 |
That's one of the biggest lie you've told so far and you've told many! You're obcessed with telling us we hate our system yet you can find a Canadian on this board that says that... yet just have a look at the health boards here to see americans with issues with your current system.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Kudos to you for working hard. Individuals like you are what makes this vountry great. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
I think the underlying reason there is healthcare cost inflation is that third party payors [private and gov ] keep the real cost of healthcare insulated from the consumer. * The providers have no incentive to give the consumer a break because they don't get paid by directly by the consumer but by the gov or health insurance. Perversely the incentive is to try to get the most out of the third party payor.
* if the government is going to cover 80% of the cost of a vehicle and you pay 20 %
[ medicare ] why get a Chevy Cobolt [ < 25 k ] when you can get a Cadillac CTS [ $40k ] cheaper than if you actually had to pay 100% of the Chevy?
G&P
I have posted the statistics of your own country's polls in the past on this board.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
If you have issues with the fact that most of your people think that they wait too long for care, don't get access that they need, and die waiting on lines, then the problem you have is with your own system, not me.
I never lie. I always have evidence to back up my claims. You should have learned that by now.
Elliot
Not to Hi-Jack the thread but why does health care not cover dental? Why do we have dental insurance and then health insurance? It's been proven that bad teeth can lead to heart attacks and heart disease. Seems to me that would be a health problem. Does anyone know why this is?
And S-Chip, and the VA Medical system, and the Native American Medical System, and the Massachusets State Medical System and Oregon State Medical System.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Roughly 40-45% of the US system is already run by government.
And every one of those programs is a FAILURE. They are broke, mismanaged, overspent, inefficient, bloated, disorganized and of poor quality. Access is limited, care is mediocre, and patients are generally dissatisfied with service.
I find several points interesting.
1) People see the USA and consider us the only industrialized country in the world without government health care. But we DO have government health care, and it ain't working. It's a friggin disaster wherever it has been tried.
2) People want to give the same government that has broken all of those health care programs MORE power to do the same thing to the REST of the medical care in this country, and never recognize the idiocy of granting more power to the same people who screwed things up in the first place.
Elliot
a) No you haven'tQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
b) you agreed that anyone can find a poll to back up their claim
See, you lied right there!Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
That's actually a good question. One that I'd like to know the answer for.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
But there is a good FREE MARKET SOLUTION to that problem... the "build-your-own-policy" concept that I have spoken about before. With it, you could buy only the coverage you need, and not have to pay for the stuff you DON'T want. You could buy the family dental coverage you need for a couple of extra bucks, but drop the unneeded coverage for, say, drug addiction care or massage therapy. So you save a few bucks by not getting what you don't need, but pay only for what you DO need.
In terms of dental care, I will tell you this: The British government-run health care system DOES cover dental, at least in theory... and the Brits are notorious for having some of the worst teeth on Earth. That's because ACCESS to dental care in the UK is about on par with access to any other specialist in the UK... which is to say, poor. Annual dental appointments for checkup and/or cleaning are unheard of. You see a dentist when you have an abssessed cavity or other major dental problem. Cavities are a low-priority item and if you are persistent, you might see a dentist in a few months to get it checked out and filled.
So you can be covered by the system, but if you can't get an appointment with the dentist or orthodontist your teeth are STILL going to suck.
I don't even want to think about what that means in terms of accessibility to OTHER specialty care in the UK.
Elliot
No I didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
But as I said before, I ain't going to REPEAT posting links for you anymore. You just ignore them anyway. Which makes YOU the liar, not me.
More good news from government run health care. Not only has the VA told 1200 Vets they have a fatal neurological disease just in time to make use of their new "death book," but the VA is likely to be sued for negligence for other reasons...
Yep, I can't wait for the feds to be in charge of my health care.Quote:
Army veteran Juan Rivera reported to the veterans hospital in Miami for a routine colonoscopy in May 2008. Almost a year later, the 55-year-old father of two learned that the Department of Veterans Affairs had not properly sterilized the equipment used for the procedure.
A test then revealed that he had been infected with HIV. "The VA has issued me a death sentence," Rivera said, according to his attorney.
A problem with sterilization practices at a VA facility in Tennessee was discovered in December, and the department has notified more than 11,000 veterans who had endoscopic procedures at three of its facilities that they may have been exposed to cross-contamination. VA has advised them to return for testing.
As of Aug. 3, eight of those patients have tested positive for HIV, 12 for hepatitis B and 37 for hepatitis C, according to VA.
Rivera, who served in the Army for 13 years and drives a truck for the U.S. Postal Service, filed notice last month of his intent to sue VA. The administrative claim, filed with VA under the Federal Torts Claim Act, says his infection was caused by the department's failure to clean its equipment and to follow proper procedure.
"He's angry, stunned and distraught that the government he served so well for so long has done this to him," said his attorney, Ira Leesfield.
Lawyers predict that Rivera's case marks the beginning of a rush of lawsuits against VA alleging negligence in the handling of medical equipment.
I get good care from Medicare, BUT
I heard a report just days ago that 42% of doctors are not taking any NEW Medicare patients. What will those forced into Medicare do when they can't find a doctor willing to treat them?
What happens to the rest of us when Medicare finally goes belly up? It will, because that's where it's headed.
Closing with this thought; as long as you are healthy, ANY healthcare system is OK.
What happens to US? What US are you talking about?
I'm PLANNING for stuff like that. I have a SAVINGS account, and a retirement fund, and will probably have COBRA insurance, or some other form of insurance.
I KNOW, and have known since I was like 12, that I cannot count on Social Security, or Medicare/Medicaid when I reach those ages.
So... what happens to the rest of YOU when it goes belly up? I don't care, as long as I don't have to pay for it.
Damn right Synnen. My wife couldn't understand why I put a so much money into my ING account and my IRA and my 401K from work when we got our joint checking account. I had to explain to her that I always heard social security isn't going to be there when we are old so we need to have some type of money. My wife thinks I'm paranoid I think I smart.
But I still think we should give universal health care a shot.
Just curious, has there been any public statement by Dr. Ezekial Emanuel on his position about Teddy Kennedy's treatments ? Was treating him a waste of resources ? Did the President say he should just take a pain pill ?
Hello again, tom:
There was a life saving operation that he COULD have gotten, but his health insurance company turned him down cause of the cost. The adjuster said that the tuition is due on his sons private school, so he's going to use the commission he gets for saving the company millions, on the tuition.
Read about here: Ask Excon
excon
I'm pretty sure his insurer denied him. Went against their profit motive.
Ex - nice site! :) Let me know if you need some development work done.
Ex,Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Kennedy was on GOVERNMENT health care. OF COURSE he was denied. He was over 65 and in poor health and had a history of alchoholism and a brain tumor (both are pre-existing conditions). What did you expect them to do... give him the services he needed? Where's the cost savings by a government insurance plan in doing that?
Which one did he choose?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Choose and Enroll
NK,
I was just joking with Excon. Excon has no actual evidence that Kennedy was denied for any medical care. In fact, I would argue that with his family's money and his political status, he probably got the same level of care that a US President would get. Excon was on a rant, and I just ranted back at him.
Nevertheless...
Kennedy chose the same plan that ALL members of Congress get. The FEHBP (Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan).
It's actually a great plan. That's why members of Congress have refused to allow themselves to be subject to the plan that they are putting forward for everyone else. They don't want to give up their high-end coverage to take what they are proposing for everyone else.
There have been a number of bills in Congress that have proposed that if Obamacare is passed, that all members of Congress and their staff should have to go to the same government health program that the average person has to deal with. Not surprisingly, Congress members have shot down such bills about 12 times so far.
So here's my question: if the health care plans coming out of both houses of Congress are not good enough for Congress to adopt for themselves, why should regular Americans accept it? To quote one woman at a town hall meeting held by Senator McCain on Monday, "If the plan isn't good enough for Congress, Senator, it isn't good enough for us."
Elliot
Yes he sure had a gold plated plan courtesy of the US taxpayer . I have yet to see a Dem say they would switch to the gvt. Public plan they advance for everyone else.
I can assure you of one thing ;he was not denied any care and if there was a line for treatment he went to the front of it.
And no; Zeke Emanuel did not say that Teddy was once 25 and had his time... He just says that about everyone else.
Hmmmmm he was once 25... Mary Jo was not available for comment.
That's ironic, because didn't Kennedy himself say if it's good enough for Congress it's good enough for the rest of us?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
But what's "good enough" for us isn't good enough or Congress now?Quote:
The President, the Vice President, the members of Congress have a medical plan that meets their needs in full, and whenever senators and representatives catch a little cold, the Capitol physician will see them immediately, treat them promptly, fill a prescription on the spot. We do not get a bill even if we ask for it, and when do you think was the last time a member of Congress asked for a bill from the Federal Government? And I say again, as I have before, if health insurance is good enough for the President, the Vice President, the Congress of the United States, then it's good enough for you and every family in America.
I've really been thinking about this, and come up with a way that I could approve government run health care:
Your government health care card would be completely and totally based on how much money you paid in on income taxes.
Each tier would enjoy better benefits--say, a longer hospital stay, or brand name medications instead of the generic, or quicker access to needed tests, or whatever.
People in the lowest tiers could still get basic health care--but that's IT. They get BASIC health care. Think HMO health care---the kind where they do outpatient surgery for appendicitis or something. With one notable exception: If you are in the absolute lowest tiers of the health plan, ALL birth control and ANY counseling needed due to choosing adoption over raising your child would be FREE. Completely and totally free.
Otherwise---is this "Atlas Shrugged"? Each pays according to their ability, but is treated according to their need?
Count me out of THAT sort of plan. You can call me John Galt if you want to.
One of my favorite characters in literature is John Galt . Another one from the same book was Francisco d'Anconia . He was willing to destroy his family fortune rather than to have it seized.
Hello again, Synn:Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Ayn Rand was a proponent of acting in one's self interest. She DID, however, distinguish self interest from selfishness. It's a distinction our friends on the right are unable to make. I think they should read her again, and maybe Robert Ringer too, and maybe Harry Browne. Those folks didn't' miss it.
excon
Universal health care success story of the day...
Quote:
After weeks of excruciating pain, Mark Wattson was understandably relieved to have his appendix taken out.
Doctors told him the operation was a success and he was sent home.
But only a month later the 35-year-old collapsed in agony and had to be taken back to Great Western Hospital in Swindon by ambulance.
To his shock, surgeons from the same team told him that not only was his appendix still inside him, but it had ruptured - a potentially fatal complication.
In a second operation it was finally removed, leaving Mr Wattson fearing another organ might have been taken out during the first procedure.
The blunder has left Mr Wattson jobless, as bosses at the shop where he worked did not believe his story and sacked him.
Mr Wattson told of the moment he realised there had been a serious mistake.
'I was lying on a stretcher in terrible pain and a doctor came up to me and said that my appendix had burst,' he said.
'I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I told these people I had my appendix out just four weeks earlier but there it was on the scanner screen for all to see.
'I thought, "What the hell did they slice me open for in the first place?"
'I feel that if the surgery had been done correctly in the first place I wouldn't be in the mess I am today. I'm disgusted by the whole experience.'
Mr Wattson first went under the knife on July 7 after experiencing severe abdominal pain for several weeks. He was discharged but exactly a month later he had to dial 999 after collapsing in agony.
Following the second operation his incision became infected and he was admitted to hospital for a third time for treatment.
He said: 'I had a temporary job at a sports shop but when I took in two medical certificates saying I had my appendix out twice they didn't believe me.
'Now I'm helpless. I can't go out and find a job, I can't go to interviews, I can barely walk and am in constant pain. Before the first operation they told me I had to have my appendix removed and when I woke up afterwards they said it had been a complete success.
'But then I keeled over in agony one month later and when they did some tests at the hospital we could see the appendix was still there on the scans.
'As far as I was aware they took my appendix out and no one told me any different.
'I have no idea what they did take out, but I want to find out what went wrong.'
A spokesman for Great Western Hospital confirmed that a representative had met Mr Wattson and that an investigation had been started.
He was unable to confirm what, if anything, was removed in the first operation.
Paul Gearing, deputy general manager for general surgery at Great Western Hospital NHS Trust, said: 'We are unable to comment on individual cases.
'However, we would like to apologise if Mr Wattson felt dissatisfied with the care he received at Great Western Hospital.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
I agree, but what about the wife or husband that stays at home raising the kids?
G&P
How is it selfish to NOT pay according to my ability so that others can pay less and get the same thing I am? Or, because they have more need (and/or more kids), they get MORE than I do, even though they pay less?
I GET that for schools. I understand it completely for highways/roads/whatever. I even understand it for things like a police force, a fire department, etc. I get those things because they affect ME, too. Those things are a benefit to society as a whole.
Better educated people make more responsible decisions than undereducated or uneducated people do.
Using highways/roads/etc---well, of course I want them in good repair--I use them too--and it seems to me that it's a benefit to society to have well constructed, easily used roads--for example, in an emergency, good roads allow medical personel, fire fighters, and police better and quicker access to combat the emergency.
A police force and fire department are there to protect us--ALL of us.
I fail to see how universal health care affect ALL of us positively.
Are they going to make LAWS on who is covered and who isn't under this? What will the rules be? "No Income? NO Problem! (as long as you don't smoke and are not obese)"
Does the government get to tell me I can't have certain kinds of treatment because of my lifestyle? You KNOW they will. If I go in with lung cancer, KNOWING that cigarettes cause lung cancer, and still smoke--will I have to pay that out of pocket? Or will this just be another nail in the coffin of legal tobacco in the US? What about fast food, then? Everyone KNOWS obesity is bad--can we deny people health care if they eat at a fast food place more than once a week? Or will we just have to work on banning those places too?
I don't want the government in health care, because I don't want them making the RULES of health care. I don't want the government to decide based on MORAL issues whether treatment should happen.
Let's put it this way: How many people would bounce away from this entire idea if even a single abortion were covered under a universal plan? But how can you DENY abortions under the plan? They're LEGAL (to a certain point, anyway). Yet people would be up in arms about their tax dollars being used to "kill innocent babies".
Maybe it IS selfish, in a way. But tell me this: how is it in my self interest to approve this? I'm part of society, and others in society feel the same way I do--what's a DIRECT benefit I'm going to get that I don't have now? How is a healthier populace (at the expense of tax dollars that could go to say... better education on how to be healthier via personal responsibility) going to make life better for anyone besides the people who currently don't have insurance?
Edited for italicized area because I KNEW my phrasing was off.
It costs an extra $1.37 per paycheck to have my husband on my insurance, with the same coverage I have. I think that kids are $3.00 each or so, but I don't have them so I'm not positive.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Can the government match that kind of pricing?
We have a double header success story in the UK today. Not only did doctors remove a man's appendix twice, but Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets.
Quote:
'While some will be unavoidable emergencies, it is extremely distressing for them and their families to be denied a labour bed because their maternity unit is full.
'It shows the incredible waste that has taken place that mothers are getting this sort of sub-standard treatment despite Gordon Brown's tripling of spending on the NHS.
In the midst of all the debate, let us not forget that the REAL danger in the proposed health care bill(s) is government control over virtually every aspect of our lives.
I'll bet none of you arguing for govt health care want the control that comes with it, as it is now written.
If you do, tell us why.
My, my, Synnen. This post looks positively CONSERVATIVE in it's content. You talk about "best interests of the individual" (which is just another way of talking about the "Invisible Hand" theory), personal responsibility, government overstepping it's bounds...Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
I do believe there's a hidden conservative (or at least a Rand-style Libertarian) buried in there somewhere.
Good post, great thoughts.
Elliot
I've been called a Centrist.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
It's funny--I'm ALL about individual rights and the Federal government backing the heck off on personal decisions---including, but not limited to: health care, religion, marriage, abortion, and family planning.
And I don't care what people do with their lives, as long as they take responsibility for it--which too often means that they LITERALLY pay for it, with money, rather than making good on their debts to society and the community.
There's a joke out there where the punch line is "Welcome to the Republican Party" about a girl who considers herself liberal but will not go to the Dean and split her hard earned grades to share with her friend who didn't work so hard. I read that joke and realized that I was more conservative than I really thought.
The whole thing comes down to this, for me: I'm tired of paying for other people to not work as hard as I do, and still have more than I do. I'm tired of handouts, of government "fixes" and tax money spent on things like football stadiums. I'm tired of working my butt off, and OTHER people getting the rewards of it.
I agree, but just to play the other card this time:Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
I am in favor of "free" preventative, evidence [ both fiscally and medically ] based measures, like vaccinations, or mamograms and colonoscopy, cholesterol checks, nutritional counseling. Prevention lowers cost for the whole system and thus for you and I.
I don't want the government deciding that a single 20 year old with cancer deserves cancer treatment because they have potentially longer to live; while a 35 yo married individual with children deserves it less because they are older.
G&P
Hello again, in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
I don't want that either. But, our heath care is already rationed, in that it's rationed FROM those who can't afford it. So, private health insurers make life and death decisions about who lives and who dies every day in the name profit.
Which obscenity do you like best?
excon
And why can't they afford it?
Maybe government/state regulations that mandate certain coverages that the consumer does not want?
Quote:
How Not to Reform Health Care | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
New regulation and bureaucracy are limiting consumer choice and adding to costs. A new mandate for prescription-drug coverage was added, and high-deductible policies were restricted.
What of allowing pretax dollars going to a health savings account?
Or... can they not afford it because they choose to have OTHER things in their lives?
How many people that say that they can't afford health insurance still have a TV, computer, cable, internet, and a cell phone? How many of them have video games instead of a library card?
Again--no sympathy.
People can afford anything they work to afford---and SACRIFICE to afford.
Are there accidents that can change a life in a second? Absolutely. Can ANYONE plan for something that ends up costing $2.5 million dollars? Of COURSE not! But that doesn't mean they can't scrape together the money for a preventative screening once a year, and afford the OTHER things that come up that aren't quite so drastic. Yes, that's one more payment they need to make every month (I don't know a health care facility that accepts only cash up front--most have some sort of payment plan), but seriously---how many of the people REALLY are working two jobs, use birth control responsibly, have no internet or cable or cell phone and STILL can't make ends meet?
It's all about taking personal responsibility for your actions. If you can't afford health care for your infant because you're 15 and don't have a job or high school diploma, well... that's what adoption is about.
I have NO problem helping people out from random accidents and hard spots. I have SERIOUS issues bailing people out of their bad choices.
And that, from my perspective, is the key point on most domestic policy issues, but especially health care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Well said.
Elliot
But wasn't it george w that started us on all bailouts? Seems like all this craziness was well established when obama took office.
Actually various gvt bailouts have occurred since at least the 1970 Penn Central bailout. That one resulted in the creation the next year of AMTRACK and it's tax soaking sponge.Quote:
But wasn't it george w that started us on all bailouts?
These have included bailouts to banks, Chrysler twice , Lockheed ,the airline industry ,and even NY City (1975) .NYC received $2.3 billion even though the headlines said that President Ford told NYC to drop dead. In this case NYC paid back every dollar .
Yes it's true President Bush did TARP ,but President Obama has continued bailout nation on steroids,and had in effect almost completely nationalized the American auto-industry and is attempting a similar take over of the national healthcare industry .
First of all, under Bush, all the "bailouts" were in the form of loans. And while those were BAD DECISIONS in my opinion, there was a HUGE difference between lending these companies money and actually TAKING OWNERSHIP OF THEM. Bush lent the auto industry money. Obama took them over, fired people he didn't like, and installed his own leadership in those companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by madarab405
Under TARP, Bush proposed that "toxic assets" be purchased from companies that were in trouble. That was changed by Bernanke, Geithner & co. from the purchase of toxic assets to the lending of money to various financial firms. BOTH of these were bad decisions, in my opinion. However, once Obama took office, he changed the plan again, and instead of making TARP a program for lending money or buying up toxic assets, he instead used it as a program to CONTROL COMPANIES. He used the loans to AIG as an excuse to control executive pay within that company. He refused to allow banks to pay back TARP money even when they offered to pay it back because he weanted to maintain ccontrol of those companies.
There's a huge difference between what Bush did... government interference, which was bad enough... and what Obama did, which was an ACTIVE TAKEOVER OR PRIVATE INDUSTRY BY THE GOVERNMENT.
So yes, it may have started under Bush... maybe. But what Bush did wasn't THIS.
It's time for the left to stop their cry of "It's all Bush's fault." Obama is President. The buck stops with him. Bush is no longer President. Anything that happens under Obama's watch is Obama's decision. If he can't handle that, he should never have run for the office.
Elliot
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:20 AM. |