In any case, a few weeks ago, someone tried to argue that I didn't know what I was talking about on the issue of nationalized health care in the USA because I didn't even know what Obama's plan was. I answered that he hadn't posted his plan because he doesn't want anyone to know what the plan is. If they knew that the plan was to really create a single payor system, the people would reject it, so he's not letting anyone know that this is his plan. I was then called a "fear monger" for my comments.
Well, here's the evidence. The video is under 3 minutes long, but it makes very clear exactly what the plan of Obama is, using Obama's own words, along with those of his supporters and advisor... advisors like Yale University Political Science Professor Jacob Hacker and supporters like Rep. Jan Schakowski (D-Il)... why and how they are deceiving the people into supporting this abomination of universal healthcare by deliberately lying to them. These people even explain WHY they are deceiving the American people and how they are doing it. Hacker explains that the point is to argue that there is a "choice" and competition within the single-payor system so as not to scare people into opposing it. Schakowski even explains that "this isn't a pricipaled fight, it is a fight about the strategy for getting there".
You want to argue that a single-payor system run by the government with no other choices is better than our current system? Fine. That's a philosophical, political, economic, medical debate that I'm willing to have.
But don't ever try to argue that Obama is just creating an additional option and doesn't want to eliminate the options we currently have. Because his own words and those of his supporters clearly want that to be the endgame. Don't fool yourselves, and don't try to fool me.
Principaled debate, my butt. Obama and company wouldn't recognize a principal if it reared up and bit them on the @$$. He's an idealogue, through and through. And he's a product of the Chicago political machine. He'll never let principal get in the way of idealism and doctrine.
Elliot
Jun 16, 2009, 06:14 PM
Wondergirl
A "principal" is the head of a school. You want the word "principle" or "principled." And it's "single-payer."
Jun 16, 2009, 06:20 PM
ETWolverine
Wondy, the best writers in the world can't spell worth a damn. Robert Ludlum can't spell. All you are doing is telling me that I'm a good writer.
Thank you.
Now... do you have any comments on the substance of the post? Or are you going to continue wasting time correcting my spelling?
Elliot
Jun 16, 2009, 06:38 PM
Wondergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Wondy, the best writers in the world can't spell worth a damn. Robert Ludlum can't spell. All you are doing is telling me that I'm a good writer.
Thank you.
Now... do you have any comments on the substance of the post? Or are you going to continue wasting time correcting my spelling?
Elliot
I can't take you seriously if you won't even take the time to look up words in the dictionary or check with your editor (or me) before you post. And Ludlum stinks as a writer. But has an editor who saves his neck.
Jun 16, 2009, 08:12 PM
Wondergirl
Here are hard facts and figures that will support your case --
We already have a single-payer system in Medicaid. No uninsured person in the U.S. has to go without medical care. All he or she has to do is go to a hospital ER where he or she will be triaged and eventually treated. Jerry, our library homess guy, did this many times, never paid a cent out-of-pocket, got excellent care, usually was kept as a patient for a few days to a week at the hospital to begin treatment, and then was sent to an extended care/nursing home facility (of his choice!) where treatment continued for as long as four weeks until Medicaid coverage for this illness expired. If he still needed treatment, he could reenter the ER and start the process all over again.
As as much as I love you, ET, I do totally disagree with you that Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine. He never held a political position in Chicago, although he was an "activist" (but you said all he did was pass out leaflets on corners). He held only the state office of senator. Mayor Daley mostly hated Obama. He endures him now.
Jun 17, 2009, 02:31 AM
tomder55
We would be lost without our resident spell checker.
Whenever the President protests loudest ,you know that there is an objection to his plan that has merit. During his latest address to the AMA (when he flew to Chi town for the afternoon costing the taxpayers over $300,000) he warned against those who would make the claim that the plan is an incremental move towards a socialized single payer plan.He called it scare tactics and fear mongering .
The fact is that private insurance will not be able to compete against the public subsidized plan when all the cards are stacked against them by either taxes;initial artificially set low premiums, or regulations. Eventually through attrition their goal will be achieved .Oh you get to keep your plan and doctor he claims .But like IBD editorialized ;it's like telling the Dutch they can keep their homes after the plug in the dike is pulled.
There is no argument that the intent of the "reform" of the medical system is an attempt to bring us closer to the liberal goal of the individual's complete dependence on the nanny state.
To disguise it as either cost saving or taking care of the people without insurance is a canard that the CBO recently busted . (The oft sited 46 million uninsured is a bogus number in itself that the census bureau has already discredited )The Kennedy plan being floated will add a Trillion dollars to the costs of health care for the country and in one decade will only cover an additional 1/3 of the 46 million people they claim to care about.
Jun 17, 2009, 03:39 AM
NeedKarma
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
There is no argument that the intent of the "reform" of the medical system is an attempt to bring us closer to the liberal goal of the individual's complete dependence on the nanny state.
We have universal health care here in Canada and we are not completely dependent on any "nanny state". It works for us and we are free!
Jun 17, 2009, 04:08 AM
ZoeMarie
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
We have universal health care here in Canada and we are not completely dependent on any "nanny state". It works for us and we are free!
Exactly!
Jun 17, 2009, 04:36 AM
tomder55
Quote:
We have universal health care here in Canada and we are not completely dependent on any "nanny state". It works for us and we are free!
Well good for you .We all know the utopia you live in. I do not consider any other nations example as necessarily a model to follow for America . But what I hear here in these discussions , and the surveys by experts I read are two different things . Perhaps you are not giving us all the pertinent facts and are relying instead of a myopic view based perhaps on personal experience ;but also more than a bit of ideology. I was not planning on commenting on your system ;but here it goes.
One of the major problems that is frequently discussed is the waiting times for essential treatments ;an issue that has been well documented:
In 1999, the waiting time to see a specialist or have a diagnostic test was 13.1 weeks
In 2003, the waiting time was 17.1 weeks
In 2004, the waiting time was 17.9 weeks
In 2007, the waiting time reached an new high of 18.3 weeks
Many Canadians are questioning the sustainability of their ponzi scheme system. Health Care in Canada Survey
In addition to the long waiting times for services,another major issue fueling the health care debate across the border is the shortage of doctors. In 2002, the Canadian Nursing Association published a report that alerted the country to serious shortages in personnel and the need for improvements in medical technology.
Immigration from Canada to the United States is generally low except in the area of healthcare professionals. Doctors especially make up a significant proportion of the workers who have chosen to leave Canada for employment in the United States.
The survey shows that 49% of the public felt that access to even a family doctor has gotten worse in the last 2 years.
As the US debates the merits of a socialized health plan, Canadians who have lived under such a system since 1962 are debating the merits of allowing individuals to purchase private insurance even for services already covered under the national system.
63% thought allowing private insurance would result in shorter waiting time.
62% believed that private insurance would increase the shortage of doctors and nurses because they believed doctors and nurses would prefer to work in the private system
59% believed that creating a two tiered system would result in those who could afford to pay for private insurance getting better care
57% thought adding a private insurance system would improve access to health services for everyone
55% thought it would lead to improved quality in health care services
Some Canadian provinces have attempted to reduce the burden of healthcare funding by contracting out healthcare services to private companies. So what we have is an example of things to come. The Canadians moved toward a socialized system and are moving incrementally back to a two tiered system.
Jun 17, 2009, 04:45 AM
NeedKarma
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
well good for you .We all know the utopia you live in. I do not consider any other nations example as necessarily a model to follow for America . But what I hear here in these discussions , and the surveys by experts I read are two different things . Perhaps you are not giving us all the pertinent facts and are relying instead of a myopic view based perhaps on personal experience ;but also more than a bit of ideology.
Not just mine but my family's, my friends', my extended family's, my-co-workers in all the jobs I've had, my neighbours in all the places I've lived, etc. I guess the unhappy people have been denied entrance into AMHD! LOL! Sure there are issues, we pretty assume some extra wait time, it's simply a fact of life for us because we know no differnetly. But we never have to worry about paperwork or dealing with lawyers, etc. I knnow you hate to see people who are happy so I'll stop there.
Jun 17, 2009, 07:32 AM
ETWolverine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I can't take you seriously if you won't even take the time to look up words in the dictionary or check with your editor (or me) before you post. And Ludlum stinks as a writer. But has an editor who saves his neck.
That says more about YOU than it does about me. If you are more interested in style over substance, don't put that on me... it's YOUR issue, not mine.
And watch it regarding Ludlum. Them's fightin' words.
:D
Elliot
Jun 17, 2009, 07:40 AM
excon
Hello El:
A debate requires TWO premises... You can't have a principled debate when one side just says the other is wrong, and brushes their hands of the whole thing. You actually got to put forth some proposals, and you haven't.
The only proposal I get from you, is LEAVE IT ALONE! IT'S FINE!
excon
Jun 17, 2009, 07:43 AM
ETWolverine
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
We have universal health care here in Canada and we are not completely dependent on any "nanny state". It works for us and we are free!
NK, in Canada it is illegal for you to go to a private doctor and pay out of pocket. There is no private insurance and it is illegal to pay out of pocket for care. If you do not like the treatment you are getting within the system, you are not allowed to go out of the system. Ergo, whether you are satisfied with the system or not, you are most definitely completely dependent upon the state to provide your healthcare. If you LIKE that and are satisfied with it, fine. But don't tell us that you aren't completely dependent on that system. If you have no options, then you are dependent on it.
It can be argued that Israel has a government-run system with options, because it is legal to go out of the government system to get care that the government-run system doesn't cover. There is private insurance to supplement the government-run system. There are outside options. Most of them are much more expensive than the government-run system, but they do exist. So you can argue that the people are NOT completely dependent on the government-run system. That is NOT true of Canada and you know it.
That is why Canadians who want to go outside the system (either to cut the queue or to obtain care not available to them in the system) have to come to America to do it. It is illegal to do so in Canada.
Please, NK. Argue that you are satisfied with the system if you wish. But don't try to claim that you aren't dependent on the Canadian health care system for everything medical. It just isn't true.
Elliot
Jun 17, 2009, 07:54 AM
ETWolverine
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello El:
A debate requires TWO premises... You can't have a principled debate when one side just says the other is wrong, and brushes their hands of the whole thing. You actually gotta put forth some proposals, and you haven't.
The only proposal I get from you, is LEAVE IT ALONE! IT'S FINE!
excon
Wrong. In fact I gave several proposals for cutting health care costs in my other posts on this subject. For instance:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
There are lots of options for lowering health care costs besides becoming communists. We can control medical costs by creating tort reform (remember that 52% increase in medical costs I mentioned above?), we can create greater efficiencies in the field of medicine, we can lower unnecessary regulatory costs, etc.
And I'll add the additional option of civil grand juries that I have proposed before as another option for lowering health care costs.
The fact is, excon, conservatives have had options on the table in this debate for literally DECADES. You have just been ignoring them as Obama has. You have been arguing, like Obama has, the usual "false choice" of either making a bad change to a government system or making no change at all. That is the false choice that Obama keeps feeding us: if you don't want to follow him, it means you don't want to do anything at all, and better a "bad" change than no change at all.
That argument is based on two false premises. The first is that bad action really is better than no action at all, which is a statement based on facts not in evidence. In our current economic situation, no action may very well be better for the nation as a whole than bad action that sends us unto more multi-generational bankruptcy.
The second false premise is that there is no alternative action to be taken, which is a complete falsehood. The alternatives are there. You just don't like them.
Elliot
Jun 17, 2009, 08:02 AM
NeedKarma
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
NK, in Canada it is illegal for you to go to a private doctor and pay out of pocket. There is no private insurance and it is illegal to pay out of pocket for care. If you do not like the treatment you are getting within the system, you are not allowed to go out of the system.
Your ignorance is showing again. I can choose my GP. I recently needed some physio for my knee and I selected the sports physiotherapist I wanted.. mostly paid for with my Blue Cross additional plan from my work (as a benefit). I can select my dentist as well. I can't seelct who did my colonoscopy but oddly enough I'm OK with that. Different provinces have variations on the theme. But mainly we don't really need to shop around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
But don't try to claim that you aren't dependant on the Canadian health care system for everything medical. It just isn't true.
Of course I'm dependent on our canadian health care system, I never denied that. I only said that I'm not completely dependent on a nanny state.
Jun 17, 2009, 08:13 AM
tomder55
The President at the AMA called for an principled honest debate while he called us who disagree with his solutions fear mongers.
During the campaign he made a lot of hay by charging that McCain wanted to "tax employees health care benefits" .
Charles Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, bragged that the Democrats are considering "a possible end to the income tax exclusion for employer-paid health benefits."
I guess you didn't read my thing about tort reform where I blew your argument out of the water. It's back on the other thread somewhere.
excon
Jun 17, 2009, 09:34 AM
ETWolverine
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Your ignorance is showing again. I can choose my GP. I recently needed some physio for my knee and I selected the sports physiotherapist I wanted.. mostly paid for with my Blue Cross additional plan from my work (as a benefit). I can select my dentist as well. I can't seelct who did my colonoscopy but oddly enough I'm OK with that. Different provinces have variations on the theme. But mainly we don't really need to shop around.
A few questions:
How much physio-therapy are yopu elligible for? Once that limit is reached, what happens if you need more therapy? You are NOT allowed to pay out of pocket for more. What then?
How many times per year can you visit your dentist? What happens if you find out that you have a wedding next week and you want to visit your dentist for a routine cleaning to look nice for the photos. How long does it take you to get an appointment with him? What if you've already reached your limit in terms of dental care? Can you get a cleaning anyway?
Has Canada approved the Gastro Cam Pill as an alternative to standard CO or EO exams? If not, why not? If you are found to have an H-Pilori infection, do you have a choice of which antibiotics to use to clear it out? What if the best AB for you isn't on the approved list, can you take it anyway?
The answers to these questions will give you a better understanding of the differences in choices available to you compared to those available to us in the USA.
Quote:
Of course I'm dependent on our canadian health care system, I never denied that. I only said that I'm not completely dependent on a nanny state.
If you are receiving care from the state, it is a nanny state. Yours is a semantic argument. Call it what you will... you a reliant on the state to provide your healthcare. I am not, and do not wish to be.
Elliot
Jun 17, 2009, 09:35 AM
ETWolverine
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, El:
I guess you didn't read my thing about tort reform where I blew your argument out of the water. It's back on the other thread somewhere.
excon
Please send me a link so I can follow up and show you why your torpedo is a dud.
Elliot
Jun 17, 2009, 10:01 AM
NeedKarma
How much physio-therapy are yopu elligible for? There must be a limit I guess, I've never reached it.
How many times per year can you visit your dentist? What happens if you find out that you have a wedding next week and you want to visit your dentist for a routine cleaning to look nice for the photos. How long does it take you to get an appointment with him? I'll call on Monday for an appointment the same week. If I'm in pain they find a spot for me ASAP. I get a regular 6 month checkup and cleaning and visit as need for any issues that arise between then.
Has Canada approved the Gastro Cam Pill as an alternative to standard CO or EO exams? Don't know what any of that is, sorry.
If you are receiving care from the state, it is a nanny state. Yours is a semantic argument. Oh ok then. I'm alright with that. If you aren't then we'll leave it at a difference of opinion.
Jun 17, 2009, 10:02 AM
tomder55
Quote:
Please send me a link so I can follow up and show you why your torpedo is a dud.
He says that if doctors did not screw up there would be no need for tort reform and that caps on awards aren't fair because you can't cap the pain and suffering of a screw up.
Obama got booed by the doctors at the AMA meeting when he suggested he was "not advocating caps on malpractice awards." even though he had suggested that costs are ranging out of control in part because of "unnecessary tests and procedures as part of a 'defensive' medicine culture created in part by the risk of medical malpractice lawsuits."
But you see ;slip and fall lawyers are one of his biggest constituencies so their best interests aren't served by caps on rewards. So although he recognizes tort reform as a means to controlling the costs of medical care ;he refuses to have an honest and principled debate on the subject.
edit :
here is a WSJ op ed on the issue :
Quote:
President Obama mentioned the medical liability problem yesterday, and it says something about health-care orthodoxies that even this political gesture sent his usual allies into a fluster. We suppose this is progress -- though there's a reason cannier Democrats are smiling.
Of course Mr. Obama deserves credit for even referring to what he called the "real issue" of medical malpractice reform. The paragraph he appended to his stock speech on health care for the American Medical Association yesterday didn't offer much detail -- "I do think we need to explore a range of ideas," he boldly declared -- but trial lawyers and their stratospheric jury awards and settlements have led to major increases in the medical malpractice premiums, thus driving up the overall cost of U.S. health care.
The system today is worse than random -- many lawsuits do not involve any negligence -- and some physicians respond by leaving such high-risk fields as obstetrics, anesthesiology, neurosurgery and emergency medicine. Others practice defensive medicine, ordering unnecessary tests to immunize themselves if they do end up in court. Economists disagree on the precise burden of this legal fear, but some argue that it exceeds $100 billion a year.
Mr. Obama's cri de coeur might have had more credibility had he not specifically ruled out the one policy to deter frivolous suits. "Don't get too excited yet," he warned the cheering AMA members. "Just hold onto your horses here, guys. . . . I want to be honest with you. I'm not advocating caps on malpractice awards." In other words, the tort lottery will continue. California, of all places, has had great success in holding down liability costs for doctors and hospitals after a 1975 reform that limited pain and suffering damages -- balanced against the public interest of fairly treating victims of genuine malpractice.
The trial bar and its Democratic allies say that the threat of lawsuits promotes better care and assures accountability. But they've fought even modest changes that would offer liability protection if doctors adhere to evidence-based guidelines. Mr. Obama showed again with his AMA speech that he's willing to nod at the concerns of his political opponents and take media credit for brave truth-telling, only to dump his conciliation if it offends liberal interest groups.
Mr. Obama's aides have openly told the press that he views medical liability as a "credibility builder" -- that is, a token policy to keep the health-care industry at the bargaining table. Given that the only "bargain" that seems likely to emerge is another major step toward total government control of the health markets, the President seems to be counting on credulity.
How much physio-therapy are yopu elligible for? There must be a limit I guess, I've never reached it.
How many times per year can you visit your dentist? What happens if you find out that you have a wedding next week and you want to visit your dentist for a routine cleaning to look nice for the photos. How long does it take you to get an appointment with him? I'll call on Monday for an appointment the same week. If I'm in pain they find a spot for me ASAP. I get a regular 6 month checkup and cleaning and visit as need for any issues that arise between then.
Has Canada approved the Gastro Cam Pill as an alternative to standard CO or EO exams? Don't know what any of that is, sorry.
If you are receiving care from the state, it is a nanny state. Yours is a semantic argument. Oh ok then. I'm alright with that. If you aren't then we'll leave it at a difference of opinion.
So, what you are telling me is that you don't really know enough about your medical system, its limitations and its advantages to comment on whether it is better, as good as, or worse than the US system. You know only your own experience, and have not had to deal with the limitations of your system because you haven't reached those limitations.
All of which is fine. But it makes you a poor advocate for your system, because you don't have enough information to advocate. This is not a bad thing, per se. Most Americans have no idea how the system works in the USA other than the fact that they present their insurance card, pay a $15 or $25 copay, and the doctor does whatever they need done. But they have no ability to advocate for their system or argue for changes in the system because they simply don't have enough knowledge about that system. THAT is where you are as well. I suggest that you either bone up on how your system works... REALLY works... or else leave the discussion to those who HAVE done the research, watch and learn from what they have to say, rather than put forward an opinion that is not based in fact or is only based on personal experience rather than the general trend of your entire country.
Cosyk is a good example of someone whom I disagree with on the issue, but who has done her homework and knows how the system works in the USA and for the most part knows how it works in Canada too. We come to different conclusions, but she knows her stuff and acts as a good advocate for what she supports.
Elliot
Jun 17, 2009, 10:21 AM
NeedKarma
Ok, have a nice day!
Jun 17, 2009, 04:30 PM
Skell
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The fact is that private insurance will not be able to compete against the public subsidized plan when all the cards are stacked against them by either taxes;initial artificially set low premiums, or regulations. Eventually through attrition their goal will be acheived .Oh you get to keep your plan and doctor he claims .But like IBD editorialized ;it's like telling the Dutch they can keep their homes after the plug in the dike is pulled.
Tom,
I think you have previously stated that you have studied the Australian Health Care system, which is essentially a two-tier model?
How is it that in Australia the private insurers can compete against the public subsidised plan even in the face of regulation, taxes, low premiums etc? How come the two can co-exist down here but not in the US?
I have private insurance. I can see the doctor I want, when I want. I have friends who don't. They can still get adequate health care quickly and at little or no cost. They are happy. I am happy. Its not perfect but it isn't broke.
Is there a major difference in what Obama is proposing that will make it impossible fopr the two to exist in the US? Fill me in? Maybe I'm missing something.
P.S. I hope these questions contributes to the debate sufficiently enough for you...
Jun 17, 2009, 04:50 PM
Wondergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Tom,
I think you have previously stated that you have studied the Australian Health Care system, which is essentially a two-tier model??
I thought the US already has a two-tier model -- private and Medicaid. I have private. My homeless buddy depends on Medicaid and, now that he is over 65, Medicare. Both of us are happy with the care we get.
Jun 17, 2009, 05:03 PM
Skell
I have both. Medicare (government subsidized) and private.
Are you able to have both in the US?
Jun 17, 2009, 05:11 PM
Wondergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
I have both. Medicare (government subsidized) and private.
Are you able to have both in the US?
Yes, after 65. The private insurance is then called supplemental health insurance. My uncle's private insurance company picked up the bulk of the bill, and Medicare picked up the balance.
If an insured has only Medicare, it pays only "approved" amounts. If a doctor changes $60 for an office visit, Medicare might pay only the "approved" $50 of that, and the insured would have to pay the rest somehow. Otherwise, the insured would have to find a doctor who charges (i.e. will accept) the Medicare approved-amount of $50 and would not then have to pay anything out-of-pocket.
Jun 17, 2009, 08:18 PM
Skell
Over 65? So I suppose that is the essential difference between the two.
Thanks. I purposefully steer clear of these health care threads as I don't fully understand your current system or the system being proposed.
Hence my questions to Tom.
Jun 17, 2009, 08:36 PM
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Please send me a link so I can follow up and show you why your torpedo is a dud.
Hello again, El:
Yeah, tom is right. I said that I'd be all for a cap on malpractice awards when there's a cap on the damage that can be done when a bad doctor makes a mistake. I said, that it doesn't look too fair to limit one when you cannot limit the other.
I asked further that if your daughter was maimed, you wouldn't want her award limited, would you?
That was my torpedo. Ain't no dud, dude.
excon
Jun 18, 2009, 02:31 AM
tomder55
In the US "2 tier system" the primary system is the private insured and the gvt. Run system covers the gaps (Medicaid )and the "entitled " (Medicare )
Obama wants to fundamentally change that with a single payer system . He would put a system in place that would make private insurance available to only the elites . The video that Elliot tried to link (not sure if he did it here because I don't have access to video on my computer... but I have seen it on other computers) shows Obama and his supporters being very frank that their goal is the destruction of the private insured system .
Jun 18, 2009, 05:49 AM
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
shows Obama and his supporters being very frank that their goal is the destruction of the private insured system .
Hello again, tom:
Or said another way, it's the removal of the private insurance system because they have become obsolete, and too damn expensive... Somebody's going to get thrown under the bus. So far it's been the patient, but it's time that ended. Plus, he'll be able to cover ALL the 47 million uninsured people with the money that the health insurance industry won't get..
It's not like there isn't anything left for them to insure. I don't think any insurance exec will be in the food line.
excon
Jun 18, 2009, 10:25 AM
ETWolverine
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, El:
Yeah, tom is right. I said that I'd be all for a cap on malpractice awards when there's a cap on the damage that can be done when a bad doctor makes a mistake. I said, that it doesn't look too fair to limit one when you cannot limit the other.
I asked further that if your daughter was maimed, you wouldn't want her award limited, would you?
That was my torpedo. Ain't no dud, dude.
excon
Actually, it IS a dud, because what I have proposed for tort reform is civil grand juries. Frivolous cases get thrown out cheaply, while legitimate cases go on to their final outcomes in court or settlement. I'm not and have never proposed capping awards for legitimate cases. I'm for getting rid of the frivolous cases in a way that doesn't cost the defendant lots of money for legal defense or for needless payouts to get rid of the frivolous lawsuits because it's cheaper to pay than to defend against them.
Your torpedo doesn't hit me because I'm off in another direction from where you aimed.
Jun 18, 2009, 06:05 PM
inthebox
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Here are hard facts and figures that will support your case --
We already have a single-payer system in Medicaid. No uninsured person in the U.S. has to go without medical care. All he or she has to do is go to a hospital ER where he or she will be triaged and eventually treated. Jerry, our library homess guy, did this many times, never paid a cent out-of-pocket, got excellent care, usually was kept as a patient for a few days to a week at the hospital to begin treatment, and then was sent to an extended care/nursing home facility (of his choice!) where treatment continued for as long as four weeks until Medicaid coverage for this illness expired. If he still needed treatment, he could reenter the ER and start the process all over again.
As as much as I love you, ET, I do totally disagree with you that Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine. He never held a political position in Chicago, although he was an "activist" (but you said all he did was pass out leaflets on corners). He held only the state office of senator. Mayor Daley mostly hated Obama. He endures him now.
This homeless person getting "free care" at the hospital because of medicaid, well IT IS NOT FREE TO SOCIETY. The hospital passes the costs of his care by getting government grants and or charging patients with insurance higher rates, the same rates that working people without insurance have to pay. The insurance companies pass the cost by raising premiums. The state and federal gov tax citizens for medicare and medicaid. So no money actually comes out of that homeless guys pockets, IT COMES FROM OUR POCKETS in the form of higher cost for service, higher taxes, higher premiums.
I think "universal healthcare" is a good ideal, but after you are done drinking the Koolaid be prepared for less advanced care, rationing, longer wait times, and less doctors.
G&P
Jun 18, 2009, 06:09 PM
inthebox
I would like to see all these proponents of government healthcare, including Obama, go without private insurance for just one year, and then get back to a real debate.
