problem. That's a "fix how people are awarded help by our government" issue.

Fix welfare, not the health care system.

ETWolverine
Oct 7, 2009, 09:40 AM
Maybe someone here who thinks the current system works well can help this person:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/pregnancy-new-motherhood/wits-end-403532.html

NK,

I just read this lady's story.

It doesn't point out the failures of private insurance... it points out all the failures of the GOVERNMENT INSURANCE PROGRAMS that are supposed to take care of those in need.

It proves that NOBODY can rely on the government to give them what they need, and shouldn't bother trying.

This woman, based on her income level, SHOULD be covered under Medicare. But she isn't. Why not?

She should be covered under her state's All Care program, but she isn't. Why not?

BECAUSE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS ARE DISMAL FAILURES.

Yep... government-run health care... this woman is the POSTER CHILD for what's going to happen under government-run health care.

Thanks for making my case for me, NK. Not that you'll ever admit it.

Elliot

ETWolverine
Oct 7, 2009, 09:53 AM
Just to further make my point about government-run health care...

Would anyone care to take a guess as to which insurer denies the most claims by patients (as a percentage of total claims)?

Here's the answer... from the AMA 2008 Health Insurer Report Card.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf

Check out page 5 of the report card.

http://biggovernment.com/files/2009/10/AMAdenials.jpg

The answer is MEDICARE. Medicare denies more claims than any other insurer, and more than double the national average for private insurers. Even the WORST private insurer (AETNA) has a better record of approving claims than the government does.

The government, which Barack Obama has claimed will be better at granting claims that the rest of the insurance community denies actually has a record of DENYING MORE CLAIMS than those private insurers.

Why would anyone trust the government to do a better job at managing health care than private companies do when they ALREADY have done a worse job?

Why would anyone want a government-run health care program that models itself after Medicare when Medicare is such a poor model?

Elliot

NeedKarma
Oct 7, 2009, 10:06 AM
I just wanted you guys to help her - no one did.

Synnen
Oct 7, 2009, 10:09 AM
NK--

Doing some research first. Want to be able to give her decent answers. Also at work, so my answer time is delayed on some things.

NeedKarma
Oct 7, 2009, 10:11 AM
Thanks.

ETWolverine
Oct 7, 2009, 10:12 AM
I just wanted you guys to help her - no one did.

That's because the government has gotten in the way... there's not much help available at this point, except for charity. If the government hadn't gotten involved in the first place, there might have been some sort of recourse. Now she just has to hope that her appeals to the various government agencies work out to her benefit.

I hate to suggest it, because I hate this organization, but she might get some help during her pregnancy from Planned Parrenthood. They are SUPPOSED to help women who are pregnant get the care they need during their pregnancy. That is their STATED mission. I just hope that they don't try to convince this woman to get an abortion rather than carry to term. They are SUPPOSED to be a good resource for help to pregnant women in need.

That's pretty much all I can suggest right now. The government screwed her good, didn't they?

Feel free to take my response to her.

Elliot

ETWolverine
Oct 7, 2009, 10:22 AM
NK,

Some websites that might be of assistance to this woman:

Birth Mother - Financial Assistance (http://www.birthmotherresources.com/birth_mother/birth_mother_financial_assistance.htm)

Financial Assistance for Pregnant Women, Mothers and Children (http://www.adoptionservices.org/pregnancy/pregnancy_financial_assistance.htm)

Although the 2nd link says "adoption services" the link is a general information site for financial help for pregnant women in general, not just those putting children up for adoption.

Feel free to pass them along.

Elliot

paraclete
Oct 7, 2009, 02:12 PM
PS...Paraclete, I AM sick. I go to the doctor every month to see if the cysts on my ovaries are going to explode yet, and if my endometriosis has spread to the point where I have to have surgery. I'm not just a socialite popping in for a quick visit. I go to the doctor every month SCARED TO DEATH that the appointment will end with me in the hospital, undergoing surgery.

So you are sick and why hasn't your doctor moved you along to have the procedures that will make you well? Perhaps your wonderful employment based insurance doesn't quite cover it. Perhaps he hasn't ordered the tests to prove the diagnosis. The whole system is ridiculous. It's not health care, it's a paper chase and according to your narrative you are one of the more well off users of the system which keeps doctors wealthy and patients on a string. Why are you "Scared to Death" of surgery, could it be because, despite the wonderful health coverage you are unsure whether your doctor is competent or your insurer will cover the cost. Don't worry your doctor is insured should he make a mistake. What I don't get is why people have faith in insurance as a solution to a problem that can be better handled another way.

Synnen
Oct 7, 2009, 02:25 PM
So you are sick and why hasn't your doctor moved you along to have the procedures that will make you well? Perhaps your wonderful employment based insurance doesn't quite cover it. Perhaps he hasn't ordered the tests to prove the diagnosis. The whole system is rediculous. It's not health care, its a paper chase and according to your narrative you are one of the more well off users of the system which keeps doctors wealthy and patients on a string. Why are you "Scared to Death" of surgery, could it be because, despite the wonderful health coverage you are unsure whether your doctor is competent or your insurer will cover the cost. Don't worry your doctor is insured should he make a mistake. What I don't get is why people have faith in insurance as a solution to a problem that can be better handled another way.

Because the procedures that would make me "well" would also make me infertile. We're trying all the OTHER stuff first, before resorting to that route. My insurance, believe it or not, covers quite a bit of the cost of infertility treatments, ESPECIALLY if the infertility has a medical cause.

I've had more tests that you'd believe, all covered by insurance. I pay a $20 co-pay every month, and my doctor keeps me up to date on non-surgical options that may help me.

I'm "scared to death" of surgery for personal reasons, related to being infertile. I'm not going into my entire background here--read back on my posts for the last 2 years if you want the whole story. My insurer, I repeat, has been nothing but supportive, giving me directions to labs covered under my plan, and letting me know when I need referrals, and making sure that I'm getting the information I need to make sure I STAY covered.

I don't see how anyone could think that the GOVERNMENT can handle health care better! Look at New Orleans for a good example of how well the GOVERNMENT would handle your health.

ETWolverine
Oct 7, 2009, 02:30 PM
So you are sick and why hasn't your doctor moved you along to have the procedures that will make you well? Perhaps your wonderful employment based insurance doesn't quite cover it. Perhaps he hasn't ordered the tests to prove the diagnosis. The whole system is rediculous. It's not health care, its a paper chase and according to your narrative you are one of the more well off users of the system which keeps doctors wealthy and patients on a string. Why are you "Scared to Death" of surgery, could it be because, despite the wonderful health coverage you are unsure whether your doctor is competent or your insurer will cover the cost. Don't worry your doctor is insured should he make a mistake. What I don't get is why people have faith in insurance as a solution to a problem that can be better handled another way.

Perhaps it is because the OTHER WAY that you are proposing is one that has been proven over and over again to be a dismal failure wherever it has been tried. So much so that the countries that have tried it are trying to change their systems to be closer to ours. So much so that people from those other countries tend to come HERE when they have really serious medical issues rather than rely on the OTHER WAY that you are proposing.

Or perhaps it is just because we have all seen the wonderful way that government has handled health care here in the USA that gives us pause not to adopt such a system. We've all seen what VA hospitals look like, and how the VA system has abandoned its patients. We have all seen the Native American Health System that exists on the reservations, and we want no part of that form of health care. We have seen that Medicare and Medicaid are broke and are bankrupting every state in which they operate, and we don't want to follow those systems into bankruptcy.

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that we have seen the competence and brilliance of the typical government bureaucrat and don't want such a person dictating our health care decisions. We have all had to deal with the Department of Motor Vehicles, the US Post Office, the IRS, and various other federal and state agencies. We have seen the calibur of ability of the typical government employee... and we are far from impressed with that level of ability. Not to mention their lack of compassion, empathy, ability to think outside the box, critical thinking skills and common sense. Skilled employees get hired by private companies where they can make more money. What is left to work for the government is the dregs that nobody else would hire. We do not want these people making health care choices that effect our lives.

Or perhaps it is because after studying the issues involved with health care problems, we have determined that the government lacks the ability or the resources to solve those problems, whereas the PRIVATE sector and the free market DOES have the resources to solve them.

Perhaps we have discovered that simply nationalizing health care doesn't solve the problems of the health care system. Making it government-run doesn't fix anything... the problems are deeper and more complex, and they will take a more complex set of solutions than simply handing them over to the government to mismanage.

Or, perhaps it's all of these factors combined... and a whole bunch more.

Elliot

paraclete
Oct 7, 2009, 03:18 PM
Perhaps
Or, perhaps it's all of these factors combined... and a whole bunch more.

Elliot

I understand your mistrust of government particularly a government that is regulation minded, my suggestion was never that your government take over the provision of health care rather they take over in part at least the provision of health insurance. There is a vast difference in the approach. The Free Market is an imperfect model when you are dealing with health services because of the inability of a large number of people to deal with the cost equation. A free market suggests setting no cap on cost. Look, the rich can get any health care they want, cost doesn't enter into it, but the poor cannot not. This is what needs to be corrected.

Synnen
Oct 7, 2009, 03:27 PM
If the government stepped in to set up UHC, run by the government, it would not change the fact that the rich can get any health care they want, and the poor are still going to get less health care than they need.

What WILL change is that the middle class will be relegated to the SAME status as the poor, while the rich are still able to do whatever they want.

What Elliot and I keep saying is that we KNOW the current system isn't perfect, but that a system run by the same institution that hasn't fixed the poor sections of New Orleans after 4 years (even though all of the rich sections, and most of the tourist areas are JUST FINE). The poor aren't getting helped by the government THERE--and there's a real, legitimate need for government help post-Katrina in New Orleans. Why in the WORLD would anyone believe that the government taking over health care would BENEFIT the poor?

Again, if Congress were to set up a health care system for the average citizen that CONGRESS would use, then I'd think about it.

NeedKarma
Oct 7, 2009, 03:33 PM
...and the poor are still going to get less health care than they need.How do you figure that?


What WILL change is that the middle class will be relegated to the SAME status as the poor,How did you come to that conclusion?

Synnen
Oct 7, 2009, 03:54 PM
Simple: The poor get substandard care NOW, under government systems. Look at Medicare! That's a government health care plan, and no one that uses it is happy with it. Yes, people get SOME help under it---but not as much as they need, and criteria are random.

I believe the government could do WONDERFUL things with the current system-- but the truth is that if we go to a government system, the rich will still be able to afford to pay for private care, but the poor and middle classes will be stuck with whatever's available. What doctor do YOU know that finishes 10 years of school wants to work for a lower wage for more thankless customers? Doctors will FLOCK to private care---where they will be able to charge whatever they want, because only the rich will be able to afford them anyway. (if you want an example of a business that this has ALREADY happened to, look at the military: In Iraq right now, there is pretty much a 1:1 ratio of US Soldiers and Mercenaries--and the mercenaries are made up of former soldiers who wanted to get paid more to do the same thing.)

So---the POINT is that we, as a country, will have to pay more out of pocket to cover this new health program, which means that the middle class is hit hardest with the hike in taxes to pay for this. The poor all of a sudden CAN go to the doctor---if they can find a doctor to go to. Unfortunately, the middle class will be in the SAME predicament--they can go to the doctor, if they can FIND a doctor that can see them in a reasonable amount of time. Since the middle class will be dependent on the new system, as they will be unable to pay for private care, they'll be in the SAME lines for the SAME doctors that are just doing their time until they can escape to private practice.

paraclete
Oct 7, 2009, 04:00 PM
Again, if Congress were to set up a health care system for the average citizen that CONGRESS would use, then I'd think about it.

I think that is what you don't understand about some other systems and this debate. That is how it must work if it is to be fair and deliver the right outcome for the poor. Nothing stops an individual from being outside the system but they are all in the pool for basic medical care, call it a right if you like.

Synnen
Oct 7, 2009, 04:14 PM
So... you're saying that we should all contribute according to our abilities (via a percentage of our taxes going to health care) and be treated according to our needs?

PS--Congress would NEVER give up their current tax-payer provided health care to go to UHC. Not a chance in HELL.

mr.yet
Oct 7, 2009, 04:22 PM
Health Insurance or Jail, according to Sen. John Shadegg, Ariz. The current items in the proposal are numerous new taxes, fines and Jail terms if you don't have health insurance
Quote Shadegg: " What the bills says is that this is a tax. If you don't buy health insurance and you don't by government-approved health insruance, then they will impose a tax on you and they told you how much the tax was. But unfortunately, the code says that if you don't pay thetax, that's a misdemeanor, and we can fine you more, in this case, an additional $25,000. And on top of that, we can put you in jail for up to a year.

So, the government will dictate to us how they will force everyone to buy insurance, that is a free enterprise, and will not create competition to reduce costs. This is Socialism, and not America.

paraclete
Oct 7, 2009, 04:26 PM
[QUOTE=Synnen;2019107]

What Elliot and I keep saying is that we KNOW the current system isn't perfect, but that a system run by the same institution that hasn't fixed the poor sections of New Orleans after 4 years (even though all of the rich sections, and most of the tourist areas are JUST FINE). The poor aren't getting helped by the government THERE--and there's a real, legitimate need for government help post-Katrina in New Orleans. Why in the WORLD would anyone believe that the government taking over health care would BENEFIT the poor?

QUOTE]

What has happen in New Orleans has a lot to do with social engineering and probably not a lot to do with disaster relief. You cannot expect the government to permit a return to flood prone areas and you know as well as I do priorities change over time, and just maybe you should include the city in the blame game. The New Orleans thing was badly handled from the start and from right at the top, but then what could you expect from a man who had a war to fight.

paraclete
Oct 7, 2009, 04:39 PM
Health Insurnace or Jail, acording to Sen. John Shadegg, Ariz. the current items in the proposal are numerous new taxes, fines and Jail terms if you don't have health insurance
Quote Shadegg: " What the bills says is that this is a tax. If you don't buy health insurance and you don't by government-approved health insruance, then they will impose a tax on you and they told you how much the tax was. But unfortunately, the code says that if you don't pay thetax, that's a misdemeanor, and we can fine you more, in this case, an additional $25,000. And on top of that, we can put you in jail for up to a year.

So, the government will dictate to us how they will force everyone to buy insurance, that is a free enterprise, and will not create competition to reduce costs. This is Socialism, and not America.

It seems this debate has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Why should a government have to resort to fines and jail terms over something so basic. I think you must all be anarchists over there, freedom is only worth something if you are alive to enjoy it, the "I died Free" shout does you no good at all if it could have been avoided for a small fee and it isn't as though you won't get something for your money.

How is it not socialism for your governemnt to own an auto maker. How is it not socialism for your government to own banks, how is it not socialism for your government to own an insurance company. Don't you get it? They want some business for their investment, capitalism in action. No, socialism is not unamerican, it is just following a new tradition.

NeedKarma
Oct 7, 2009, 04:47 PM
This is Socialism, and not America.Yes this is the Republicans mantra that has been spouted ad nauseum.

Yet in reports of countries by human development index the top countries all have universal health care:
List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Compl ete_list_of_countries)
Or
Statistics | Human Development Reports (HDR) | United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/#)

Synnen
Oct 7, 2009, 05:17 PM
[QUOTE=Synnen;2019107]

What Elliot and I keep saying is that we KNOW the current system isn't perfect, but that a system run by the same institution that hasn't fixed the poor sections of New Orleans after 4 years (even though all of the rich sections, and most of the tourist areas are JUST FINE). The poor aren't getting helped by the government THERE--and there's a real, legitimate need for government help post-Katrina in New Orleans. Why in the WORLD would anyone believe that the government taking over health care would BENEFIT the poor?

QUOTE]

What has happen in New Orleans has a lot to do with social engineering and probably not a lot to do with disaster relief. You cannot expect the government to permit a return to flood prone areas and you know as well as I do priorities change over time, and just maybe you should include the city in the blame game. The New Orleans thing was badly handled from the start and from right at the top, but then what could you expect from a man who had a war to fight.


Either we have the government resources to help ALL social levels of people in our OWN country, or we don't.

We don't even have enough government resources to help the war he 'had' to fight.

What happened in New Orleans has to do with our government outsourcing everything to big business. Do you REALLY think that UHC isn't going to be the same thing? Do you REALLY think it won't be one big pharmaceudical company and one current insurance provider that get the no-bid contract to provide health care to the U.S.

We don't have the INFRASTRUCTURE to begin to set up a government run health care.

THAT is what happened in New Orleans--the government contracted the relief out to big businesses, and the big businesses took their cut and subcontracted it out to smaller businesses, until the people doing the work couldn't get the supplies they needed to do it.

How about screwing the war in Iraq, and using the billions of dollars we're spending over there on contractors to actually do something about the entire welfare system here at home?

Synnen
Oct 7, 2009, 05:19 PM
PS... you didn't answer my question:

So... you're saying that we should all contribute according to our abilities (via a percentage of our taxes going to health care) and be treated according to our needs?

excon
Oct 7, 2009, 05:34 PM
So...you're saying that we should all contribute according to our abilities (via a percentage of our taxes going to health care) and be treated according to our needs?Hello Synn:

I'm not the person you're addressing, but you encapsulated MY opinion exactly.

excon

Synnen
Oct 7, 2009, 06:35 PM
Yup... and who is John Galt?

paraclete
Oct 7, 2009, 06:58 PM
[QUOTE=paraclete;2019207]


Either we have the government resources to help ALL social levels of people in our OWN country, or we don't.

We don't even have enough government resources to help the war he 'had' to fight.

What happened in New Orleans has to do with our government outsourcing everything to big business. Do you REALLY think that UHC isn't going to be the same thing? Do you REALLY think it won't be one big pharmaceudical company and one current insurance provider that get the no-bid contract to provide health care to the U.S.?

We don't have the INFRASTRUCTURE to begin to set up a government run health care.

THAT is what happened in New Orleans--the government contracted the relief out to big businesses, and the big businesses took their cut and subcontracted it out to smaller businesses, until the people doing the work couldn't get the supplies they needed to do it.

How about screwing the war in Iraq, and using the billions of dollars we're spending over there on contractors to actually do something about the entire welfare system here at home?

If I read you right you are saying capitalism doesn't work, that you are actually afraid of there being more private sector involvement in health care. Right now you have 1600 health care insurers but they are a protected species, just a few allowed to operate in each state. I heard a proposal was to open the market so they could compete and people are against this. Once again you are saying the free market doesn't work. Your existing system is a license to print money, twice as expensive as a universal health care system and the outcomes aren't as good as they should be.

You already have the infrastructure to do this in medicare and medicade, there are people there with experience, it doesn't need a new corporation or government authority, just an expansion of what already exists, and what you save is the cost which is going into shareholder pockets about 23&#37; of costs. No pharmeutical company can provide all medicines by the way, the patent system prevents it.

By all means get out of Iraq and move military and reconstruction spending to the health sector. You see once again you are saying the capitalist system doesn't work, not in Iraq, not in New Orleans, but where do you get the resources to do anything big. The Government doesn't have a team standing by that can reconstruct a city, or service 160,000 troops, or reconstruct a country. If there are no skilled people you have to get them from somewhere.
The emphasis now is on stimulus projects so sure NO is going to be further down the list.

paraclete
Oct 7, 2009, 07:41 PM
PS....you didn't answer my question:

So...you're saying that we should all contribute according to our abilities (via a percentage of our taxes going to health care) and be treated according to our needs?

Sure that is a fair way because none of us know when our situation will change. We can be millionaires one day and destitue the next.

Synnen
Oct 8, 2009, 06:10 AM
What I'm saying is that CORPORATISM doesn't work--and the US government has moved to corporatism for a lot of its needs.

SOCIALISM (pay what you can, use what you need) doesn't work either. Who decides that MY need for a kidney is greater than YOUR need for it? Who decides that MY choices in treating my ovarian cysts are the right way to go? Under the new system, the most EFFICIENT thing to do, the most cost-effective, would be to yank the things out of me surgically--so sorry for your loss of being able to have a family. NEXT!

A mix of the two (Keynesian economics, rather than Friedmanite economics) works better. Teh government SHOULD have oversight of the health care system. But they should NOT go into the business themselves. They don't know HOW.

So my point has been, over and over: FIX the current system. Don't trash it and start with a system that been shown not to work the world over.

excon
Oct 8, 2009, 06:27 AM
SOCIALISM doesn't work either. Who decides that MY need for a kidney is greater than YOUR need.Hello again, Synn:

Some bureaucrat... Sucks, don't it...

But, you don't think that your insurance company just writes the checks, do you? Nahh. And, you're not saying, are you, that there ISN'T an insurance adjuster deciding what your needs are, right NOW, are you?? No, you wouldn't be saying that, cause it ain't true.

If it were ME, I'd rather have a bureaucrat in there, whose mandate is to give as much medical care as there is, to as many as there is - instead of an insurance adjuster whose mandate is to ration care so as to make as much profit as there is.

But, that's just me.

excon

NeedKarma
Oct 8, 2009, 06:33 AM
What I'm saying is that CORPORATISM doesn't work--and the US government has moved to corporatism for a lot of its needs.Absolutely correct. That's why you guys are caught between a rock and a hard place - lobbyists and corporations guide policy in your government more than anywhere else I know of.


SOCIALISM (pay what you can, use what you need) doesn't work either. Who decides that MY need for a kidney is greater than YOUR need for it? Who decides that MY choices in treating my ovarian cysts are the right way to go? Under the new system, the most EFFICIENT thing to do, the most cost-effective, would be to yank the things out of me surgically--so sorry for your loss of being able to have a family. NEXT! Who decides? Doctors do. Same triage arrangement as you have now; how do you think it would run? Your doctors and you have the same conversations you have now.

Don't trash it and start with a system that been shown not to work the world over.Actually please refer to my previous post about the recent report on the best countries to live in. The system works all over the world, but maybe not in the US for the reason noted above. Are there any other countries that have successful market-driven health care systems?

NeedKarma
Oct 8, 2009, 06:34 AM
Some bureaucrat... Sucks, don't it... Actually it isn't a bureaucrat.

ETWolverine
Oct 8, 2009, 06:41 AM
I understand your mistrust of government particularly a government that is regulation minded, my suggestion was never that your government take over the provision of health care rather they take over in part at least the provision of health insurance. There is a vast difference in the approach. The Free Market is an imperfect model when you are dealing with health services because of the inability of a large number of people to deal with the cost equation. A free market suggests setting no cap on cost. Look, the rich can get any health care they want, cost doesn't enter into it, but the poor cannot not. This is what needs to be corrected.

The problem with this is that Obama's stated goal is a single-payer health care system. Which means:

1) that the government WOULD take over the system, and,
2) that they would be taking over not just the health INSURANCE portion, but the entire system of PROVIDING health care. Simply put, when you control the methods of production (via the FDA) and distribution (via being the sole method of payment) you control the entire system.

As for the cost issue, as I have said before, the government pays MORE for health care services than the private sector does... 35% more for the services themselves and as much as 500% more for the administrative costs. Those costs get transferred to the consumer in the form of higher taxes to support the system. The consumer ends up paying MORE for health care, not less, under a government-run system. So having government in charge doesn't FIX the situation, it actually makes the situation WORSE.

In order to fix the problem of affordability, there are solutions that have been proposed. These include:

1) making health insurance premiums and the costs of health services pre-tax, which would lower the cost of insurance by as much as 30% INSTANTLY,

2) increasing insurance portability and interstate purchasing, which would make health insurance more competitive, thus lowering costs,

3) tort reform, which could lower medical expenses by as much as 60%

4) create "build-your-own-policy" policies that allow you to pay for what you want and discard what you don't, thus lowering costs of the policies.

These four items alone could lower the costs of health insurance by as much as 50% across the board, probably more, making them affordable to the vast majority of the "have nots" that you are worried about.

The interesting thing about the "Baukus Plan" that we have been hearing about is that acccording to the CBO's report (released yesterday) the plan leaves 25 million Americans STILL UNINSURED... out of 30 million that they claim are currently uninsured. So the government-health-insurance plan doesn't even really address the issue in any meaningful way.

Because it was never intended to address the issue.

The goal of government-run health care was never to insure the uninsured. It was and still is to take control of a large segment of the economy.

That's the BIGGEST problem with government-run health care.

Simply put, the free market DOES have all the answers to the problems of health care, and is in a better position to deal with the issues than the government is. We don't need regulatory caps to lower costs... we need more competition and lower taxes to do that. Which means that what we need is for the government to get out of the way. Government intervention only drives costs up, not down.

Elliot

excon
Oct 8, 2009, 06:55 AM
The goal of government-run health care was never to insure the uninsured. It was and still is to take control of a large segment of the economy.Hello again, Elliot:

As long as you think health care reform is really a secret left wing plot for a government take over of the health care industry, your arguments won't be taken seriously.

excon

ETWolverine
Oct 8, 2009, 06:58 AM
So...you're saying that we should all contribute according to our abilities (via a percentage of our taxes going to health care) and be treated according to our needs?


Hello Synn:

I'm not the person you're addressing, but you encapsulated MY opinion exactly.

excon


Sure that is a fair way because none of us know when our situation will change. We can be millionaires one day and destitue the next.

I wonder if either of you actually recognize the quote that Synn was citing.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875.

Congratulations, excon and Paraclete. You are Marxists.

So's Obama.

Elliot

ETWolverine
Oct 8, 2009, 07:10 AM
Hello again, Elliot:

As long as you think health care reform is really a secret left wing plot for a government take over of the health care industry, your arguments won't be taken seriously.

excon

Oh, excon, you silly man...

After the government has taken over 10 of the 12 largest banks in the country, 2 of the 3 largest auto makers, the largest insurance company, and several financial/securities brokerage institutions, as well as increasing the regulatory controls over the R&D and manufacturing sectors of the economy through crap & tax, dictating what types of cars, lightbulbs and toilet paper we can use, and deliberately driving up the price of oil by limiting our drilling... can you truly find a cogent argument that the government is NOT trying to take over every sector of the economy? They are already in the process of DOING it. Can you truthfully argue that it isn't happening when there is so much evidence that it is... when the government is actually doing these things?

Willfull blindness is such a sad state of affairs, excon. And rather surprising from a guy who thought that Bush was trying to take over the world via the USA Patriot Act. It is amazing how you can see government conspiracies where there are none, and ignore them when there is clear evidence of them.

Elliot

excon
Oct 8, 2009, 07:17 AM
can you truly find a cogent argument that the government is NOT trying to take over every sector of the economy? Hello again, Elliot:

Yes. The government is trying to SAVE those sectors of the economy. It's not an argument that I understand, so I'm not going to argue it with you... Suffice to say, MOST of the world economists argue cogently for the position I support. I'll rest on THEM.

But, of course, you're wearing your tin hat, and NOTHING is going to dissuade you from your loony conspiracy theories.

excon

ETWolverine
Oct 8, 2009, 07:21 AM
Hello again, Elliot:

Yes. The government is trying to SAVE those sectors of the economy.

We had to destroy the bridge in order to save the bridge... is that it?

Pure BS. Pure COMMUNIST BS.

Elliot

Synnen
Oct 8, 2009, 07:30 AM
Hello again, Elliot:

Yes. The government is trying to SAVE those sectors of the economy. It's not an argument that I understand, so I'm not going to argue it with you... Suffice to say, MOST of the world economists argue cogently for the position I support. I'll rest on THEM.

But, of course, you're wearing your tin hat, and NOTHING is going to dissuade you from your loony conspiracy theories.

excon


Correction:

Most FRIEDMANITE economists argue for your position. Most KEYNESIAN economists think the current swing towards Chicago School Economics is scary as hell.

tomder55
Oct 8, 2009, 07:53 AM
Synn If I'm not wrong I think you got your economists mixed up. It is Keynesians who want gvt. Intervention .
Milt Friedman is famously quoted as saying “If you let the government run the Sahara Desert, soon there will be a shortage of sand.”

edit although you are quite correct that the Keynesians oppose the Chicago school. I meant to say that Excon is proposing Keynesian solutions... not those of Friedman

excon
Oct 8, 2009, 08:05 AM
What I'm saying is that CORPORATISM doesn't work--and the US government has moved to corporatism for a lot of its needs.Hello Synn:

I don't know what corporatism is. It CAN'T be good because it ends in "ism". It sounds like a gang of corporations trying to take over the neighborhood... If that's what it is, it AIN'T good, and it won't work...

Let me rephrase the "wont work" part, because it depends on which end of the equation you're on. It certainly works for the corporations... Besides, there's something onerous about corporations banding together to seek their goals... In fact, it IS onerous... When banding together is something corporations have to do to make profits, then something is wrong...

It's antithetical to the idea of a business anyway... Doesn't the Wolverine keep telling us that seeking profit is GOOD for everybody?? I don't disagree with him. It is. Then I ask you, why do corporations need to band together... I thought improving your service would be something corporations would do to increase their profits. I thought making a better product would do that. I thought having the best and brightest people working for you would be enough...

But, it isn't. Here's another point the Wolverine and I agree on - when the government gets involved, NOTHING GOOD HAPPENS...

So, when corporations band together, what are they banding together to get?? I'll tell you what. It's the ear of government They want government to pass laws that make it easier for corporations to make money... And, the government obliges... If that weren't true, wouldn't the corporations spend the zillions they spend on lobbying, on R & D, or training new people, or improving customer service?? Sure, they would, but that's the old fashioned way. The NEW way is to get favors... And, they do...

I don't know when that happened, but it did. You KNOW it did too. I'll bet it was about the time they STOPPED have live people answer customer service lines. Why do you need to provide customer service if you can get the government to give you a break?? You don't, and they don't, and you know it.

So, when corporations become perverted, too big to fail, and they get ALL THE DOUGH, it's time for little people like you and me to revolt...

excon

ETWolverine
Oct 8, 2009, 08:06 AM
Synn If I'm not wrong I think you got your economists mixed up. It is Keynesians who want gvt. intervention .
Milt Friedman is famously quoted as saying “If you let the government run the Sahara Desert, soon there will be a shortage of sand.”

edit although you are quite correct that the Keynesians oppose the Chicago school. I meant to say that Excon is proposing Keynesian solutions ....not those of Friedman

Tom's right, you did mix up your economists. Friedmanites support free-markets, while Keynesians support government intervention. Most conservatives tend to be Friedmanites, or at least modified Friedmanites. (I happen to be a purist, but not all Friedman supporters are.)

Excon, on the other hand, has gone way past being a Keynesian to being an outright Marxist, as seen in a prior post:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/will-united-states-ever-have-universal-healthcare-389870-38.html#post2020291

Elliot

excon
Oct 8, 2009, 08:18 AM
Excon, on the other hand, has gone way past being a Keynesian to being an outright Marxist, as seen in a prior postHello again:

Isn't name calling what you do when you're out of gas?

excon

ETWolverine
Oct 8, 2009, 09:16 AM
Hello again:

Isn't name calling what you do when you're outta gas??

excon

I'm not name calling, excon. I'm going by what YOU said you support.

You are the one who said that you're all for the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That is Marxism. MARX is the one who said it, and you agreed with it. In fact, your exact words were, "It encapsulates my opinion exactly." Ergo, you are a Marxist.

Don't like it? Tough. If you don't like being called a Marxist, then perhaps you should stop supporting his philosophies, positions and economic theories. Till then, you are what you are. I didn't lablel you a Marxist... you did that all on your own by stating that you supported the basic tenent of Marxism.

Elliot

ETWolverine
Oct 8, 2009, 09:21 AM
So, when corporations become perverted, too big to fail, and they get ALL THE DOUGH, it's time for little people like you and me to revolt...

excon

How about when governments become perverted, too big to fail, and they get all the dough? Not to mention taking over private companies, dictating executive pay levels, and controlling production methods of the private sector?

Does that also mean it's time for us to revolt? Or is it OK for the government to do what you think is so evil for big corporations to do?

Elliot

speechlesstx
Oct 8, 2009, 10:42 AM
Surely by now you've heard the CBO's estimates of the Baucus bill will reduce the deficit by $81 billion. One problem, THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/10/there-is-no-baucus-bill.html).

Baucus' plan raises taxes on medical devices, which will naturally be passed on to the consumer. The tax goes into effect in 2010, 3 years before the plan would take effect.

Cato says the numbers don't add up (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/08/baucus-bill-would-cost-more-than-2-trillion/).

Synnen
Oct 8, 2009, 11:11 AM
Gah, what a stupid typing mistake. You are all correct.

My only excuse is that I'm so incredibly swamped at work--working minimum of 60 hours this week--that I'm just getting stupid.

Still don't want the government to RUN UHC. Wouldn't mind if they intervened a bit, but let's try re-making the old system before jumping to a new one run by a government that's run by corporations run by the rich elite, okay?

ETWolverine
Oct 8, 2009, 11:43 AM
Surely by now you've heard the CBO's estimates of the Baucus bill will reduce the deficit by $81 billion. One problem, THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/10/there-is-no-baucus-bill.html).

Baucus' plan raises taxes on medical devices, which will naturally be passed on to the consumer. The tax goes into effect in 2010, 3 years before the plan would take effect.

Cato says the numbers don't add up (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/08/baucus-bill-would-cost-more-than-2-trillion/).

I heard something about that yesterday... I think it was Karl Rove that mentioned it on Hannity. According to the Bill that the Senate Finance Committee has put out, we would be paying for 10 years, but will only be receiving serviced for 7 years.

Well, heck, I could make a "budget neutral" health care plan if I did that too. If I could charge people for 10 years worth of work but only provide 7 years worth of services, I could get rich pretty quick too.

The question is, how many people want to pay for 10 years but only receive 7 years worth of coverage?

I just checked the bill, and yep... we start paying for it in 2010, but we only start getting coverage in 2013. What a scam...

Here's the full bill with all the Chairman's amendments and markups.

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/100209_Americas_Healthy_Future_Act_AMENDED.pdf (http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG&#37;202009/100209_Americas_Healthy_Future_Act_AMENDED.pdf)

Elliot

Edit: Sorry, it really ISN'T a bill. It's 252 pages of CONCEPTS that have not been written as legislation. We have no idea what the final "bill" will actually look like. But one thing we do know is that these "concepts" really don't look all that good... paying for 10 years but only getting 7 years worth of services... that ain't kosher. And trust me, I know kosher.

paraclete
Oct 8, 2009, 04:58 PM
The problem with this is that Obama's stated goal is a single-payer health care system. Which means:

1) that the government WOULD take over the system, and,
2) that they would be taking over not just the health INSURANCE portion, but the entire system of PROVIDING health care. Simply put, when you control the methods of production (via the FDA) and distribution (via being the sole method of payment) you control the entire system.

As for the cost issue, as I have said before, the government pays MORE for health care services than the private sector does... 35% more for the services themselves and as much as 500% more for the administrative costs. Those costs get transferred to the consumer in the form of higher taxes to support the system. The consumer ends up paying MORE for health care, not less, under a government-run system. So having government in charge doesn't FIX the situation, it actually makes the situation WORSE.
I think you will find the government wants to reduce the amount it is paying in the long term, but you are correct you don't want the government as health care provider, but health insurer, and insurer of the last resort isn't necessarily a bad option, after all it is the insurer of the last resort in a number of other situations.

In order to fix the problem of affordability, there are solutions that have been proposed. These include:

1) making health insurance premiums and the costs of health services pre-tax, which would lower the cost of insurance by as much as 30% INSTANTLY,

2) increasing insurance portability and interstate purchasing, which would make health insurance more competitive, thus lowering costs,

3) tort reform, which could lower medical expenses by as much as 60%

4) create "build-your-own-policy" policies that allow you to pay for what you want and discard what you don't, thus lowering costs of the policies.



Why would you want to give an immediate indirect subsidy to insurance companies? Yes it will increase the number of people with insurance but it doesn't fix the problem of those who can't afford it. Pay now and get a benefit later only works when you have money. The other proposals are valid and you would have expected number 4 to have arisen from market initiatives anyway, so lack of competition must be the problem.

Lower tax isn't the answer to everything, sometimes a little more tax, if directed to a specific purpose, can solve a problem by shifting emphasis and if it offsets an extortinately high insurance premium you might come out ahead. People get hung up on the idea of tax because they don't think they see anything for their money. Same thing with insurance, but remember the premiums will always be more than the costs, that's the way insurance works

Synnen
Oct 8, 2009, 06:31 PM
Paraclete:

WITHOUT resorting to a whole new system by a "company" that Elliot and I don't trust in the least---how would YOU fix the current system?

Government regulation is an okay thing to use in your reasoning, but in no way, shape, or form can you say throw out the car because it has a flat tire.

Tell US how YOU would FIX it. Not replace it: FIX IT.

excon
Oct 8, 2009, 06:59 PM
Tell US how YOU would FIX it. Not replace it: FIX IT.Hello Synn:

I'm not clete, but I'll answer... Have you stopped beating your husband, yet??

If you find that question strange, let's take yours... MY question assumed that you beat your husband... Your question assumes that ANY or ALL of the health care bills before congress "replace" your medical care and/or insurance coverage.

So, if you want to have a debate over what is really happening on the ground in YOUR congress, regarding YOUR future, I'll admit that you probably don't beat your husband, if you'll admit that NONE of the proposals on the table "replace" ANYTHING.

But, if you're unable to get beyond the right wing talking points, then we can't go any further, Synn.

excon

paraclete
Oct 8, 2009, 08:06 PM
Paraclete:

WITHOUT resorting to a whole new system by a "company" that Elliot and I don't trust in the least---how would YOU fix the current system?

Government regulation is an okay thing to use in your reasoning, but in no way, shape, or form can you say throw out the car because it has a flat tire.

Tell US how YOU would FIX it. Not replace it: FIX IT.

What I see wrong with the system is that it is insurance based and therefore adversarial in nature where coverage can be denied. You should not have a system where need must be proven outside the prescription of a licensed medical practitioner.

So, portability is a must. If you have been insured you should not be denied cover for preexisting conditions. Such a concept is called knock for knock in the insurance industry.

The provision of insurance by employers is a serious flaw in the system, therefore the system needs to be converted to a system of payment of premium by the employer whilst the insurance contract is selected and belongs to the employee. This makes insurance part of a salary package not a benefit tied to employment with a particular employer and not subject to some negotiated package mininising cost to the employer. An employer could be given a right to insist an employee have minimum coverage.

Payment of premiums for a period as part of unemployment benefits when a person is laid off to maintain cover.

Reform of the tort system to limit costs and number of claims by regulating the damages that can be awarded and the circumstance that is regarded as negligence.

Consolidation of the number of insurance providers and licensing insurance providers to operate in all states

Allowing the insured to add options to a basic package of coverage. e.g. dental, health club, optical, cosmetic, etc to be optional cover. Allowing deductables and caps to lessen cost.

Regulating the maximum cost for procedures. Investigation of the billing policies of practitioners who consistenly bill for multiple procedures or whose income is outside the norm. Requiring practitioners to specifiy individual tests required rather that specifying group tests

Where a person is not insured a tax impost as a contribution. This could have a threshold so as not to burden the poor but to ensure that those who run the gauntlet contribute.

These are just a few thoughts obviously there are many areas requiring reform but if the system is broken you do need to fix it even if it means overturning the status quo.

Where I come from all citizens have a minimum coverage provided by a 1.5%taxation surcharge and there are insurers and mutual societies who provide cover beyond that. They are issued with an identity card which enables them to obtain medical services nation wide within the bulk billing system or refunds. Medical expenses beyond a theshold are tax deductable and practitioners are encouraged to bulk bill the system at a regulated fee.
The payment system operates electronicly. They may charge more and the gap may be insured, this places the burden on the patient for payment and claim. The tax surcharge is waived if insurance cover exists. There is also a safety net which helps with serious and cronic illness. Cosmetic surgeries are not included. The Price of Pharmeuticals are regulated and the use of generics encouraged. Because most of the insurance cover is provided by mutual societies (co-ops in your parlance) premiums are relatively low and the insurance industry highly competitive.

Having observed such a system for thirty years, I wonder what the US citizen has to fear from change.

speechlesstx
Oct 9, 2009, 05:08 AM
Having observed such a system for thirty years, I wonder what the US citizen has to fear from change.

We don't fear change, we fear disaster in attempting to completely remake the industry. Fix it, don't replace it. It's been said enough.

Synnen
Oct 9, 2009, 05:08 AM
Hello Synn:

I'm not clete, but I'll answer... Have you stopped beating your husband, yet???

If you find that question strange, let's take yours... MY question assumed that you beat your husband... Your question assumes that ANY or ALL of the health care bills before congress "replace" your medical care and/or insurance coverage.

So, if you wanna have a debate over what is really happening on the ground in YOUR congress, regarding YOUR future, I'll admit that you probably don't beat your husband, if you'll admit that NONE of the proposals on the table "replace" ANYTHING.

But, if you're unable to get beyond the right wing talking points, then we can't go any further, Synn.

excon

Everything I've seen says that within 5 years, EVERYONE must use the new system, Exy. If you think that getting private insurance after that isn't going to be unaffordable except to the very wealthy, you've got a more optimistic view than I do.

SURE, I can keep things exactly the way they are for me---except my premiums will double, my coverage will be less (because of fewer people in the medical field, and those that ARE will have more patients), and I'll STILL have to pay for the government version that "I'm not using". Yeah, right.

Maybe I don't beat my husband NOW, but 5 years from now, I might HAVE to.

Synnen
Oct 9, 2009, 05:12 AM
PS--I'm going to admit here that I'm spread thin lately. I've been ill, and working too many hours. If that means that I've misread something or misTYPE something (see yesterday's idiotic answer from me for proof), please point it out in a forgiving fashion.

This is an interesting topic for me, I'm enjoying being involved in discussion, but please try not to murder me if I'm dumber than usual :)

excon
Oct 9, 2009, 05:14 AM
Everything I've seen says that within 5 years, EVERYONE must use the new system, Exy. Hello again, Synn:

SHOW ME what you've seen. If it's from the death panel lady, you KNOW you're going to get an argument... If it's from the words in the bill (any bill), we can discuss it.

excon

ETWolverine
Oct 9, 2009, 07:09 AM
Hello again, Synn:

SHOW ME what you've seen. If it's from the death panel lady, you KNOW you're gonna get an argument... If it's from the words in the bill (any bill), we can discuss it.

excon

Please read HR 3200, Title I, Section A. This section talks about the fact that anyone who is not covered under a "qualified plan" as of Year 1 of the bill may only receive coverage under the Government program... private insurance would no longer be available to that person.

Assuming that people stay at a particular job with a particular employer for an average of 3 years, that would mean that within an average of 3 years, most people will have been forced to take only the government plan, because they will no longer be covered under their former employer's plan, and private plans would not be available to them under Title I section A.

That was deliberately written into the House bill in order to phase private insurance out of existence. Which means that Synnen was right... the goal of HR 3200 is to REPLACE private insurance, not augment it.

You wanted the words of the bill... you got them.

Except that you'll tell us that it doesn't really say that... it really says something else.

Elliot

NeedKarma
Oct 9, 2009, 07:18 AM
Please read HR 3200, Title I, Section A.....

You wanted the words of the bill... you got em.But you really didn't show the words of the bill.

Copy/paste them from here: Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text) It's much easier if you use the Section numbers as they are unique.

Edit to add: here 's a great resource: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/H.R._3200 You can link directly to the relevant section!

ETWolverine
Oct 9, 2009, 07:23 AM
Actually, I have the entire Bill downloaded as a PDF file.

But the secdtion that I refer to is several pages long... too long to post here. That's why I didn't do a C&P, but rather referenced the section in question.

Elliot

NeedKarma
Oct 9, 2009, 07:26 AM
Use the wikisource to link to the relevant section. There are many Title I in all the Divisions.

ETWolverine
Oct 9, 2009, 07:28 AM
Well, it's Division I, Title I, Section A... right after the definitions. First section of the legislation.

Elliot

NeedKarma
Oct 9, 2009, 07:33 AM
This one?
H.R. 3200/Division A/Title I/Subtitle A - Wikisource (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/H.R._3200/Division_A/Title_I/Subtitle_A)

excon
Oct 9, 2009, 07:44 AM
Everything I've seen says that within 5 years, EVERYONE must use the new system,
Hello again, Synn:

SHOW ME what you've seen.
Please read HR 3200, Title I, Section A. This section talks about the fact that anyone who is not covered under a "qualified plan" as of Year 1 of the bill may only receive coverage under the Government program... private insurance would no longer be available to that person.

Assuming that people stay at a particular job with a particular employer for an average of 3 years, that would mean that within an average of 3 years, most people will have been forced to take only the government plan, because they will no longer be covered under their former employer's plan, and private plans would not be available to them under Title I section A.

You wanted the words of the bill... you got em. Except that you'll tell us that it doesn't really say that... it really says something else.Hello Elliot:

Of course the words DON'T say that. I don't know why you write something that's so easily debunked, and then challenge me to do it. Piece of cake - and, I'm going to use YOUR words to do it...

But, what's silly, is that I have to continually go back and tell you what was said, instead of actually arguing the issues. Maybe THAT, in and of itself, is a right wing ploy - just lie about who said what, and then you won't have to talk about how good health care reform will be for everybody... It's either that, or your short term memory is faulty.

No matter. Tiresome as it gets, that's why I'm here.

Synn, as you can plainly read above, said that "EVERYBODY MUST use the new system..." I asked for conformation.

We're I to take what YOU said CONFIRMS the term EVERYBODY MUST, I would have to assume that EVERYBODY, including ALL those self employed people who are paying for their own health insurance, will lose it within three years...

It's preposterous on its face, and demands nothing more than a quick read to see how far off the reservation you've slipped.

excon

ETWolverine
Oct 9, 2009, 08:35 AM
Hello Elliot:

Of course the words DON'T say that. I dunno why you write something that's so easily debunked, and then challenge me to do it. Piece of cake - and, I'm gonna use YOUR words to do it....

Still waiting...

NeedKarma
Oct 9, 2009, 08:37 AM
We're waiting on you to show us the words from the bill that support yours and Synnen point.

Synnen
Oct 9, 2009, 08:46 AM
Just FYI---what was already a busy week just went to hell in a handbasket. My day off this week is Sunday... I'll try to find where I believe I read it then. Not ignoring you guys, just swamped.

ETWolverine
Oct 9, 2009, 08:49 AM
I already have, NK. It is the ENTIRETY of Division 1, Title 1, Section A. It is several pages long, and it describes and defines who is allowed to get new, private insurance, who must get GOVERNMENT insurance because private insurance will not be available to them, and who is "grandfathered" in to their current system.

What it clearly states is that anyone without insurance as of Y1, and going forward, MUST get their insurance from the government, and cannot get it from a private insurance company. ONLY those with "qualified" private insurance plans as of Y1 can keep them.

Which means that if you lose your insurance due to changing jobs (and are therefore "without insurance as of Y1 and going forward"), you cannot get new private insurance with your new employer, but must get it from the government instead.

But I'm afraid that there isn't enough space here to paste the entire section, so you'll have to do a bit of homework on your own. You'll have to make do without me spoonfeeding you the information.

Elliot

NeedKarma
Oct 9, 2009, 08:53 AM
Just FYI---what was already a busy week just went to hell in a handbasket. My day off this week is Sunday...I'll try to find where I believe I read it then. Not ignoring you guys, just swamped.
As I am here. Hope it relaxes for you. Check out the link for wikisource, it allows you to navigate quickly through the bill.

paraclete
Oct 9, 2009, 03:09 PM
We don't fear change, we fear disaster in attempting to completely remake the industry. Fix it, don't replace it. It's been said enough.

Fairly obvious you didn't read the rest of my answer. When you dig yourself a hole too deep to climb out sometimes you need a ladder to get out before you can start filling in the hole. I think the US has dug itself a dirty great hole because insurance has been an expedient but expensive way of dealing with the problem and the flaws require fundamental change in philosophy to fix the problem. Over reliance on the market often means government intervention to re-level the playing field. I think that some people have recognised this and know that change will take a long time to implement. There is no quick fix, but there are successful implementations you can learn from. We are interested because whatever you ultimately do may be copied and tried here

Synnen
Oct 11, 2009, 10:33 AM
Okay, still sick as a dog, but I'll try to cut and paste what I've read and explain what my thinking was.

I'll admit straight out that the legalese of the actual bill has had me using Wiki's summaries, for the most part. Maybe that has skewed my opinion, but honestly---I hate legalese. Figuring out subtitle B and paragraph A1 have never been my forte. So--what I've read has been stuff summarized for me.

All quotes today are taken from America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HR_3200) . I've found that Wiki does a pretty good job of "dumbing down" what different bills are and having related proposals linked at some point in the article, so you can get a couple different views on it.


The act creates new standards, indented by lawmakers as methods of consumer protection, for what would be considered a minimally acceptable insurance plan. Employers that currently offer insurance have a five year grace period after the act begins before they would subject to the standards. Individuals would be free to purchase their own private insurance, or work with the public option, in this period and afterward.

I'm reading this to be that the GOVERNMENT is going to decide what an acceptable insurance plan is, and force everyone to those standards. This is not necessarily a BAD thing. However, private insurance, in order to meet those standards, is going to have to get more expensive, making it impossible for the average person (or small business!) to afford anything but the public health care system. I'm also seeing that five year grace period as the last real time that anyone will have to start a new insurance policy outside of the UHC.


Abortion funding

The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding for abortions in government related health programs unless they are performed in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. A political controversy has broken out about whether the 'public plan' in HR 3200 will cover abortions, which -if done- would be funded by premiums paid by individuals to that agency and not by outside payments. Democratic Rep. Lois Capps of California created an amendment that specified that with the public plan would only cover abortions that do not fall into the Hyde Amendment's exceptions if the Secretary of Health and Human Services approved. The committee approved the addition. Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan drafted an alternate amendment stating that "any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" could not be funded. The committee rejected the addition.[63]

NARAL Pro-Choice America criticized Stupak's proposal, stating that it could mean that people whose health insurance currently covers elective abortions will lose that service. Those who voted against his addition argued that the fact that the premiums of private individuals would pay for the abortions meant that the Hyde Amendment does not apply. The National Right to Life Committee criticized Capps' proposal, stating that the Secretary will choose to cover all kinds of abortions. Factcheck.org reviewed HR 3200 in August and concluded that the public plan would be allowed to cover all abortions.[63] In late September, Stupak stated that he wants a full vote on the House floor on the issue.

While this isn't related to the "5 year" thing--this is part of the bill that is hotly debated, and really ticks me off. If this bill is passed, a PREVIOUS Amendment states that the government can't pay for abortions except in those cases that would take longer than the 9 months of a pregnancy to prove in a court of law. Abortion is a LEGAL medical procedure, and if people are going to be REQUIRED to have insurance, then it should be covered, period.

Digging through what NK posted earlier this week--I read that whole thing as a bit of health care reform. It's REQUIRING that private insurance meet certain guidelines, or it won't be considered acceptable insurance after the grace period. HOWEVER---that puts a lot of people in the bind of having to either have the UHC option or having to change their existing insurance to cover MORE than it currently does--often at a monetary disadvantage to the purchaser.

So basically--what I'm reading is that no one will "make" you switch your insurance to UHC after the 5 years... they'll just bleed your pocketbook until you do.

Synnen
Oct 11, 2009, 10:34 AM
I'm sorry if the previous post was rambling and un-cohesive. I told you guys I'd post today, and I have... but I'm still really sick.

Stupid lingering flu.

Anyway--pick it apart! I won't be offended! I am, however, going to go lay down, and try to sleep for a week. I'll argue rebuttals with you when I feel better.

excon
Oct 11, 2009, 10:57 AM
Okay, still sick as a dog, but I'll try to cut and paste what I've read and explain what my thinking was.

So basically--what I'm reading is that no one will "make" you switch your insurance to UHC after the 5 years.....they'll just bleed your pocketbook until you do.Hi again, Synn:

Hope you feel better.

There are several bills under consideration. The House Bill you quote may very well have the effect you think it will. I don't know. However, the Baucus Senate Bill (which number I can't find right now) IS the one that has the best chance of passing as it stands today. THAT bill has NO public option, or as you refer to it as "UHC".

IF the public option is IN the final bill that gets considered, we can discuss it then. However, it doesn't look to me like it will be, so you're worries are for naught.

The bill as it stands, just regulates the insurance companies. It prevents them from using the dreaded "pre-existing condition" to discriminate against people. I stops them from cutting sick people off. It does other good stuff like that that NOBODY thinks SHOULDN'T happen (except, perhaps, the Wolverine). As payback for doing that, the insurance companies are going to be rewarded with a HUGE tax payer subsidy to cover a whole new batch of customers...

There's a lot to dislike in that bill no matter where you stand. But, the public option shouldn't be one of them for you. It IS for me, of course. I WANT a public option, which is nothing more than an opportunity to buy into Medicare.

excon

inthebox
Oct 11, 2009, 12:06 PM
Just curious Ex, if you are a veteran why not go to the VA? Why wait for another taxpayor funded entitlement? Is there anything that would lead you to believe that the proposed "public option" would be any better or worse than the current VA system?

Public option, co-op, what have you - just another way of getting productive taxpaying citizens to pay for not only social security, medicare, medicaid, and now another government health program. Never mind that medicare and social security are not financially stable, and that the projected costs of medicare, medicare part D, have all been woefully underestimated.


G&P

excon
Oct 11, 2009, 12:13 PM
Just curious Ex, if you are a veteran why not go to tthe VA?Hello again, in:

Good question...

My interest in reforming the health care industry is for the good of my fellow man. Personally, I'm well taken care of. I'd just like to see EVERYBODY taken care of.

We'll come to the rescue of ANYBODY if their house is on fire... We'll send armed men to help ANYBODY, if somebody is trying to take their stuff. We should come to the rescue of people when their LIFE is in danger too.

I believe in a right to life, don't you?

excon

inthebox
Oct 11, 2009, 12:19 PM
I WANT a public option, which is nothing more than an opportunity to buy into Medicare.



That line threw me.

When life is in danger, people already can get help. I see it every day in the hospital I work at. This is regardless of ability to pay.





I believe in a right to life, don't you?




Absolutely, so we agree that taxpayor money should not be used to pay for abortions.

Bart Stupak, Leader of Antiabortion Democrats: 'Not Very Confident' on Healthcare - God & Country (usnews.com) (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/10/02/bart-stupak-leader-of-antiabortion-democrats-not-very-confident-on-healthcare.html)


G&P

excon
Oct 11, 2009, 12:33 PM
Absolutely, so we agree that taxpayor money should not be used to pay for abortions.Hello again, in:

Abortion IS a legal medical procedure. I don't want a government bureaucrat in the examining room standing between ANY doctor and ANY patient in ANY medical decision they make. That sounds like something a right wing person such as yourself would support...

You can't have it both ways, really. You WANT bureaucrats making medical decisions - or you don't.

excon

phlanx
Oct 11, 2009, 12:52 PM
Evening Ex,

Just to add on what you said, as Im comoing from a country with a free medical health care, you are right that it is a an all or nothing system

The procedures available on the NHS (National Health Scheme) are governed by a code of ethics decided by the Governing Body of Doctors, rather than political demands

Under any scheme a code of ethics must decide medical treatment and never political - where they ens would that leads to

speechlesstx
Oct 12, 2009, 06:48 AM
Abortion IS a legal medical procedure. I don't want a government bureaucrat in the examining room standing between ANY doctor and ANY patient in ANY medical decision they make. That sounds like something a right wing person such as yourself would support...

You can't have it both ways, really. You WANT bureaucrats making medical decisions - or you don't.

Abortion is an extremely controversial procedure, and in far more cases than not an elective procedure, or hadn't you heard? Why should my tax dollars go to pay for an elective procedure that takes an innocent life?

NeedKarma
Oct 12, 2009, 06:51 AM
Why should my tax dollars go to pay for an elective procedure that takes an innocent life?
a) It's not a "life" at that point.'
b) your tax dollars go towards killing thousands of civilians in US led "wars" but your hypocrisy blinds you from that.

speechlesstx
Oct 12, 2009, 06:58 AM
a) It's not a "life" at that point.'
b) your tax dollars go towards killing thousands of civilians in US led "wars" but your hypocrisy blinds you from that.

a) It is undoubtedly life, whether you want to acknowledge the fetus as a person or not.

b) War is not a medical procedure. Reverse the situation and who's the hypocrite, as I regret the loss of innocent life in either case.

Synnen
Oct 12, 2009, 07:14 AM
Either way, abortion is one of the hot spots for UHC in general.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that it IS a medical procedure.

I get pissed off that I'm paying for thousands of idiots who couldn't keep their pants on to be able to KEEP their kids, instead of placing them for adoption---and THAT is an "elective" in family planning, too, as far as I'm concerned.

So... you can't stop abortions from being included in UHC simply because you don't agree with someone's choice---unless I can stop paying for Welfare because of someone else's "choice". Both choices are LEGAL.

excon
Oct 12, 2009, 07:17 AM
Abortion is an extremely controversial procedure. Why should my tax dollars go to pay for an elective procedure that takes an innocent life?Hello again, Steve:

If you don't believe your tax dollars should pay for a procedure that TAKES an innocent life, can I assume that you're fine with spending your tax dollars to SAVE an innocent life??

excon

PS> It's controversial in YOUR camp. In mine, it's just like having your bunions trimmed.

speechlesstx
Oct 12, 2009, 07:57 AM
Either way, abortion is one of the hot spots for UHC in general.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that it IS a medical procedure.

I get pissed off that I'm paying for thousands of idiots who couldn't keep their pants on to be able to KEEP their kids, instead of placing them for adoption---and THAT is an "elective" in family planning, too, as far as I'm concerned.

So...you can't stop abortions from being included in UHC simply because you don't agree with someone's choice---unless I can stop paying for Welfare because of someone else's "choice". Both choices are LEGAL.

Synnen, I'm no fan of welfare because it's not so much welfare any more but entitlements, but once a child is brought into this world we DO have the responsibility to see to it that the child is cared for. I have no problem providing for those who otherwise can't make it, but our "welfare" system has gone way beyond that.

speechlesstx
Oct 12, 2009, 08:00 AM
Hello again, Steve:

If you don't believe your tax dollars should pay for a procedure that TAKES an innocent life, can I assume that you're fine with spending your tax dollars to SAVE an innocent life??

Happens every day. I don't think it's my place to have to furnish their insurance, too.


PS> It's controversial in YOUR camp. In mine, it's just like having your bunions trimmed.

Not everyone in your camp feels that way (http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_12454493).

excon
Oct 12, 2009, 08:05 AM
I have no problem providing for those who otherwise can't make it, Hello again, Steve:

Then you DO support Universal Health Care. I thought so. You ARE a good man, Steve, no matter what the rightwingers are going to say to you.

excon

speechlesstx
Oct 12, 2009, 08:17 AM
Hello again, Steve:

Then you DO support Universal Health Care. I thought so. You ARE a good man, Steve, no matter what the rightwingers are gonna say to you.

What, we have universal poverty now?

excon
Oct 12, 2009, 08:17 AM
Not everyone in your camp feels that wayHello again, Steve:

I don't disagree with the article.. I'm one of the people he's talking about... In fact, this is the part of his article that I agree with the most:

"I also believe a government ban on abortion would only criminalize the procedure and do little to mitigate the amount of abortions."

excon

speechlesstx
Oct 12, 2009, 08:30 AM
Hello again, Steve:

I don't disagree with the article.. I'm one of the people he's talking about... In fact, this is the part of his article that I agree with the most:

"I also believe a government ban on abortion would only criminalize the procedure and do little to mitigate the amount of abortions."

That figures, this is the part people should read:


After a life of being pro-choice, I began to seriously ponder the question. I oppose the death penalty because there is a slim chance that an innocent person might be executed and I don't believe the state should have the authority to take a citizen's life. So don't I owe an nascent human life at least the same deference? Just in case?

You may not consider a fetus a "human life" in early pregnancy, though it has its own DNA and medical science continues to find ways to keep the fetus viable outside the womb earlier and earlier.

But it's difficult to understand how those who harp about the importance of "science" in public policy can draw an arbitrary timeline in the pregnancy, defining when human life is worth saving and when it can be terminated.

The more I thought about it, the creepier the issue got.

excon
Oct 12, 2009, 08:31 AM
Happens every day. I don't think it's my place to have to furnish their insurance, too.Hello again, Steve:

Ok, now you're slipping back into the Wolverine loony camp.

If you believe that everybody's medical needs are NOW being met, then I'm left to believe that you MUST think that there's something else going on here, BESIDES health care reform.

Is it: (1) To kill granny? (2) To kill Republicans? (3) To implement the commie plot for a government to take over the economy? (3) All of the above?

If, however, you believe that SOME people die because they don't have access to health care, then you're back into good guy mold...

But, you can't, seriously, believe that everybody gets their medical needs met... Can you?

excon

speechlesstx
Oct 12, 2009, 08:45 AM
Hello again, Steve:

Ok, now you're slipping back into the Wolverine loony camp.

No, you're just conveniently forgetting things I've said before.


If you believe that everybody's medical needs are NOW being met, then I'm left to believe that you MUST think that there's something else going on here, BESIDES health care reform.

First, as I've said before, even Obama himself has changed the debate from health care reform to health insurance reform and I've ALWAYS said we need to give a hand to those who legitimately need a hand.


Is it: (1) To kill granny? (2) To kill Republicans? (3) To implement the commie plot for a government to take over the economy? (3) All of the above?

It's a commie plot.


If, however, you believe that SOME people die because they don't have access to health care, then you're back into good guy mold...

No one has told us who doesn't have access to health care.


But, you can't, seriously, believe that everybody gets their medical needs met... Can you?

You can't seriously think I don't believe some things could be better... can you? I just don't believe the entire system needs a political makeover, which I've also said before.

excon
Oct 12, 2009, 09:04 AM
I just don't believe the entire system needs a political makeover, which I've also said before.Hello again, Steve:

See, here's where you get loony. You guys mischaracterize the issue by using words like "entire", like "government takeover". Tom just used the word "massive"... I corrected him.

And, what you fear would be true, if that was what's happening... But, it ain't. At BEST, the bill before congress would make the insurance companies do things that we've already discussed are GOOD things... Those regulations DO NOT, in no way shape or form, even when the Wolverine reads it, can be construed as "government takeover". It just can't.

Now, if we added in the public option, that's just another insurance company in the mix called Medicare. That's all it is. Really, that's ALL it is, and it's not even being considered...

Therefore, your use of words that don't really describe the issue make it difficult to discuss the issue to the point where it's understandable.. That's why we USE words that EVERYBODY understands. You should try it.

excon

speechlesstx
Oct 12, 2009, 09:11 AM
Hello again, Steve:

See, here's where you get loony. You guys mischaracterize the issue by using words like "entire", like "government takeover". Tom just used the word "massive".... I corrected him.

I see, then what's this "universal" stuff you keep talking about? "Universal" seems much broader than "massive."

Synnen
Oct 12, 2009, 09:15 AM
Synnen, I'm no fan of welfare because it's not so much welfare any more but entitlements, but once a child is brought into this world we DO have the responsibility to see to it that the child is cared for. I have no problem providing for those who otherwise can't make it, but our "welfare" system has gone way beyond that.

How is making a parent that can't afford a child choose adoption NOT making sure the child is cared for?

I just don't like the fact that they get to have their cake and eat it too.

Synnen
Oct 12, 2009, 09:20 AM
I'm all for insurance reform.

I'm just NOT all for a complete UHC system in the US at this time. Mostly because there's no way our government could pull it off in a manner that actually WORKED, and didn't hurt more people than it helped--AT THIS TIME.

Start with reform. Then see what happens down the road.

tomder55
Oct 12, 2009, 09:34 AM
I'm surprised the left hasn't proposed the most obvious reform... ending the anti-trust exemptions the insurance companies have .

One would think that would be an obvious 1st step if the goal was insurance reform.

But let's not kid ourselves. Ex just argued that all they are looking for is reform when in fact they see these reforms as a stepping stone to a complete overhaul of the health care system with the end being universal single payer . Every Democrat legislator in secret or openly has admitted that .

excon
Oct 12, 2009, 09:36 AM
I see, then what's this "universal" stuff you keep talking about? "Universal" seems much broader than "massive."Hello again, Steve:

Well, you've got to differentiate between what I'd LIKE, and what's being considered...

What I'd like, is the "universal" stuff... But, it's NOT in the bills. It ISN'T.. Really and truly, it's not. It's not a hidden thing like the death panels, either... It's really NOT there.

The only place it resides, is in yours and my imagination... The difference is, I KNOW it.

So, what if games are fun. They just don't resemble reality, that's all.

excon

phlanx
Oct 12, 2009, 09:44 AM
Halfpennies worth from the otherside of the lake.

It is something than most of us take for granted in England, a free health scheme.

Every time we broke a bone as a kid, or got sick, the hospital, doctors and nurses were all standing there waiting to help you

Don't get me wrong, sure the system is flawed, it is run by humans after all, so mistakes will happen.

But the basic right of a country that respects its people is to make sure they are cared for in some capacity

Private medical insurance can still be taken out on top of it, if you so choose

It beggars belief that a nation as powerful as America is, it doesn't have a mechanism in place that will assist the poor and misfortunate

Would anyone here not come to the aid of another human being if they could be saved, hopefully not

Would they dip their hands in there wallets and pay a few bucks, by the sounds of things yes

I can't see what the difference is.

Taxes are put into a big pot, so everyone can receive the benefits of a basic system

I am sure nobody here has built a road so they can travel to work on it, of course not, it is expected that their taxes pay for an infrastructure so everyone can enjoy the benefits

And I appreciate this may be a bit controversial, but surely the assitance of someone who has found themselves in difficulty through what ever means cannot be denied the help just because someone doesn't think the way they lead their lives is worthy of such

excon
Oct 12, 2009, 09:54 AM
But let's not kid ourselves. Ex just argued that all they are looking for is reform when in fact they see these reforms as a stepping stone to a complete overhaul of the health care system with the end being universal single payer . Every Democrat legislator in secret or openly has admitted that .Hello again, tom:

So, that means we shouldn't address the problem AT ALL, then. Just say NO.

And, it would be FINE for the Democrats, when faced with tax cut proposals from the Republicans, to say NO because the ultimate goal of the Republicans is to eliminate taxes??

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? No, maybe you don't.

excon

speechlesstx
Oct 12, 2009, 09:55 AM
How is making a parent that can't afford a child choose adoption NOT making sure the child is cared for?

I have no idea where you would get the idea I thought any such thing.


I just don't like the fact that they get to have their cake and eat it too.

I don't either, I'm more with you on welfare than you think and I get what you're saying. I'm just much more open to caring for the child after birth even if it means welfare. We need to change the entitlement mentality that's been cultivated in this country and the Dems ideas of reform only makes it worse. Had you heard the clips of the people in Detroit applying for "stimulus" money? They are there to get them some "Obama money" and they have no idea where "Obama money" comes from. That's what I'm talking about and that's a crying shame.

speechlesstx
Oct 12, 2009, 10:00 AM
Hello again, Steve:

Well, you've got to differentiate between what I'd LIKE, and what's being considered....


No, no, no, you can't keep shifting the discussion, you complained we were mischaracterizing the issue and using the term "universal" if that ain't what's being considered is mischaracterizing the issue. Aren't you glad you have me to keep you focused on your point?

Synnen
Oct 12, 2009, 10:00 AM
It beggars belief that a nation as powerful as America is, it doesnt have a mechanism in place that will assist the poor and misfortunate




It DOES have SEVERAL systems in place that assist the poor and unfortunate.

SSI
SSDI
Numerous Welfare programs at the local, state, and federal levels
Medicare

Just to name a few.

Why SHOULD I have to pay for a family that has more children than it can afford? Why SHOULD I pay for the guy that took 2 cruises last year but didn't bother putting any money into medical insurance? Why SHOULD I pay for people to eat fast food and potato chips and then have gastric bypass surgery?

I have no problem giving a hand up to people who really need it. THOUSANDS of charities do that every single day: Ronald McDonald House; The Salvation Army; United Way; Lutheran Social Services; Catholic Charities; Make-A-Wish Foundation; and hundreds of thousands of churches across the country---and that's just naming a FEW.

What I object to is this: Each paying according to his ability and getting health care according to his need.

WHO determines need? Some beaurocrat in an office who's never been through whatever disease is the problem? Some man behind a desk who's never been faced with an unwanted pregnancy or breast cancer? Some woman who'd never had any experience with erectile dysfunction?

Or will it be the overworked doctors who don't have the time to give more than those in the MOST need--emergencies treated before preventative health care, that sort of thing?

At least with the system now, if you've been a responsible adult, then most of the time you can afford at least SOME form of insurance to help you.

The OTHER option is to just get rid of insurance companies, period, and let people pay out of pocket as they go for medical procedures.

phlanx
Oct 12, 2009, 10:07 AM
Afternoon Syn,

That is really my point isn't?

I totally agree, you should strive towards supporting yourself and your family in the best way possible to you

But why does it have to stop there, why is a country that has the resources to offer care to all, can't or will not do so?

I do not advocate "socialist" reform in anyway, what I do want to see a system where by human beings help other human beings

Surely providing fundemental rights of care to all shows a country that cares, that at the moment promotes individuailty at all costs

speechlesstx
Oct 12, 2009, 10:09 AM
But why does it have to stop there, why is a country that has the resources to offer care to all, can't or will not do so?

Where do those resources come from?

Synnen
Oct 12, 2009, 10:16 AM
Sure... let's just have the United States collect ALL of the outstanding loans that other countries owe us, who cares if it bankrupts them?

And let's either pull out of Iraq and let the whole Middle East blow up the rest of the world, and let OTHER countries deal with it---or carpet bomb the place, take it over, and tell people in another country how to live their lives.

At the same time, let's pull our charities and helping hands out of OTHER countries, and take care of people at home.

Let's make it so that the rest of the world does as much for the rest of the world as the US does! I mean, without the spending that we have in OTHER countries, we can CERTAINLY help more people at home... and who CARES that other people worse off than those at home are getting desparately needed aid from the US more than other countries? We have to take care of our OWN people---let other people take care of the rest of the world!

/sarcasm off.

Seriously--it's MY taxes that would be increased to pay for UHC. Not the poor guy who would benefit from it. Not the rich guy that can get whatever health care he wants anyway. The Middle Class.

And anyone that tells you that a UHC system wouldn't cause a raise in taxes is way more optimistic about the US than I am.

phlanx
Oct 12, 2009, 10:31 AM
Love your sarcasm Synnen! :)

Look, The US is at the top right now and your argument about helping people at home first before aborad was echoed around the chambers of whitehall in London when we had the empire

The concern was this, if you don't help your fellow man in all races and creeds then they in turn will not help you

Don't be fooled as to why Iraq and Afghanstan are at the forefront right now - Iraq is our mess, afghan yours, and TOGETHER we are fighting our way through it.

At the same time, trade routes will be set up that will help your people as well mine, and therefore increase the tax pot

My question stands to you - If a fellow american collapsed on your doorstep and all you had to do was spend a dollar to save his life - would you spend it?

Or would you judge whether the way the person was dressed to whether the dollar was spent?

Synnen
Oct 12, 2009, 10:39 AM
It has NOTHING to do with the way they are dressed.

If someone collapsed on my doorstep, I'd call 911.

If they were coherent enough to tell me what they needed, I would attempt to help.

I am NOT, however, opening up a soup kitchen from my front porch.

There's a line--and the line is usually drawn at "helping those who help themselves".

Would I pay for chemo for a lung cancer patient that refuses to quit smoking? Nope.

See... I GIVE to those charities. United Way comes out of my paycheck, the Salvation Army gets my time, the homeless shelters and women's abuse shelters in my area get my donations of food and clothing and soap and toothbrushes.

I would like to think that MOST Americans give to those less fortunate.

There's a line, though, between helping others and supporting others.

tomder55
Oct 12, 2009, 10:40 AM
Is compulsorary and mandatory benevolence a virtue ? I call it pocket picking. I'm sure Synn would gladly help someone on her own .

speechlesstx
Oct 12, 2009, 10:46 AM
is compulsorary and mandatory benevolence a virtue ?

For a president who's for mandatory voluntary service it would be. Hey, didn't they used to call that slavery?

excon
Oct 12, 2009, 11:04 AM
Where do those resources come from?Hello again, Steve:

If what you said earlier is true, about nobody going without health care today, then we ALREADY are spending the resources necessary, and it's just a matter of managing those resources better. No?

excon

speechlesstx
Oct 12, 2009, 11:12 AM
Hello again, Steve:

If what you said earlier is true, about nobody going without health care today, then we ALREADY are spending the resources necessary, and it's just a matter of managing those resources better. No?

That depends on what "managing those resources" means to you.

tomder55
Oct 12, 2009, 11:20 AM
Managing resourses is like how the S.S. trust fund is managed.

inthebox
Oct 12, 2009, 11:20 AM
Love your sarcasm Synnen!! :)


My question stands to you - If a fellow american collapsed on your doorstep and all you had to do was spend a dollar to save his life - would you spend it?




Of course I would, and do more - that is as an INDIVIDUAL acting, not the government.

Those who believe in UHC may wait for the government to tax them $3, spend $2 on bureacratic costs , to have a government agent tell that individual that just collapsed that they can wait in line to see the government doctor, or have some US NICE equivalent tell them that they are too old to qualify for that $1. ;)


G&P

sGt HarDKorE
Oct 12, 2009, 11:42 AM
Of course I would, and do more - that is as an INDIVIDUAL acting, not the government.

Those who believe in UHC may wait for the government to tax them $3, spend $2 on bureacratic costs , to have a government agent tell that individual that just collapsed that they can wait in line to see the government doctor, or have some US NICE equivalent tell them that they are too old to qualify for that $1. ;)


G&P

I think it's interesting when people make things up. With UHC you can't be to old for healthcare.

And congrats on bringing up waiting lists.

However, did you know waiting lists in other industrialized countries are almost always for elective surgeries and procedures. No country has a waiting list for emergency procedures, and virtually no country has waiting lists for primary care visits.

And we already have waiting lists in America, you haven't noticed?

It often takes months to get an appointment with specialists and even primary care physicians, especially if you are a new patient to that physician. I'd like to see you try and go see a specialist within the hour. Oh wait you can't.

phlanx
Oct 12, 2009, 01:04 PM
Evening Inthbox,

Regardless of who controls an organistation, there will be bureacratic costs.

Waiting lists as sgt states are part and parcel of the systems we have available today in any industrial country.

Hospitals will still compete with each, charitable donations will still occur to those that seek it.

Doctors and specialists will still operate as they do today.

The only single difference is those who are misfortunate enough not to be able to receive healthcare will do so

And if the price is a small percentage of a population will get something for nothing, then isn't it worth the payment.

Just because you can't afford healthcare does not mean you are not deseving of it, I am sure there are numerous people who work and work hard on very low income, why shouldn't they receive the care just because they do the work nobody else wants to but still contributes towards the economy as a whole?

Synnen
Oct 12, 2009, 01:31 PM
Are those people who have a low income exercising their ability to get FREE birth control? Oh... we can't limit how many kids people have based on their income, you say? Yet we should still PAY for them to be able to have as many kids as they like?

It comes down to this: Every single person out there makes choices. Sometimes the choices are pretty crappy, and it's choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea---but it's still a choice.

Making the choice to raise your child when you can't feed yourself shouldn't qualify you for free health care.

Making the choice to smoke after being diagnosed with cancer or emphasema shouldn't qualify you for free health care. (These people, by the way, could AFFORD health care if they gave up their addiction).

Making the choice to not finish high school and therefore ending up with a lower paying job shouldn't qualify you for automatic state help.

YES, there are people out there who truly have tried everything they could to better themselves--those people deserve to be the ones benefitting from Medicare and Welfare programs.

Most of the people who rely on those programs, though, are people who made a CHOICE that put them there.

I'm refusing to pay for other people's bad choices.

NeedKarma
Oct 12, 2009, 03:16 PM
Yup it's a great system you guys have: Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098)
I'm so glad I live where I do and I can help my fellow citizen.

inthebox
Oct 12, 2009, 03:30 PM
Evening Inthbox,

Regardless of who controls an organistation, there will be bureacratic costs.

Waiting lists as sgt states are part and parcel of the systems we have available today in any industrial country.

Hospitals will still compete with each, charitable donations will still occur to those that seek it.

Doctors and specialists will still operate as they do today.

The only single difference is those who are misfortunate enough not to be able to receive healthcare will do so

And if the price is a small percentage of a population will get something for nothing, then isn't it worth the payment.

Just because you can't afford healthcare does not mean you are not deseving of it, I am sure there are numerous people who work and work hard on very low income, why shouldn't they receive the care just because they do the work nobody else wants to but still contributes towards the economy as a whole?

This is NOT ABOUT who deserves healthcare but how it is delivered. Is a government controlled healthcare system really better? Really more cost effective?
We have government run healthcare here in the US :

VA

19 deaths at VA traced to poor care - Health care- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22896435/)

VA Faces Questions Over Tainted Colonoscopies - US News and World Report (http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/06/16/va-faces-questions-over-tainted-colonoscopies.html)

The VA's Data Breach &ndash; Tips for Veterans (http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/VABreach.htm)

Ask anybody on Medicaid or even Medicare what percent of doctors or specialists will see them.


We have Medicare and Medicare part d - both of which have cost much more than predicted.


Speaking of government health care - what is UK's cancer survival rate vs the US?
The Lancet [ England's own ]

Europe's Cancer Survival Is Up, But UK Lagging, New Study (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/80600.php#)






And if the price is a small percentage of a population will get something for nothing, then isn't it worth the payment.






See the results of "cash for clunkers" [cost more than advertised and lasted shorter than predicted ] - sad thing it cost the American taxpayor.



G&P

Synnen
Oct 12, 2009, 04:00 PM
Yup it's a great system you guys have: Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098)
I'm so glad I live where I do and I can help my fellow citizen.

I could PROBABLY find a case for the ridiculous for how stupid government run health care systems are, too.

Saw that article today, rolled my eyes.

paraclete
Oct 12, 2009, 07:49 PM
Ask anybody on Medicaid or even Medicare what percent of doctors or specialists will see them.


G&P

Now you see we don't have that problem here, any doctor will see you, but you may not be able to get him to bulk bill you, that is optional on his part, but you can claim back the benefit but not the gap in fee. The decision not to see a particular doctor is left to the patient. Most specialists don't bulk bill.

I think you might understand that there is a difference in philosophy in operation, freedom of choice is maintained; choice of health coverage and choice of doctor, no one dictates what doctor you can see but how you pay is up to you. You can pay through the tax system, you can pay through insurance cover or you can run the gauntlet and pay in cash but gaming the system isn't allowed either way.

phlanx
Oct 13, 2009, 05:37 AM
The English Healthcare system has has one major flaw.

A total lack of competition.

Since its concenption, you have little choice available to, normally you see the GP in your local town, then he refers you to the local hospital

Specialised units obviously exist but you don't go there until after the former

This is starting to change where you can nominate where you choose to be seen, which leaves it open to people to make an informed judgment of what and where

This will increase competition in the system providing better care in the future

As regards Englands cancer rate, it is largely due to people in this country not going to to see a doctor until it is too late

Speaking on my part, when a lump the size of a walnut appeared on top of my skin, it still took me 3 weeks of denial before I saw a Doctor

Once I did, I had an appointment at the Hospital 4 days later, examined, with the lump removed above my skin there and then

I was then booked into an appointmnet for surgery the following week

Regular checks since then and all is clear with the squamous skin cancer

Taking my example to yourselves in america.

This is how it would have played out:

I have been self empoyed for several years, the business was going great

Until my exwife and I decided that we had enough of her ( :) ) and we divorced, which left me slightly broke to say the least but that's a different story

I then has a serious of credit card fraud committed against my several internet sites, all of which amounted to over $60k which severerly effected my cashflow and as such I had to close all but one company down.

This effected my ability to pay for the basics of rent and food for almost a year while I rectified the situation

So in this circumstance if I was in america, I would probably not be able to afford medical insurance

SO, after some 20 years of employment and four more of self employed, the one and only time I need serious medical care and I would not be able to get it

Is that a fair system?

speechlesstx
Oct 13, 2009, 06:05 AM
Yup it's a great system you guys have: Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098)
I'm so glad I live where I do and I can help my fellow citizen.

Praise be to the martyr. :rolleyes:

tomder55
Oct 13, 2009, 06:32 AM
The demoralized victims of more than fifty years of central planning and empty promises came together last week in Michigan. In a scene reminiscent of Soviet style bread lines, more than 65000 people filled out applications, hoping for a share of 15.2 million dollars appropriated by the Obama stimulus package to help low income families pay bills, stave off eviction or find temporary housing. Only 3500 people will actually receive aid from the program.

The Associated Press: Thousands mob Detroit center in hopes of free cash (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMf-Peoqc-Aa8Tr2VSC2VIH3qY6gD9B6HC880)

This latest incarnation of the Obama recovery act only adds to the evidence that the stimulus was never about job creation, Instead it was merely a tool for the expansion of political power through the welfare state.
The long slow-moving lines and ill-prepared city welfare workers agitated the desperate citizens who began to trample and fight one another for a shot at the limited number of applications. This is the result of Obama's redistributionist economic policy. Sold under the guise of compassion, social justice, economic justice, egalitarianism, the individual is reduced to a budget item, who views his fellow man as a threat, competition for his slice of an ever shrinking communal pie.


Redistributionist or socialist policy, call it what you will, can never produce the economic or social equality that those who champion it promise. In fact such a political and economic system only advances the creation of an inescapable class system they claim to oppose. It advocates the notion that the bureaucrat is more equal than equal. The bureaucrat in the welfare state is given the arbitrary authority over the validity of what he views as the needs of the citizen in relation to the immediate needs of the state. In the end redistributionist policy only advances the ultimate immorality, slavery, first by enslaving the producer to the non-producer, then though dependence the non-producer to the state.

American Thinker Blog: Obama's Real Vision of Change (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/obamas_real_vision_of_change.html)

http://www.angryeggplant.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/jokerjack.jpg
Who do you trust ? Hubba hubba!!

speechlesstx
Oct 13, 2009, 06:36 AM
American Thinker Blog: Obama's Real Vision of Change (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/obamas_real_vision_of_change.html)

http://www.angryeggplant.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/jokerjack.jpg
Who do you trust ? hubba hubba !!!

Did you hear the audio on this? If I can find it I'll post it, but these people came to get them some "Obama money." When asked they had no idea where "Obama money" comes from.

NeedKarma
Oct 13, 2009, 06:37 AM
Did you hear the audio on this? If I can find it I'll post it, but these people came to get them some "Obama money." When asked they had no idea where "Obama money" comes from.Idiots are not in shortage. LOL!

speechlesstx
Oct 13, 2009, 06:39 AM
Come get your "Obama money"

fOZ-Etb0k0Q

excon
Oct 13, 2009, 07:11 AM
Who do you trust ? hubba hubba !!!Hello again, tom:

Your post, yet again, confirms MY suspicion that your opposition to health care reform has NOTHING to do with health care reform, and EVERYTHING to do with defeating Obama at every turn. This due to your wacko belief that health care reform, or anything he does for that matter, is the first step in a communist takeover...

You and the Wolverine are sharing the tin hat.

excon

NeedKarma
Oct 13, 2009, 07:19 AM
Your post, yet again, confirms MY suspicion that your opposition to health care reform has NOTHING to do with health care reform, and EVERYTHING to do with defeating Obama at every turn. This due to your wacko belief that health care reform, or anything he does for that matter, is the first step in a communist takeover...

You and the Wolverine are sharing the tin hat.
Your suspicion is correct.

NK,
Posting from Communist Canada

tomder55
Oct 13, 2009, 07:43 AM
Ex
I would be opposed to socialist solutions to health care reform no matter who the President was.

Why did you not comment on my charge that if you truly only wanted health care reform that you have ignored the most logical 1st step... removing anti-trust exemptions that the insurance companies have ?
You have been very clear that your interest is not reform but a goal of single payer universal coverage as some convoluted " self evident right ".
You have admitted that you consider "reform " as an incremental step in that goal.
I also see the result to gradual fabianism and will never support it.

ETWolverine
Oct 13, 2009, 08:00 AM
I'm suprised the left hasn't proposed the most obvious reform ......ending the anti-trust exemptions the insurance companies have .

One would think that would be an obvious 1st step if the goal was insurance reform.

But let's not kid ourselves. Ex just argued that all they are looking for is reform when in fact they see these reforms as a stepping stone to a complete overhaul of the health care system with the end being universal single payer . Every Democrat legislator in secret or openly has admitted that .

You've been listening to Mark Simone, haven't you...

Good point.

tomder55
Oct 13, 2009, 08:11 AM
Yup it's a great system you guys have: Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098)
I'm so glad I live where I do and I can help my fellow citizen.

Bet your thrilled then you don't live in UK

Daughter saves mother, 80, left by doctors to starve - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6869646.ece)

ETWolverine
Oct 13, 2009, 08:18 AM
Halfpennies worth from the otherside of the lake.

It is something than most of us take for granted in England, a free health scheme.

Everytime we broke a bone as a kid, or got sick, the hospital, doctors and nurses were all standing there waiting to help you

Dont get me wrong, sure the system is flawed, it is run by humans after all, so mistakes will happen.

But the basic right of a country that respects its people is to make sure they are cared for in some capacity

Private medical insurance can still be taken out on top of it, if you so choose

It beggars belief that a nation as powerful as America is, it doesnt have a mechanism in place that will assist the poor and misfortunate

Would anyone here not come to the aid of another human being if they could be saved, hopefully not

Would they dip their hands in there wallets and pay a few bucks, by the sounds of things yes

I can't see what the difference is.

Taxes are put into a big pot, so everyone can receive the benefits of a basic system

I am sure nobody here has built a road so they can travel to work on it, of course not, it is expected that their taxes pay for an infrastructure so everyone can enjoy the benefits

And I appreciate this may be a bit controversial, but surely the assitance of someone who has found themselves in difficulty through what ever means cannot be denied the help just because someone doesnt think the way they lead their lives is worthy of such

phlanx,

Here is your universal health care system.

Daughter saves mother, 80, left by doctors to starve - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6869646.ece)

Sentenced to death on the NHS - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html)

Number of children going to hospital to have teeth pulled soars by 66% since 1997 | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1168911/Number-children-going-hospital-teeth-pulled-soars-66-1997.html)

Kidney cancer patients denied life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1174592/Kidney-cancer-patients-denied-life-saving-drugs-NHS-rationing-body-NICE.html)

Culture of targets prevents nurses from tending to patients - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5027822/Culture-of-targets-prevents-nurses-from-tending-to-patients.html)

BBC NEWS | Health | NHS charges to rise in England (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7925167.stm)

Only five out of 51 hospital trusts pass hygiene test, say inspectors | Society | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/24/mrsa-hospital-hygiene)

If that's what we are to expect from government-run universal health care, no thanks.

And by the way, your health care isn't FREE as you say in your first sentence. You are paying very high taxes to keep your broken system running. But because you don't pay at the point of service, you have gotten into the habbit of THINKING that health care is free in the UK. It isn't.

Elliot

speechlesstx
Oct 13, 2009, 08:26 AM
That's even worse than this guy's predicament...

Plumber with shattered arm left horrifically bent out of shape has operation 'cancelled four times' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218927/Plumber-shattered-arm-left-horrifically-bent-shape-operation-cancelled-times.html#ixzz0TMFn8yTp)

phlanx
Oct 13, 2009, 08:29 AM
Wolverine - Death and Taxes mate!

I don't pay the builder to make the roads I drive down either, but I still don't get charged for doing so

Taxes are a certainty mate, or don't you appreciate that simple truth?

The NHS is paid for through National Insurance Contributions, which has a fixed min and max. (Well the tax pot anyway)

This is take directly out of our wages every time we get paid and clearly shows it on the payslip - so hard to forget

Are you sure the American health System at the moment doesn't make mistakes either??

As I said, the NHS has become idol due to a lack of competition, from what I understand this will not be the case being proposed

It's a shame you didn't read my story of the NHS a little further on - For every bad case you here, how many great cases you don't?

ETWolverine
Oct 13, 2009, 08:30 AM
Yup it's a great system you guys have: Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098)
I'm so glad I live where I do and I can help my fellow citizen.

You mean as opposed to the Canadian system?

CTV News | Majority of Que. dentists quit health-care system (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080327/quebec_dentists_080327/20080327?hub=Health)

Surgery postponed indefinitely for 1,000 Kelowna patients (http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/cansurgery3.html)

CBC News - Health - Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high: report (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/fraser-report.html)

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007 (http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html#)

CBC News - Health - Cancer patients question why PET scan not covered (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/05/28/pet-scan-ontario.html?ref=rss#skip300x250)

Yep... great system you've got there.

>Snicker<

Elliot

phlanx
Oct 13, 2009, 08:32 AM
PS Wolverine, you point out where the NHS goes wrong with a handful of articles

What about the few million of americans who aren't lucky enough to even have an appointment in the first place to have it cancelled!

phlanx
Oct 13, 2009, 08:34 AM
In both countries there is private medical care available through insurance, so you still have the choice of public or private care

Or has that point totally passed you by?

speechlesstx
Oct 13, 2009, 08:35 AM
PS Wolverine, you point out where the NHS goes wrong with a handful of articles

What about the few million of americans who arent lucky enough to even have an appointment in the first place to have it cancelled!

I've asked and asked and asked and no one has yet to pinpoint who in this country goes without health care. We have some without insurance, but nobody has to go without health care.

ETWolverine
Oct 13, 2009, 08:36 AM
Hello again, tom:

Your post, yet again, confirms MY suspicion that your opposition to health care reform has NOTHING to do with health care reform, and EVERYTHING to do with defeating Obama at every turn. This due to your wacko belief that health care reform, or anything he does for that matter, is the first step in a communist takeover...


Well, that would be because Obama's health care reform has nothing to do with health care reform, but rather a takeover of the economy.

If it really was about health care reform, why would he not address tort reform? Why would he not address lowering costs by making them pre-tax? Why would he not talk about portability and interstate competition? Why would he push the one system that would insure that costs go UP instead of DOWN as he claims to want them to go?

Obama's goal is clearly NOT to reform health care, but rather to TAKE OVER health care. Reform is just the excuse.

And you better get your tin foil hat now... the cost of tin foil is going to go up too under Obama. You can't produce tin without producing carbon dioxide, and he's going to tax that too.

Elliot

phlanx
Oct 13, 2009, 08:41 AM
There were 58000 brave americans who died in Vietnam, and there were protests and marches against the war

45000 americans die EACH YEAR for nothing more than a lack of a health care system

Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance | Health | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE58G6W520090917)

ETWolverine
Oct 13, 2009, 09:03 AM
Wolverine - Death and Taxes mate!

I don't pay the builder to make the roads I drive down either, but I still don't get charged for doing so

Taxes are a certainty mate, or don't you appreciate that simple truth?

By the way... how are the potholes on your street? Are you satisfied with how your government takes care of the roads? Arre you getting your money's worth from the taxes you have paid?

I'm not. The roads that I PAY FOR via my taxes are full of potholes, poorly maintained and are fixed by the lowest bidder... meaning that it is done with the minimal competence that they can get away with.

That's how your health care is handled too...

How's it feel to be covered for your heart surgery by the same government takes care of your roads via the lowest bidder and the least possible amount of competence?

Again, no thanks, buddy.



What about the few million of americans who aren't lucky enough to even have an appointment in the first place to have it cancelled!

As for those without health insurance in this country, I have laid out a plan to reform the system without resorting to nationalization/socialization/marxism to get the job done. Not that I can take credit for these ideas. They are all Conservative proposals that have been ignored by the Liberals in the government and the media. These include:

1) Make all medical-related costs pre-tax. This is to include the costs of purchasing health insurance and any medical services or co-pays. This would immediately lower medical costs by 30% making them more affordable to everyone, including those who don't currently have insurance.

2) Lower taxes so that more have the disposable income to afford health care.

3) Modify Medicare and Medicaid to cover those that SHOULD be covered under these programs but are not.

4) Tort reform, if properly enacted, could lower medical spending by as much as 60%, especially in "high risk" specialties. In Texas, such tort reform has had the effect of lower health care costs across the board by 30-35% in two years, and also has resulted in an influx of 7500 new doctors to practice in the state.

5) DEREGULATE the medical industry. Useless regulation costs money that could be spent better actually HEALING people. Something like 25-35% of any hospital's overhead is related to regulatory compliance. There is a clear level of OVERKILL in medical regulation. Bring the level of regulation down to something reasonable.

6) De-unionize the hospitals. Union benefits cost a fortune. Union contracts require minimum numbers of employees even if those employees are redundant or not needed. That costs money that could be better spent elsewhere. This is the same problem that caused the fall of the American auto makers, and it can be fixed by getting rid of the union contracts.

7) As an ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT, the government could give uninsured citizens a stipend to pay for their health insurance (adjustable based on family size). This stipend would have a time limitation built in so that it doesn't become an "evergreen" welfare program. But it will give families some time to get their feet back under them after a job loss that lasts more than a couple of months by allowing them to purchase the insurance plan of their choice. It is NOT meant to be a permanent benefit and should have a cut-off of, say, 18 months or 2 years. After that, you're on COBRA and pay for your insurance yourself.

8) Since private insurance is cheaper when you have group coverage, let everyone who is collecting unemployment insurance in every state form their own group via the state unemployment office. This group can then find the group coverage that suits them best. Even if they have to pay out of pocket, they'll be paying group rates that are cheaper than trying to pay the individual rate.

9) Create a "build-your-own-policy" service. It allows people to get the coverage they want and need without having to pay for the stuff they don't want or need. This can make policies WAY cheaper while still providing the coverage needed.

10) Create "portability" and interstate competition. The way the regulations are currently written, a person can only purchase medical insurance from the state in which they reside. That means that they only have about 6-10 companies to choose from in large states, and as few as 2 or 3 in smaller states. If these regulations were changed to allow people to purchase insurance from ANY state and carry it to their own state, the number of choices we would have would increase to 1300, which would increase competition significantly, which would result in lower costs and better services.

THAT is how to fix the problem... not nationalization. All of these options except #3 are free market solutions, and any ONE of them would make insurance more accessible to everyone, including those currently uninsured. All of these proposals actually ADDRESS THE ISSUES of cost and accessibility, as opposed to the proposals for nationalization which even the Libs proposing them admit won't fix these issues.

Phlanx, you wanted to know what about those who are uninsured? THAT is my solution to helping the uninsured.

Elliot

tomder55
Oct 13, 2009, 09:34 AM
The debate in Congress is how to penalize people who choose to not sign onto an insurance plan . They have threatened fine and or imprisonment for people who refuse .
Now ;if this plan they propose is so great then why would they need to threaten people to participate. You would think the uninsured would rush to sign up... no ?

tomder55
Oct 13, 2009, 09:35 AM
:d

Synnen
Oct 13, 2009, 10:09 AM
And once again---Congress itself will not be using the public plan they're coming up with.

They'll stay with their nice, cushy, special service medical and dental coverage that they've already got.

tomder55
Oct 13, 2009, 10:53 AM
It's official . RINO Olympia Snowe is breaking ranks . Now the Dems can claim any Senate bill as bi-partisan.

ETWolverine
Oct 13, 2009, 11:01 AM
It's official . RINO Olympia Snowe is breaking ranks . Now the Dems can claim any Senate bill as bi-partisan.

We've been Snowed again.

Elliot

inthebox
Oct 13, 2009, 11:43 AM
Hello again, tom:

Your post, yet again, confirms MY suspicion that your opposition to health care reform has NOTHING to do with health care reform, and EVERYTHING to do with defeating Obama at every turn. This due to your wacko belief that health care reform, or anything he does for that matter, is the first step in a communist takeover...

You and the Wolverine are sharing the tin hat.

excon

Defeating bad policy that will cost trillions to the taxpayor, and none of the proposals cover 100% OF AMERICANS.

By the way, you never answered why YOU DON'T GO TO THE VA? Why do you want government dictated healthcare for others but don't participate in it yourself?


G&P

excon
Oct 13, 2009, 11:52 AM
btw, you never answered why YOU DON"T GO TO THE VA? Hello again, in:

This isn't about me. I thought we covered that in the gay marriage debate. I ain't gay, but that doesn't stop me from doing the right thing.

excon

inthebox
Oct 13, 2009, 12:28 PM
Avoiding the question?

Is the right tihing to subject the American people to British NICE results [ poorer cancer results - a true measure of a healthcare system ] or to VA style mishaps like hiv from colonoscopies, higher surgical mortality in some cases, medical information breaches?

Is the right thing MORE government intervention - the type of which led to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac [ the root of the housing collapse ], gas rationing and shortages like in the 70s? This is the same government that is printing money so fast that you advise to buy gold.

Is that the right thing?

How about all the things that ET has mentioned
Regarding REAL reform?


G&P

excon
Oct 13, 2009, 12:42 PM
How about all the things that ET has mentioned
regarding REAL reform?Hello again, in:

You guys talk about tort reform as though that's the panacea - the magic bullet that will SOLVE the problem... You say the cost of malpractice insurance drives up the costs REAL high. You may be surprised to find out that I agree.

But, instead of limiting the amount of money a maimed person gets from the INSURANCE company, why don't we make malpractice insurance illegal? If we did that, then a maimed person can only sue for what a doctor has. That'll END all the ambulance chasing trial attorney's you hate so much. That'll end the monstrous awards - OK it won't end them - but WE won't be paying for them - the doctor will, and what's wrong with that?

And, if it's INSURANCE that costs soooooo much, that it drives up the costs sooooo much, just imagine how much we'll save if we eliminated it altogether. Besides that, why should EVERYBODY pay for a doctors mistakes??

excon

speechlesstx
Oct 13, 2009, 12:46 PM
And, if it's INSURANCE that costs soooooo much, that it drives up the costs sooooo much, just imagine how much we'll save if we eliminated it altogether. Besides that, why should EVERYBODY pay for a doctors mistakes???

Why should I pay for insurance for all these years while someone gets a free ride until they get sick?

ETWolverine
Oct 13, 2009, 12:56 PM
Hello again, in:

You guys talk about tort reform as though that's the panacea - the magic bullet that will SOLVE the problem.... You say the cost of malpractice insurance drives up the costs REAL high. You may be surprised to find out that I agree.

But, instead of limiting the amount of money a maimed person gets from the INSURANCE company, why don't we make malpractice insurance illegal? If we did that, then a maimed person can only sue for what a doctor has. That'll END all the ambulance chasing trial attorney's you hate so much. That'll end the monstrous awards - ok it won't end them - but WE won't be paying for them - the doctor will, and what's wrong with that?

And, if it's INSURANCE that costs soooooo much, that it drives up the costs sooooo much, just imagine how much we'll save if we eliminated it altogether. Besides that, why should EVERYBODY pay for a doctors mistakes???

excon

First of all, as I have mentioned before, the Tort Reform that I prefer is similar to the Texas model in which there are no limits on awards. The reform is in creating a board that determines whether a case has merit BEFORE it ever hits the court system. Frivolous cases are thrown out immediately, and meritorious cases move forward inimpeded, and without any limitations on awards. So there's your entire argument right down the crapper. Again.

Second of all, what about the other 9 items I mentioned? No comments on them? No issues?

Well, you know what? I'd be willing to give up on tort reform if I got the other 9 items on my list. If tort reform is such a non-starter, I'll take the other 9 in exchange for giving that one up.

Oh, and I got a number 11 for my list... Tom mentioned it earlier in this thread, so hat tip to him.

11) Eliminate the Health Insurance Company exemption from the anti-trust laws, thus increasing the potential for competition industry-wide.

Any comments, excon? Got anything to say about the other 10 items on my list? Or are you stuck on tort reform, which would NOT limit or cap awards to injured parties as you claim?

Elliot

ETWolverine
Oct 13, 2009, 01:09 PM
Hello again, in:

This isn't about me. I thought we covered that in the gay marriage debate. I ain't gay, but that doesn't stop me from doing the right thing.

excon

Tom's right. Seems to me that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If nationalized health care is good enough for the uninsured guy, it ought to be good enough for you. And Congress, for that matter.

After all, you're the proponent of a single-payer government health system. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and use the VA system? If government health care is good enough for those not currently insured, and if you are pushing it for EVERYONE ELSE too (single payer proponent that you are), why not step up and show us how wonderful the system is.

But we know you won't because the VA system sucks. You know it and we know it. It's been well documented in the MSM, though right now most of the MSM is hoping that you'll ignore that little point. You wouldn't go to a VA hospital to VISIT someone there on a bet, much less trust your health to that system. You are elligible for full coverage as a war vet, and it wouldn't cost you a dime. Free health care for the rest of your life (as long as it lasts). And you STILL wouldn't touch it... because YOU know as well as we do how long you would last in the VA system.

But that's the system you are pushing for poor people... and the rest of us if you get your way.

So... put up or shut up, as the saying goes. Either get in line at the VA hospital and prove how wonderful, efficient, and effective government-run medicine is, or admit that it sucks and that you wouldn't use the system if you had another choice, and stop pushing it for everyone else.

Oh, but of course this isn't about YOU. You're just being the benevolent provider of health care to the poor on everyone else's dime.

:cool:

Elliot

JudyKayTee
Oct 13, 2009, 01:28 PM
There were 58000 brave americans who died in Vietnam, and there were protests and marches against the war

45000 americans die EACH YEAR for nothing more than a lack of a health care system

Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance | Health | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE58G6W520090917)



Let's not bring Americans who died in a (useless) war into this - has nothing to do with the subject at hand and while there were a few protests, mainly by College students, the protests were not on any large scale. People most definitely were not protesting in the streets on a daily basis. Very much like the current war a LOT of people were NOT against the war.

Maybe the news in the UK didn't make this clear.

Why are you - in the UK - so interested in this subject to begin with? Aren't there enough problems in the UK to worry about so you have to worry about problems in the US?

This is another subject in the category of "here's the problem." Now if only somebody had the solution!

ETWolverine
Oct 13, 2009, 01:32 PM
This is another subject in the category of "here's the problem." Now if only somebody had the solution!

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/will-united-states-ever-have-universal-healthcare-389870-48.html#post2029047

Elliot

JudyKayTee
Oct 13, 2009, 01:39 PM
Clever answer - but, again, I see a lot of what if and nothing clear cut.

Everyone has a theory/solution - but none of them appear to be acceptable or working.

phlanx
Oct 13, 2009, 01:40 PM
That's it, this individualistic attituide, that America and its subjects have is exactly why you deserve your reputation!

We do not receive american news - instead we take a more cultural approach to the world, and learn what is happening outside our borders as well as inside

Judy are you saying I can't understand what someone from a different country thinks about something just because I am not an american??

ETWolverine
Oct 13, 2009, 01:57 PM
Clever answer - but, again, I see a lot of what if and nothing clear cut.

Everyone has a theory/solution - but none of them appear to be acceptable or working.

Excuse me?

I listed 10 concrete, REAL steps to lower the cost of health care and make more accessible to those who cannot afford it.

Which of those was "what if"? Which of them was not clear cut?

In fact, the first one I listed, making all medical care and medical insurance expenses pre-tax, would cause an immediate decrease in costs to the consumer of 15-30% as soon as it is implemented.

You don't consider that a concrete step toward making health care more affordable and more accessible?

Elliot

speechlesstx
Oct 13, 2009, 02:04 PM
Thats it, this individualistic attituide, that America and its subjects have is exactly why you deserve your reputation!

That individualism is a large part of what makes America great. And by the way, we kind of take exception to being called "subjects" around here.

speechlesstx
Oct 13, 2009, 02:05 PM
Where are you, NK? Canadians are speaking out...

TPFK6aLJec8

ETWolverine
Oct 13, 2009, 02:09 PM
Thats it, this individualistic attituide, that America and its subjects have is exactly why you deserve your reputation!

We do not recieve american news - instead we take a more cultural approach to the world, and learn what is happening outside our borders as well as inside

Judy are you saying I can't understand what someone from a different country thinks about something just because I am not an american???????

Oh... so you think that the community-based approach... the community comes first, the individual only a distant second... is the way to go.

Yeah... the Soviet Union thought that was the way to go too. For that matter, so did those who lived under feudalism. So did those who lived in slave societies. The 'national good' was more important to them than individualism too.

The USA celebrates individualism. Our Constitution ENSHRINES it. The rights and privlidges of the individual are what make us the most prosperous nation in the world... even in the throes of the worst recession we've seen in 60 years. Our poor people have cell phones, color TVs, microwaves, and many of the same trappings that our richest have, if more modest. Can any other country say the same? Our poorest people live lives of relative luxury when compared to the poor of other countries.

And yet, despite this relative wealth, and despite our rugged individualism, the USA is still the most charitable nation on Earth. Aside from what the government gives in aid to other countries ($22.7 billion in government aid in 2007) the people of the USA, those hopelessly individualistic people, give more charity than any other nation on Earth.

The world's 10 most charitable nations - Giving- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16638810/)

Your nation is a distant 2nd, giving less than half what we give as a percentage of GDP.

(The actual dollar or pound amount you give is much lower than half of ours since our actual GDP is significantly higher than yours.)

Let's hear it for individualism.

Elliot