The proposed health care bill thread (merged)

[SteamWake]

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/Healthcarespreadsheet.jpg

:rotfl:

So sad this is true.

[Tchocky]

Holy crap.


A national piece of legislation designed to rework the structure, funding, and purpose of a central element of society might actually be complex.

Here's a rather good description of what will and won't be going on under the proposed legislation.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/the_house_releases_its_health-.html

[geetrue]

Where is China on that chart?

Shouldn't we consult with them on what to do with their money?

[SteamWake]

Wait a minute "Central part of society" up till now healthcare has been my own private concearn.

Yea its soaking up nearly 20% of my income but Im covered, recieve good care, and no goverment involvement.

So I suppose with goverment health care it will soak up at least 20% of my income, recieve decent care (albeit if I can get it and dont have to wait months for it) being totally run by the federal goverment.

Frankly I prefer the former.

[Max2147]

If you made a similar chart of the way the system is now, it would be just as complex.

All this really does is add another health insurer to the market. A person who chooses to not use the government system and who is outside the richest 1.5% that will be taxed won't see any changes.

[SteamWake]

Where is China on that chart?

Shouldn't we consult with them on what to do with their money?

You silly, the money is going to come from the 'rich' :woot:

[Max2147]

Wait a minute "Central part of society" up till now healthcare has been my own private concearn.

Yea its soaking up nearly 20% of my income but Im covered, recieve good care, and no goverment involvement.

So I suppose with goverment health care it will soak up at least 20% of my income, recieve decent care (albeit if I can get it and dont have to wait months for it) being totally run by the federal goverment.

Frankly I prefer the former.
You can keep your private insurer. Nobody's forcing you to switch to the government plan.

[OneToughHerring]

If that's real then it's actually kind of impressive from a visual representation point of view.

[geetrue]

They should consider the way California offers you a choice on having car insurance, just prove you have $25,000 in the bank and you don't have to have proof of insurance.

But this health plan is mandatory with a penalty for people that don't comply.

[Tchocky]

Wait a minute "Central part of society" up till now healthcare has been my own private concearn.

Yea its soaking up nearly 20% of my income but Im covered, recieve good care, and no goverment involvement.

So I suppose with goverment health care it will soak up at least 20% of my income, recieve decent care (albeit if I can get it and dont have to wait months for it) being totally run by the federal goverment.

Frankly I prefer the former.

Healthcare is a central part of society. How a society chooses to treat it's sick and dying is important. This healthcare bill will change that in the US, it it passes.

If you can afford to spend 20% of your income on healthcare, and are happy with the results, then not much will change for you. Things will chaneg for those who are not as fortunate.

[Max2147]

The more I look at the chart, the more amused I am with whoever made it.

Example: The arrow from HHS to States is "Federal Mandates for Website Design." OMG!!! Its teh sociallzim!

[geetrue]

You silly, the money is going to come from the 'rich' :woot:

Oh never mind ... I'll just go read my chain email lol

That must be where I got that idea ...:shucks:

[Onkel Neal]

You can keep your private insurer. Nobody's forcing you to switch to the government plan.

Good and as long as I pay for my insurance, I should not be asked to pay into the Health Care insurance pool, either.

That's what's missing from this chart, most of the money will come from people who will not use the insurance. :nope:

[AVGWarhawk]

Good and as long as I pay for my insurance, I should not be asked to pay into the Health Care insurance pool, either.

That's what's missing from this chart, most of the money will come from people who will not use the insurance. :nope:

Christ, could not agree more.

[Tchocky]

Same with most government goods, really.

Earn more, pay more.

Those who earn more tend not to use so many government services (state healthcare, public schools, social welfare) as those lower down on the pay scale, but proportionally more is paid by the rich.

THe government pays for almost half of the US health system already (I think around 45%, could be wrong). The situation seems to be that the US pays a lot more per capita for healthcare, without substantially better results than countries such as France or the Netherlands. Question is, is the current system optimal?

EDIT - and when you think about it, most people won't use insurance anyway. That's how it works. If only sick or likely-to-be-sick people were to take out insurance, the cost of premiums would skyrocket, leaving a lot of people out of the loop, likely to be sick and unable to get treatment. That to me is a strong (brief) argument for a public plan option.

[Fish]

The situation seems to be that the US pays a lot more per capita for healthcare, without substantially better results than countries such as France or the Netherlands. Question is, is the current system optimal?




The Dutch system:

http://www.justlanded.com/english/Netherlands/Netherlands-Guide/Health/Healthcare


In the Netherlands, the government is not in charge of the day-to-day management of the healthcare system. Private health suppliers are responsible for the provision of services in this area. The government is responsible for the accessibility and quality of the healthcare.

[geetrue]

They really did leave something off of this chart ...

The illegal aliens ... :yep:

The border patrol will have to now ask everyone entering the United States if they have the mandatory insurance.

All international flight attendants will be required to ask, "Coffee, tea, milk, soda, mandatory health insurance ... :salute:

[geetrue]

EDIT - and when you think about it, most people won't use insurance anyway. That's how it works. If only sick or likely-to-be-sick people were to take out insurance, the cost of premiums would skyrocket, leaving a lot of people out of the loop, likely to be sick and unable to get treatment. That to me is a strong (brief) argument for a public plan option.

Not true with company insurance ... I know many that get all of the benefits they have coming to them, like neck massages from looking at a computer screen all day (which is okay with me).

You are also forgetting dental insurance now that's something that should be mandatory

[mookiemookie]

That's what's missing from this chart, most of the money will come from people who will not use the insurance. :nope:

That's true for any insurance. Heck, it's what the whole idea of what insurance is. I don't see the problem here.

[AVGWarhawk]

Not true with company insurance ... I know many that get all of the benefits they have coming to them, like neck massages from looking at a computer screen all day (which is okay with me).

You are also forgetting dental insurance now that's something that should be mandatory


Good point Geetrue....just another government program to be exploited by those that know how to work the system. I know a few myself. :down:

[VipertheSniper]

Good point Geetrue....just another government program to be exploited by those that know how to work the system. I know a few myself. :down:

What are they gonna do? Get their teeth knocked out intentionally? Or are you speaking of the whole plan here?

[AVGWarhawk]

What are they gonna do? Get their teeth knocked out intentionally? Or are you speaking of the whole plan here?

The whole plan. You will see an increase of people needing perscription pain medication. The Oxycotin folks. It happens now in the ER and now it will grow into a larger problem. I foresee fictious monetary compensation claims by doctors coming also. This happens already but will become worse as the government pencil pusher will just approve it. After all, it is good enough for government work.

[SteamWake]

You can keep your private insurer. Nobody's forcing you to switch to the government plan.

Sure that sounds great but I wonder how is a private plan supposed to compete with an entity that does not have to make a profit?

In other words private health care will be driven out of buisness.

[geetrue]

The whole plan. You will see an increase of people needing perscription pain medication. The Oxycotin folks. It happens now in the ER and now it will grow into a larger problem. I foresee fictious monetary compensation claims by doctors coming also. This happens already but will become worse as the government pencil pusher will just approve it. After all, it is good enough for government work.


I know this is hard to believe, but I know a drug dealer (not me no siree) that trades pot for prescription drugs especially pain medications.

Medicare fraud has uncovered doctors offices that are never open, but bill the medicare as if they were. These are not isolated cases.

[AVGWarhawk]

I know this is hard to believe, but I know a drug dealer (not me no siree) that trades pot for prescription drugs especially pain medications.

Medicare fraud has uncovered doctors offices that are never open, but bill the medicare as if they were. These are not isolated cases.

Oh yeah, geetrue, just the tip of the iceberg now. Wait until the government is involved...:88)

[AVGWarhawk]

Sure that sounds great but I wonder how is a private plan supposed to compete with an entity that does not have to make a profit?

In other words private health care will be driven out of buisness.

In the end, yes. Why should my boss continue to pay for our own healthcare policy when he does not have to nor has to worry about it anymore? He does'nt and he won't.

[Onkel Neal]

That's true for any insurance. Heck, it's what the whole idea of what insurance is. I don't see the problem here.


In other words, if I am covering my family through my private insurer, I do not want the govt to pull more money from me to cover those who use the govt. health care plan. The govt health care plan should be funded by those who use it.

[Max2147]

Sure that sounds great but I wonder how is a private plan supposed to compete with an entity that does not have to make a profit?

In other words private health care will be driven out of buisness.
If there are enough people like you who prefer their private health insurers, then they will stay around.

You can't say that the government insurer will be awful then in the next breath say that it will be so good that it will drive everybody else out of business.

[AVGWarhawk]

In other words, if I am covering my family through my private insurer, I do not want the govt to pull more money from me to cover those who use the govt. health care plan. The govt health care plan should be funded by those who use it.

Yes they should but it is not looking that way. Either way, we(me and you) are paying on average $1600.00/insured/year to cover those that are not covered already. This is obtained through premiums, medical cost and perscription costs. The hospitals certainly do not suck it up for humanity. One wonders then, do you and I get a reduced cost/year if we carry our own after the government starts their program? Probably not.

[AVGWarhawk]

If there are enough people like you who prefer their private health insurers, then they will stay around.

You can't say that the government insurer will be awful then in the next breath say that it will be so good that it will drive everybody else out of business.

You have to understand, what is keeping large companies from not just turning over healthcare of each and every employee to the government? Nothing is. Companies can get rid of entire departments for employee benefits. Expenditures for all the paperwork, etc. are now off the books. The employees healthcare is now the governments headache.

[Sea Demon]

You can keep your private insurer. Nobody's forcing you to switch to the government plan.

If I use a private plan, which I do for obvious reasons, I don't want my tax dollars paying for the public plan. I don't use it...I don't want to pay for it.

[mookiemookie]

If I use a private plan, which I do for obvious reasons, I don't want my tax dollars paying for the public plan. I don't use it...I don't want to pay for it.

How do you feel about the public school system, police, fire, water, hospitals, roads, etc, etc....?

[geetrue]

How do you feel about the public school system, police, fire, water, hospitals, roads, etc, etc....?

Good point:sunny:but are they mandatory unless you need them?

[Sea Demon]

How do you feel about the public school system, police, fire, water, hospitals, roads, etc, etc....?

My kids go to private school currently. I don't like paying twice. Public education should be more of a local/state concern anyway. I've been advocating getting the feds out of the education system for years. None of the parents who put their kids in government schools pay a cent for my kids schooling. Other than perhaps some funding allocated for the UC system or the CSU system here, I don't feel compelled to pay for everyone's education. That's their responsibility....not mine. Fire, police and other public services are mutually beneficial services that serves society at large and are things we all need to fund as part of the taxpayer contract. At some point, I may need these services. Public health and education, I don't need them or use them at all.

If I opt out of government health, I absolutely don't want to pay for it. The people who would use a "public plan" aren't chipping in for my private health plan. They should pay for their own.

BTW, IF we're talking about introducing "competition" into the mix (As many a dem are talking the big game about)...exactly how would that work with a public "socialized" option where people who have their own health plans fund the health option that doesn't need to make a profit. And doesn't reciprocate in funding the private plans (although that's not desired either). Sounds lousy to me.

[SteamWake]

How do you feel about the public school system, police, fire, water, hospitals, roads, etc, etc....?

LOL one thing that grinds my gears every year is property taxes. Nearly 80% of them are slated for schools.

I dont have any school age kids and my nephews are now in colledge. :rotfl:

Oh well such is the price in living in a socialist country.

I look on the bright side in that we do alot of work for different schools around here so I get a small ... very small portion of it back.

But when I see what goes into classrooms these days its staggering. Computers, projection systems, media retreval, lab benches, sound rienforcement systems (for hearing impared) not to mention new mandates for lighting systems, occupancy sensors, building energy management systems, and on and on. Hundereds of thousands of dollars on alot of stuff and we havent even bought pencils and paper yet.

[Buddahaid]

There were people who's kids were grown paying for your kids and on and on. What burns me more is how much of what we already pay goes to those who purport frauds. Even the system as it is now is bilked like all insurance. :nope:

Buddahaid

[geetrue]

This is one plan they are looking at:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/07/health-care-insurance-democrat-opinions-columnists-public-option.html (http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/07/health-care-insurance-democrat-opinions-columnists-public-option.html)


One model for a possible compromise was described in Tuesday's New York Times that examined the workings of the Group Health Cooperative (GHC) in Washington state (http://topics.forbes.com/Washington%20state).

This innovative not-for-profit program, which was founded by trade unions and farmers to fill a void in the marketplace, already accomplished many of the goals Obama has set for his reform agenda.

Most notably, it has succeeded in refocusing the incentive structure for delivering care on quality rather than quantity by paying doctors a base salary with bonuses for high performance instead of paying them based on the number of procedures they order.

The co-op model is no panacea. The GHC has a mixed record on controlling costs. It has clearly fared better than the private plans in Washington against which it competes but it has been forced to raise premiums anyway. (According to the Times, premiums have increased an average of 12% annually since 2000.)

[Kapt Z]

Looks like a breeze compared to my arguements with Blue Cross.:woot:

[mookiemookie]

Sure that sounds great but I wonder how is a private plan supposed to compete with an entity that does not have to make a profit?

In other words private health care will be driven out of buisness.

That is the best thing about it. Profits aren't placed above patient care. The object of a corporation is to maximize shareholder return. The only way this is done with a private health insurance company is to deny care, therefore placing the almighty dollar above someones right to live.

I say to hell with them. The best thing in the world would be if every single one of the evil and heartless bastards was run out of business.

[Sea Demon]

That is the best thing about it. Profits aren't placed above patient care. The object of a corporation is to maximize shareholder return. The only way this is done with a private health insurance company is to deny care, therefore placing the almighty dollar above someones right to live.

I say to hell with them. The best thing in the world would be if every single one of the evil and heartless bastards was run out of business.

This is nothing but Democrat talking point scare tactics at play. I have never been denied any kind of service, nor do I know anybody who has. The fact is, the private sector, including health care delivers a better quality product, without the beaurocratic mess that's inherent in anything run by a government agency or body. And through competition, costs usually are contained. Now if we could only control some of the top heavy governmental regulations and have some tort reform we could get somewhere.

All this program is going to do is milk the taxpaying base. And it will overburden a system that's already stretched more thin every year. You talk denial of service, I'm wondering how people including yourself will feel if health care will need to be rationed to contain and cap program cost overruns which are a guarantee.

Like I said, I want to opt out of paying for this mess. I won't use it. It's going to be big time expensive, and it's a certainty that quality of service will be crappy. Just like every other venture run by government. I will continue my private health care plan thank you very much. It will be millions like me that ensure private health care companies survive and are equipped to deliver a superior product to any government run option. You can have your crap health care mookie if that's what you want. But pay for it yourself. Your health is your responsibility..not mine.

On the same subject, here's a nice little read regarding why Obamacare will be a colossal failure:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Obamacare-failed-in-Europe-7900839-49458267.html

Here's a quote:


This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets.
After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved.
The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent.
One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients.
State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistant variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death.

No thanks mookie.

[Aramike]

This is nothing but Democrat talking point scare tactics at play. I agree.

By the way, I am in favor of SOME form of nationalized health care - but not this form. Taxpayers and the average consumer already subsidizes BILLIONS in healthcare costs, so to pretend that we don't already have a form of a nationalized system is delusional. I believe that a cost-efficient, consumer-driven nationalized system is possible and should be pursued.

Obama's plan is flat-out stupid. Just watch - if you're 70+ years old you can forget that bypass surgery, not to mention any transplant. Large employers will opt to pay their fines and SAVE MONEY by going onto the government dole, while small ones will be hit with a substantial backdoor tax - which is precisely what our economy doesn't need right now.

[mookiemookie]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Obamacare-failed-in-Europe-7900839-49458267.html

Here's a quote:



No thanks mookie.

The British plan doesn't work, so health care reform doesn't work? That's like saying "I had a lemon of a Chrysler, so all cars suck."

Ask anyone in the world if they'd trade their plan for our system. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any takers.

[TDK1044]

It's really very simple. Under the proposed plan, if you work for a living, you pay for healthcare for those who don't. :)

[AVGWarhawk]

It's really very simple. Under the proposed plan, if you work for a living, you pay for healthcare for those who don't. :)

Give that man the kewpie doll! Bing bing bing we have a winner!

http://www.malljubilee.com/gifts/dolls/kewpie/peppermint_sm.jpg

[mookiemookie]

It's really very simple. Under the proposed plan, if you work for a living, you pay for healthcare for those who don't. :)

My girlfriend works damn hard for a living and doesn't have healthcare.

[AVGWarhawk]

My girlfriend works damn hard for a living and doesn't have healthcare.

If the place of employment does not offer healthcare I suggest she finds a place of employment that does provide healthcare. I never worked at a business that did not shoulder some of the healthcare costs. I would never sign on to a company that does not provide a healthcare program in some form. Even my brothers business this is basically 5 employees offers healthcare as part of the their compensations. They can opt out if they want and they get more take home money. They can use that money for their own plan or can throw caution to the wind.

So she works hard for a living and I need to pay for her healthcare? Interesting. I work hard also, I pay taxes on my healthcare each year as it is part of my gross salary.

[Sea Demon]

My girlfriend works damn hard for a living and doesn't have healthcare.

Her healthcare is not my responsibility. It's hers. I'm assuming she's a grown adult. Your own healthcare is your own responsibility. I simply don't want to pay for your health needs. I've got my own healthcare to pay for, my own mortgage to pay, my own investments to make, my kids college funds to build, home repairs to take care, utility bills to pay , etc. etc. etc. Pay for yourself and your own life mookie. You types need to stop thinking other people should be working to fund you and take care of your needs.

The British plan doesn't work, so health care reform doesn't work? That's like saying "I had a lemon of a Chrysler, so all cars suck."

Ask anyone in the world if they'd trade their plan for our system. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any takers.What Obama and other idealist Democrats want in healthcare is totally unworkable. That's the problem. They think they can make something that inherently doesn't work into something that will make it work. Of course they need to take money and liberty from other Americans to do it. Seriously, ask how many Americans are willing to give up our health care system for the government model. Only people who refuse to take responsibility for themselves and choose to pass their bills onto other taxpayers will think "free" "public healthcare" is a great idea. Those of us who pay for ourselves, like our current healthcare plans, and who may be targeted as the funding source for this new government bloated option aren't enthusiastic about it. Ultimately, Obamacare will not yield good results. Just like darn near every other government beaurocracy, it will be hugely expensive for the taxpayer, won't provide quality service, will be swamped and overcrowded, and will be filled with waste and abuse. I don't care if you want and get this option. Just leave me out of it. Totally.

[mookiemookie]

Her healthcare is not my responsibility. It's hers. I'm assuming she's a grown adult. Your own healthcare is your own responsibility. I simply don't want to pay for your health needs.
If you've got insurance, you're already paying for others' healthcare.

I don't have kids and I don't like paying taxes to fund schools. My house hasn't burned down and I don't like paying taxes to fund the fire department. Right on man, I'm with you! Solidarity!

I've got my own healthcare to pay for, No, you don't. Your insurance picks up most of the tab, and that's paid for by other people.

What Obama and other idealist Democrats want in healthcare is totally unworkable. Except it works in every other modernized country. We rank dead last in healthcare, according to multiple studies.

Seriously, ask how many Americans are willing to give up our health care system for the government model.The pollsters already did, and most Americans are in favor of it. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html

Only people who refuse to take responsibility for themselves and choose to pass their bills onto other taxpayers will think "free healthcare" is a reality. Ultimately, Obamacare will not yield good results. I don't care if you get it. Just leave me out of it. Totally.So you're fine paying more than anyone in the world for healthcare while millions don't have it. When someone says "hey we can pay less and cover more people if we make these changes" you throw a fit saying that people need to pay for their own self? Guess what? You're already paying for people who don't have healthcare. The only difference is that there are people that want those dollars spent more wisely.

You remind me of the story of Joe Conservative:

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark.)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show, the host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.) Joe agrees: "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

[geetrue]

It's really very simple. Under the proposed plan, if you work for a living, you pay for healthcare for those who don't. :)


I agree TDK, but that has been the norm since the great depression was over ...

The difference between now and then is that our leader, the leader of the pack, wants to increase the number of people that qualify for health care by a very large number.

A few in here and I hope even more than a few out there can see where the government in health care system is going to lead us.

Name anything Uncle Sam could take over and ask, "Would it be for the better or for the worse?

Telephone, energy, trash pick up, discount department stores, food distribution, airlines, transportation by land, sea or rail, etc.

They can't prove that they have ever done anything right, besides win WWII

One misconception is that this will only cost one trillion dollars over the next ten years ... :salute:

[SUBMAN1]

I'm surprised Congress is able to produce such charts. I question their capability to do anything let alone produce a flowchart.

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

Except it works in every other modernized country. We rank dead last in healthcare, according to multiple studies.


Mookie, dude, you will have to qualify that statement. Studies please. Unless you are saying the system in the US ranks last. You did not mean the care in and of itself is dead last did you?

[Sea Demon]

If you've got insurance, you're already paying for others' healthcare.

Then we don't need a government option. Pay your premium and leave others alone. Sounds simple to me.

No, you don't. Your insurance picks up most of the tab, and that's paid for by other people. I pay my premium. And I use services I need. Others who pay their premiums do the same. End result...people who do this are covered and are taking charge of their own life and not infringing on others.

Except it works in every other modernized country. We rank dead last in healthcare, according to multiple studies.I don't buy it. Who's ranking it? People up in Canada are coming here to avoid delays in care. I have never seen a workable system in government care. Even so, I wouldn't trust our bloated beaurocracy to be able to deliver anything of substance and quality. Especially something as important as a health plan.

The pollsters already did, and most Americans are in favor of it. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html I'm sure people in the bronx polled that way, yet,

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/20/cnn-poll-more-than-8-in-10-ame

"8 in 10 Americans happy with health care coverage."

So you're fine paying more than anyone in the world for healthcare while millions don't have it. When someone says "hey we can pay less and cover more people if we make these changes" you throw a fit saying that people need to pay for their own self? Guess what? You're already paying for people who don't have healthcare. The only difference is that there are people that want those dollars spent more wisely.

You remind me of the story of Joe Conservative:No, I'm paying my own health insurance premiums. Which are reasonable in my book. And I have choices in doctors, hospitals and services. And there is competition in services which help to contain my costs. These are things not given in the "public" option. There is also currently no tort reform which would limit the fivolous lawsuits which drive up the costs through bogus malpractice suits. Seriously mookie, my dollars are mine to spend. Not yours. And I'm happy with my arrangement. I don't get up and go to work everyday so you can take some of my liberty and property so you can have what you should be funding for yourself. I did mention to you I don't care if you personally get a public health option. But you pay for it. Since I don't use it, I shouldn't have to. You aren't chipping into my healthplan. Seriously, what do you types have against liberty, free choices, and personal responsibility.

[mookiemookie]

Mookie, dude, you will have to qualify that statement. Studies please. Unless you are saying the system in the US ranks last. You did not mean the care in and of itself is dead last did you?

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

[Max2147]

Mookie, dude, you will have to qualify that statement. Studies please. Unless you are saying the system in the US ranks last. You did not mean the care in and of itself is dead last did you?
I don't know if this was what mookie was talking about, but our system is indeed the worst among wealthy nations in terms of efficiency: http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN1430711120070515

From the study: "The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes."

Basically, we spend over twice as much per person on health care, but get worse results. The only positive health statistic where the US leads the world is life expectancy after the age of 65 (thank you Medicare).

I've spent lots of time overseas in countries with state-provided healthcare. I've always been amused to see how my fellow Yanks, even my conservative friends, rave about how great those systems are when they actually have to use them.

[mookiemookie]

I've spent lots of time overseas in countries with state-provided healthcare. I've always been amused to see how my fellow Yanks, even my conservative friends, rave about how great those systems are when they actually have to use them.

I wonder how great they'd think our system was if they actually had to use ours. I wonder if you can eat crow through an IV drip. :hmmm:

[Sea Demon]

I wonder how great they'd think our system was if they actually had to use ours. I wonder if you can eat crow through an IV drip. :hmmm:

They already do because of shortages and waits in theirs. Believe me, I know people abroad use our system when they can't get the access in theirs.

I've spent lots of time overseas in countries with state-provided healthcare. I've always been amused to see how my fellow Yanks, even my conservative friends, rave about how great those systems are when they actually have to use them.


I have seen some of these systems myself. And what you report is not my experience at all. I do have to question the studies you cite. I have never seen what you report regarding health care costs, and access or efficiency problems in U.S. care. My plans costs (premiums) are quite reasonable and I've never had any problems (with a family of 4) getting quick, efficient, or quality care. Plus I get the benefit of choices in providers, hospitals and planned coverage which you will not get in any government run health option. Also, the most important aspect is it works for me. Have your government run option if you wish, but you should pay for it yourself Max. I would be more willing to go for it if there was an opt out clause, which relieves you of funding it if you don't use it, and only those who participate pay for it. Actually that's the only way to make it fair and equitable. Other than that forget it. I'm like 80% of everybody else who like their current coverage.

[Max2147]

I do have to question the studies you cite. I have never seen what you report regarding health care costs, and access or efficiency problems in U.S. care.
I've never seen a study that showed anything else, and I come from a family of doctors. That article was actually more optimistic about our system than I'm used to hearing. The article said that we spend twice as much per capita on health for worse results. The numbers I usually hear are three to five times as much per capita, again for worse results.

Plus I get the benefit of choices in providers, hospitals and planned coverage which you will not get in any government run health option. Also, the most important aspect is it works for me, and it's what I want for myself and my family.
You get that anywhere. Even in a European-style single-payer system you're free to buy a private plan. Very few people do so because the government system works well.

[AVGWarhawk]

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

All nice finds but you are quailifying other countries experiences and naturally assuming the same results will follow in the US. We can not assume the system will react as other countries.

[SteamWake]

My girlfriend works damn hard for a living and doesn't have healthcare.

How old is she? Is she in good health?

Its her right to not carry health care it is available if she wanted it.

Under the proposed plan you have no 'rights' you pay into the plan (if your working) regardless of age, health, nationality, etc.

[Sailor Steve]

You remind me of the story of Joe Conservative:
An interesting story, and some of it is true. On the other hand, it's very much like any canned diatribe, conservative or liberal.

So let's look at it a bit. I don't know much, and most of that was told to my by a friend's late wife, who was the country's leading authority on Sudden Infant Death syndrome. She was a confirmed liberal (was actually a member (one of three) of Utah's Communist Party back in her college days. She was sent to Britain as part of a study group, and came back a confirmed conservative, at least on this issue.

Part of the reason American healthcare costs are high is research. People like to blame the evil pharmaceutical companies, but it takes years of study and millions of dollars to develop a new drug, most of which are turned down by the Government. So the drug companies go out of business, and today there are only a few left. Another part is equipment, since every hospital in America has their own facilities, which cost money.

But the biggest piece of evidence in favor of the American system is the rich people of other countries who, when given the chance, spend their money to come here for treatment, since government-run healthcare means you get free help, but only after waiting in line for weeks, or sometimes even months.

I don't claim to know the answer, but it is my observation that anything administered by any government always means more waste, more bureaucrats and more trouble.

[AVGWarhawk]

Let start with why the US health system gets lower grades than the world. We shall start with the self indulgent individual:

http://miscellanea.wellingtongrey.net/comics/2007-05-06--world-fatness.png


Obesity. Just one of many self imposed health risks encounter in the US. This one of many that help account for longer stays and treatment, poor outcomes in recovery. Living healthy starts at home. If you think this bill will flip a switch and provide excellent healthcare and better outcomes you will be let down. The mentality of healthy living needs to be changed before any of that will happen. That will take years upon years to change that attitude. Not sure if these are taken into account on the surveys you offered up Mookie.

[Sea Demon]

Mods delete. Combined with next post. Sorry.

[Sea Demon]

How old is she? Is she in good health?

Its her right to not carry health care it is available if she wanted it.

Under the proposed plan you have no 'rights' you pay into the plan (if your working) regardless of age, health, nationality, etc.

I also have to ask....does she have a cell phone? What kind of car does she drive? Is she financing it? Cable TV plan? Satellite TV? You get what I'm driving at? If healthcare is so damn important to these people, they better not have any kind of luxuries before they fund a healthplan for themselves. Otherwise I don't want to hear the sob stories.

And Steamwake, your last statement is why I think those who choose private health insurance should be able to opt out completely from any government plan including funding it. The government option would force people to pay twice.

I've never seen a study that showed anything else, and I come from a family of doctors. That article was actually more optimistic about our system than I'm used to hearing. The article said that we spend twice as much per capita on health for worse results. The numbers I usually hear are three to five times as much per capita, again for worse results.

Just doesn't jibe from experience. My daughter's orthopedic surgeon and our family practice physician would both certainly give you an earful though about government run health and the problems with it.

You get that anywhere. Even in a European-style single-payer system you're free to buy a private plan. Very few people do so because the government system works well.

OK. Like I said, have your European style "single payer" healthcare. And you and others like you pay for it. Those who opt out shouldn't fund it as they are already paying health insurance premiums for themselves through private plans. That's the only way it wouldn't infringe on people who want choice in health care. You couldn't convince me otherwise. Your healthcare is your responsibility Max...not mine, not the government's, and not the taxpayer's.

[TDK1044]

This is all part of a cleverly constructed plan by the Democrats to create a Government dependent population. Once people know that they can always look to Government to assist them with just about everything, then it will be nearly impossible for the Republicans to get elected in the future.

Obama is really trying to create an 'assisted living' environment for the majority of our citizens. Look at Government ownership in the Banking industry and the Motor industry and you start to see where they are going.

If this is what most people in the US want then so be it, but don't then stand there with your flag on July 4th and proclaim how grateful you are to be free, because you're giving up that precious freedom and replacing it with bigger Government and security.

[mookiemookie]

If this is what most people in the US want then so be it, but don't then stand there with your flag on July 4th and proclaim how grateful you are to be free, because you're giving up that precious freedom and replacing it with bigger Government and security.

As opposed to our current system of tyranny of the corporation? No thanks. At least I can vote my government out if I don't like the way things are going.

[Buddahaid]

This is all part of a cleverly constructed plan by the Democrats to create a Government dependent population. Once people know that they can always look to Government to assist them with just about everything, then it will be nearly impossible for the Republicans to get elected in the future.

Obama is really trying to create an 'assisted living' environment for the majority of our citizens. Look at Government ownership in the Banking industry and the Motor industry and you start to see where they are going.

If this is what most people in the US want then so be it, but don't then stand there with your flag on July 4th and proclaim how grateful you are to be free, because you're giving up that precious freedom and replacing it with bigger Government and security.

Guess where people without health care go when they are sick or injured. A doctor's office? No, they go to the local hospital ER and pay nothing. Now guess who foots the bill.

Buddahaid

[AVGWarhawk]

Guess where people without health care go when they are sick or injured. A doctor's office? No, they go to the local hospital ER and pay nothing. Now guess who foots the bill.

Buddahaid

Yes, current insurance holders pay about $1600.00/year for the uninsured. Will the healthcare plan by Obama eliminate that? I would say no because even though the plan is available for all does not mean all will sign up. Will the hosptitals and doctors have free reign to put in a claim on a person that has not participated in the program but received medical treatment. Nope(to much open door for corruption) so, not only do current insurance holders still cover that asspect but they are forced to pay into the system as well. :-?

[TDK1044]

As opposed to our current system of tyranny of the corporation? No thanks. At least I can vote my government out if I don't like the way things are going.

You understand the Electoral College system and how it works, right?

[mookiemookie]

You understand the Electoral College system and how it works, right?

Very well, thank you. However legislation originates in Congress.

[Buddahaid]

Yes, current insurance holders pay about $1600.00/year for the uninsured. Will the healthcare plan by Obama eliminate that? I would say no because even though the plan is available for all does not mean all will sign up. Will the hosptitals and doctors have free reign to put in a claim on a person that has not participated in the program but received medical treatment. Nope(to much open door for corruption) so, not only do current insurance holders still cover that asspect but they are forced to pay into the system as well. :-?

A visit to the ER for a non life threatening injury involving a couple of x-ray images will cost about $2,000.00 to $3,000.00, even if there are no broken bones. We need a system that gives people who can't afford insurance somewhere to go other than the ER. This plan will have faults and will need much tweeking, but the current system is also expensive due to situations like the above, and the lack of latitude given doctors to treat patients in order to fit the insurance coding. Not to mention the gold digging lawyers fighting for the compensation you really "don't" deserve.

Buddahaid

[CastleBravo]

Centrist Dem Leader: Has Committee Votes To Block Health Bill

U.S. Rep. Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday........

"Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200907151403dowjonesdjonline000 758&title=centrist-dem-leaderhas-committee-votes-to-block-health-bill

[CastleBravo]

It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=482329

[SteamWake]

Very well, thank you. However legislation originates in Congress.

and sometimes from the bench ;)

[Sea Demon]

As opposed to our current system of tyranny of the corporation? No thanks. At least I can vote my government out if I don't like the way things are going.

And just how is any corporation imposing tyranny upon you mookie? The thing is, you need not buy their products or services if you feel so oppressed by them. They can't make you patronize their goods or services(like government), nor can they levy taxes (such as health care taxes) to make people who work, give up some of their liberty or property for others (like government can do).

TDK1044 is correct. If government mandated health care is what you want, if you believe individual taxpayers should be paying for you and your health care, July 4th is not your holiday. You have no business celebrating Liberty when your goal is to infringe on the liberty of others. Washington, Jefferson, and Adams are not a part of your heritage. You may want to be reliant and fearful of government mookie, but some of us actually crave freedom and prefer personal responsibility, and the freedom of choices which come with it. My personal liberty and property is non-negotiable for me. People need to have a sense of responsibility for themselves and their own healthcare. I am merely responsible for me and my own family. And each taxpayer is responsible unto themselves accordingly.

Screw your government run healthcare if it infringes on my liberty. And as things look....it does.

Centrist Dem Leader: Has Committee Votes To Block Health Bill

Nice to see some barriers to this stuff starting to form.

[Onkel Neal]

I also have to ask....does she have a cell phone? What kind of car does she drive? Is she financing it? Cable TV plan? Satellite TV? You get what I'm driving at? If healthcare is so damn important to these people, they better not have any kind of luxuries before they fund a healthplan for themselves. Otherwise I don't want to hear the sob stories.


Exactly.

And I'm amazed that so many people feel they should be able to spend their money as they choose and live their lifestyle as they choose (drinking, drugs, overweight, smoking) and yet they expect someone to provide health care for them.

And we are already paying $$ for Medicaid/Medicare, which I never used.

I think the system we have is very good, I have never had anything to complain about at all, regarding my hospital stays, doctor visits, etc.



Guess where people without health care go when they are sick or injured. A doctor's office? No, they go to the local hospital ER and pay nothing. Now guess who foots the bill.

Agreed, we do need to do something to get all the peop,e who are reluctant to take care of their responsibilties towards health care and who cost hospitals money. Let's have a health care system where you pay into it and you are covered, and you can opt out of coverage and paying if you provide your own coverage.

[AVGWarhawk]

A visit to the ER for a non life threatening injury involving a couple of x-ray images will cost about $2,000.00 to $3,000.00, even if there are no broken bones. We need a system that gives people who can't afford insurance somewhere to go other than the ER. This plan will have faults and will need much tweeking, but the current system is also expensive due to situations like the above, and the lack of latitude given doctors to treat patients in order to fit the insurance coding. Not to mention the gold digging lawyers fighting for the compensation you really "don't" deserve.

Buddahaid

Question is, why all the x-rays and test if not necessary? Easy. Lawsuits. Sue happy America. The hospitals cover all the bases, plus the stands, hot dog and beer booths. Tort reform and frivolous lawsuits. If the current system was overhauled, tort reform really enacted there might be a better picture drawn. However, DC has decided to dump 1.7 trillion on it and then go fix the system:88)

[Buddahaid]

But as I pointed out, you already do pay for the uninsured through increased costs and insurance premiums. You have the freedom to join the uninsured and become part of the problem, or be insured and pay for the uninsured. Hospitals do not have an option to turn away emergency patients. It's a catch 22 which why I want some form of universal wellness care, perhaps not this one, but something.

You have nothing without your health, and people with nothing become desperate and more criminal. How about a real world alternative suggestion that balances individual responsibility with social responsibility.

Buddahaid

[Buddahaid]

Question is, why all the x-rays and test if not necessary? Easy. Lawsuits. Sue happy America. The hospitals cover all the bases, plus the stands, hot dog and beer booths. Tort reform and frivolous lawsuits. If the current system was overhauled, tort reform really enacted there might be a better picture drawn. However, DC has decided to dump 1.7 trillion on it and then go fix the system:88)

The x-rays are needed to determine if there is or is not a fracture.

Buddahaid

[AVGWarhawk]

The x-rays are needed to determine if there is or is not a fracture.

Buddahaid

Understood. :up:

[mookiemookie]

Screw your government run healthcare if it infringes on my liberty. And as things look....it does.


If personal liberty is so important to you, then pledge to never ever use any kind of government service. Someone breaks into your house? You don't get to call the police. Stay off of my roads if you resent having to pay taxes for the upkeep of them. And dig your own well and get off of my municipal water grid. Hope you have a fire extinguisher or 10 around in case your garage catches fire.

We have these things because we as a society have decided it's good for our society to be safe and healthy. Healthcare is no different. The societal benefits of a healthy population are argument enough for universal healthcare.

To quote someone more eloquent than me:

“some societies, ours included, from time to time decide that its citizens, or certain groups of them, should be entitled to certain benefits. Sometimes this [is] justified by the common good -- a well-educated populace serves society well, so we guarantee an education to all children. Sometimes this is derived from humanitarian principles -- children should not go hungry, so we create childhood nutrition programs. Healthcare would, in my estimation, fall into the category of an entitlement rather than a right..."

[AVGWarhawk]

Mookie,


I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.


Ben Franklin

Our nation is making it to easy. Want to succeed is becoming a thing of the past. Why bother if only I'm only paying for someone elses good time sitting on the couch?

BTW, superstucture, ie, water utilities, roads can not be compared to healthcare provided by the government IMO. Really, renters do not pay property taxes so why do they enjoy these roads and water paid by tax payors?

[mookiemookie]

Mookie,



Ben Franklin

Our nation is making it to easy. Want to succeed is becoming a thing of the past. Why bother if only I'm only paying for someone elses good time sitting on the couch?

BTW, superstucture, ie, water utilities, roads can not be compared to healthcare provided by the government IMO. Really, renters do not pay property taxes so why do they enjoy these roads and water paid by tax payors?

If the property taxes on a rental property go up, you can bet that the rents will increase soon after.

If you want to bring the founding fathers into it..."Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"...how can you have any of them if you're seriously sick?

[AVGWarhawk]

If the property taxes on a rental property go up, you can bet that the rents will increase soon after.

If you want to bring the founding fathers into it..."Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"...how can you have any of them if you're seriously sick?


Oh, I'm sorry bro, did I get you sick? Is this somehow my problem? Communial living? I have had three collapsed lungs. Did I show up to your house for cash for doctor bills so I could have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Well, no! I was not your problem. I'm sure you feel for me though but you ain't cracking out the checkbook now are ya? :O:

[CastleBravo]

If you want to bring the founding fathers into it..."Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"...how can you have any of them if you're seriously sick?

Is it genetic, or lifestyle? Remember how many children are obese and how many are starving(food deficient) in the US.

[AVGWarhawk]

Is it genetic, or lifestyle? Remember how many children are obese and how many are starving(food deficient) in the US.


Yes but you should pay for it damn it. I do not care that I feed my kids McDonalds 24/7. Just pay up.:nope:

[Buddahaid]

I forgot to add the amount of your tax dollar that goes to medicare already and if your worried about fraud, digest this. Habitual hard drug users and alcoholics go to your friendly local ER when they feel bad. They know all they have to do is complain of chest pain to get attention, very expensive attention that has to be taken seriously. Delaying the health care for those who pay for their insurance and using materials and bed-space, plus often police and paramedic resources as well if they are violent or abusive. Sometimes they even begin destroying equipment. Sure they get in trouble but they will be back, or in prison using up more of your hard earned money. Any good ideas of how to fix that?

Buddahaid

[mookiemookie]

Oh, I'm sorry bro, did I get you sick? Is this somehow my problem? Communial living? I have had three collapsed lungs. Did I show up to your house for cash for doctor bills so I could have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Well, no! I was not your problem. I'm sure you feel for me though but you ain't cracking out the checkbook now are ya? :O:

It depends. If you're with the same insurance company I'm with, then I'm sure part of my premiums went for your care. ;)

[CastleBravo]

Yes but you should pay for it damn it. I do not care that I feed my kids McDonalds 24/7. Just pay up.:nope:

Are you saying that the nanny state is wrong in all its forms, because it disallows choice? I thought only religions disallowed choice.

Sacraledge. (Religious term), Racist, (Secular term)

[Buddahaid]

Are you saying that the nanny state is wrong in all its forms, because it disallows choice? I thought only religions disallowed choice.

Sacraledge. (Religious term), Racist, (Secular term)

You confuse the hell out of me. :o That is the most socialist thing I've read from your posts. :doh: I'm getting seasick. :ping: :har:

Buddahaid

[CastleBravo]

You confuse the hell out of me. :o That is the most socialist thing I've read from your posts. :doh: I'm getting seasick. :ping: :har:

Buddahaid

Sorry if I confused you. I don't know how to think for ya. I'm so insensitive.:O:

[Aramike]

I think everyone is missing Mookie's point. He's exactly right - persons under insurance policies are essentially socializing their healthcare with one another. Plus, they are paying for the overhead of the private insurer. PLUS, they are no doubt contributing to the bottom line black ink.

And, as far as the people who the insurance companies won't insure due to expensive healthcare issues - guess who foots the bill for the emergency care they're entitled to due to the Patient's Bill of Rights?

The insurance companies, of course. Along with the taxpayers, through an artificial inflation in the general cost of healthcare.

[CastleBravo]

Along with the taxpayers, through an artificial inflation in the general cost of healthcare.

Is that the same artificial costs which I must bear for not using our resources here in America? Off shore drilling, AWR drilling, recently found reserves in Montana? The price of gasoline would decrease exponentially if the signal to drill offshore was anounced.

[Aramike]

Is that the same artificial costs which I must bear for not using our resources here in America? Off shore drilling, AWR drilling, recently found reserves in Montana? The price of gasoline would decrease exponentially if the signal to drill offshore was anounced.I agree 100%, we should be fully exploiting our resources.

But I don't get what that has to do with the healthcare debate.

[CastleBravo]

I agree 100%, we should be fully exploiting our resources.

But I don't get what that has to do with the healthcare debate.

Extrapolate. You'll see it.

[Aramike]

Extrapolate. You'll see it.Umm, I don't see anything. I see you pigeonholing one topic with another without qualifying it whatsoever.

What is your point, and how does it at all relate to the SPECIFIC issue of healthcare?

[AVGWarhawk]

I think everyone is missing Mookie's point. He's exactly right - persons under insurance policies are essentially socializing their healthcare with one another. Plus, they are paying for the overhead of the private insurer. PLUS, they are no doubt contributing to the bottom line black ink.

And, as far as the people who the insurance companies won't insure due to expensive healthcare issues - guess who foots the bill for the emergency care they're entitled to due to the Patient's Bill of Rights?

The insurance companies, of course. Along with the taxpayers, through an artificial inflation in the general cost of healthcare.

Well, no, I fully understand his point. He is missing my point. If Obama says I can get my own insurance outside of government insurance I can do so. However, I have to still pay into the government insurance program. That is my point. Why should I pay for Joey Couchpotato who spends his weekend getting his arse kicked at the local bar and spending the night at the local ER on my dime? Just because I pay for the no-insured now via my insurance company does not make me paying into this government program right. You can spend all day attempting to convince everyone you are already getting hosed so it will be ok to get hosed some more from the government. No it is not ok. If I prefer to have stellar insurance for the very best in healthcare that should be my right just as Obama thinks it is everyone right for healthcare. However, I should not have to pay for someone else healthcare sponsored by the government if I'm paying my own from an outside provider. Simple, we being forced into it. No beans about it. Bend over and take it like a man. Forget about the reach around. :doh:


In all reality, those wanting government health insurance should be able to purchase this insurance with their own money. There will be millions who can be on the same policy that premiums will be very low or almost nothing at all. Time for folks to hike up their pants and start contributing instead of waiting for Obama to 'pay their mortgage.'

[CastleBravo]

The bottom line is this how I see it. I don't to pay for people who make bad choices in their lives. People will always die. A supreme court justice even said Roe v. Wade was about removing undesirable folks from the population.

Why would anyone want to support bad policy, even if it revolves around Justice Ginsberg's undesireables, much less those who have made bad choices.??

[Buddahaid]

The bottom line is this how I see it. I don't to pay for people who make bad choices in their lives. People will always die. A supreme court justice even said Roe v. Wade was about removing undesirable folks from the population.

Why would anyone want to support bad policy, even if it revolves around Justice Ginsberg's undesireables, much less those who have made bad choices.??

You smoke don't you? :D I drink! :()1:

Buddahaid

[CastleBravo]

You smoke don't you? :D I drink! :()1:

Buddahaid

If you count my last joint in 1985 as smoking.

[Onkel Neal]

To quote someone more eloquent than me:
Quote:
“some societies, ours included, from time to time decide that its citizens, or certain groups of them, should be entitled to certain benefits. Sometimes this [is] justified by the common good -- a well-educated populace serves society well, so we guarantee an education to all children. Sometimes this is derived from humanitarian principles -- children should not go hungry, so we create childhood nutrition programs. Healthcare would, in my estimation, fall into the category of an entitlement rather than a right..."

Source: http://www.healthpolicywatch.org/commentary.asp?opedid=2071 (http://www.healthpolicywatch.org/commentary.asp?opedid=2071)


I’m not sure that the average ER doc should be paid $180,000 more than he is today. (I would agree that, when compared to many specialists, ER docs are not overpaid—and theirs is a very demanding job. But $180,000 seems a large sum

....seems a large sum ... Sure, start deciding what doctor's should get paid, that should motivate young med students :)



Why should I pay for Joey Couchpotato who spends his weekend getting his arse kicked at the local bar and spending the night at the local ER on my dime?

Yes. That got me to thinking about a lot of people who engage in high risk activities, such as (ahem!) motorcycle riding, for one. It was not long ago I was reading Motorcyle Houston forums, and these guys who buy $12,000 sport bikes and go ripping up the roads at 200 mph; one of them was giving advice about using Ben Taub Hospital in Houston for crash treatments, (http://www.motohouston.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1782696#post1782696)because Ben Taud does not pursue to collect payment.



Hope all those involved are going to make it...Just a little inside info for you guys...Ben Taub doesn't try to collect on bills it sends people. They will send a bill once, maybe twice, then nothing further. They average about 16% collection of payments. Not sure what Cody's health insurance status is, but hope this is helpful.


Seriously, all we need in this country is more enabling of people who won't take care of themselves and want us to pay for their mistakes.

[Aramike]

Well, no, I fully understand his point. He is missing my point. If Obama says I can get my own insurance outside of government insurance I can do so. However, I have to still pay into the government insurance program. That is my point. Why should I pay for Joey Couchpotato who spends his weekend getting his arse kicked at the local bar and spending the night at the local ER on my dime? Just because I pay for the no-insured now via my insurance company does not make me paying into this government program right. You can spend all day attempting to convince everyone you are already getting hosed so it will be ok to get hosed some more from the government. No it is not ok. If I prefer to have stellar insurance for the very best in healthcare that should be my right just as Obama thinks it is everyone right for healthcare. However, I should not have to pay for someone else healthcare sponsored by the government if I'm paying my own from an outside provider.First off, please try to take this response in the context that, while I am in favor of nationalized healthcare, I think Obama's plan is idiotic.

You raise a valid point, but I think you're missing the middle ground. Indeed, under any nationalized plan the taxes of those covered would also be used to fund healthcare. However, by reducing the overall cost of healthcare and its artificial inflation caused by the current Patient's Bill of Rights, your insurance's company's costs (and, theoretically your costs) should be reduced substantially. Ultimately, you should see a wash under a well-formulated plan.

But that wash goes only wallet-deep. The advantages of a healthy workforce and assuring access to what I believe is a basic human right are incredible. For one, this would be true economic stimulus. You'd instantly raise the buying power of thousands and thousands of people who would otherwise find themselves ruined due to a massive medical problem propping up while being underinsured. Next, states will save BILLIONS in costs for healthcare plans for those at or near the poverty line, helping to offset the costs. Finally, providers will save billions in unpaid invoices - the costs of which are passed upon to the consumer, or the insurance companies as a proxy.

Again, those items are why I'm in support of a national plan. But I am NOT in support of Obama's iteration of one. Ideally, the purpose would be to lower healthcare costs to an acceptable level that the average Joe would be able to just go out and buy superior care if necessary, but will not be left hanging if unable to purchase it. ObamaCare does none of that.

[Aramike]

Source: http://www.healthpolicywatch.org/commentary.asp?opedid=2071 (http://www.healthpolicywatch.org/commentary.asp?opedid=2071)




....seems a large sum ... Sure, start deciding what doctor's should get paid, that should motivate young med students :)





Yes. That got me to thinking about a lot of people who engage in high risk activities, such as (ahem!) motorcycle riding, for one. It was not long ago I was reading Motorcyle Houston forums, and these guys who buy $12,000 sport bikes and go ripping up the roads at 200 mph; one of them was giving advice about using Ben Taub Hospital in Houston for crash treatments, (http://www.motohouston.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1782696#post1782696)because Ben Taud does not pursue to collect payment.




Seriously, all we need in this country is more enabling of people who won't take care of themselves and want us to pay for their mistakes.Neal, you're absolutely right in your points.

Alas, however, there is a medium. Personally, I've always advocated excise taxes for those who behave recklessly.

[Sea Demon]

If personal liberty is so important to you, then pledge to never ever use any kind of government service. Someone breaks into your house? You don't get to call the police. Stay off of my roads if you resent having to pay taxes for the upkeep of them. And dig your own well and get off of my municipal water grid. Hope you have a fire extinguisher or 10 around in case your garage catches fire.

We have these things because we as a society have decided it's good for our society to be safe and healthy. Healthcare is no different. The societal benefits of a healthy population are argument enough for universal healthcare.

To quote someone more eloquent than me:

Roads, police, and all common use items are not the same thing as your own personal healthcare. My goodness, ain't it amazing how a fraud like Obama could get elected with people who don't know the difference between the taxpayer-government social contract of reasonable taxation for common use items, and things that are one's personal responsibility like your own personal healthcare. What's next, I owe you a car so you can get to work? Universal single payer auto insurance? What else do you think taxpayers owe you mookie?

Your personal healthcare is not a common use item, as tens of millions don't need a government option. You are infringing on mine and many other citizen's liberties and have no business waving an American flag on July 4th celebrating independance from a tyrranical British government. You obviously don't understand or respect the liberty of the common person as you think you are owed healthcare. Go to work and pay for it yourself.

If "societal benefits" of "universal" healthcare is what the American citizen wants (which they don't), then perhaps those of us who carry the weight should be able to regulate your lifestyle and mandate a diet for you mookie. Would that not be beneficial for society as good health is mandated in that system? It's amazing to me how the only thing you types seem to hear is "free healthcare" but don't understand the issue in any meaningful way or impacts. And you don't understand that there is no such thing as "free" healthcare. Somebody has to pay for it. And that requires the government to seize by force somebody elses liberty and property to provide it.

Alas, however, there is a medium. Personally, I've always advocated excise taxes for those who behave recklessly.

Excise taxes only empowers government. Reckless behavior often is it's own punishment. Get the government out of that too and let people fail and learn the lessons of life.

Why would anyone want to support bad policy

Amen to that. Speaking of bad policy.....look what we're in for if this crap passes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/15insure.html?em

The new state budget in Massachusetts eliminates health care coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants to help close a growing deficit, reversing progress toward universal coverage just as Congress looks to the state as a model for overhauling the nation’s health care system.

Do you think the nations's liberals can actually learn a lesson here? This state should be utopia for all the taxes it collects and the bloated government services (including healthcare) it attempts to provide. Yet it's a basket case of problems in deficits just like another state (California) I know so well that tries to provide services it has no hope of delivering. Government run healthcare? No thanks. I actually want to be able to visit a doctor and get the services I need when I want them. The heck with this mess.

[CastleBravo]

I read somewhere, Rassmussen perhaps, that the nation is becoming more conservative. The legacy and down fall of a one term president? Or the wishes of a torn nation?

[Aramike]

Excise taxes only empowers government. Reckless behavior often is it's own punishment. Get the government out of that too and let people fail and learn the lessons of life.Excise taxes does not only empower government - it can modify behavior as well as offset the costs associated with reckless behavior.

Let's be realistic here: we're not going to become a nation of people dying in the streets or have major injuries uncared for. Further, it would be foolish to suggest that we become such a nation - if you ever want to see a nanny state, just wait until certain behaviors begin to cause an undue burden on the public-at-large. As such, I wholly believe in directed excise taxation ... within limits.

The idea that government always equals bad or always equals good is unrealistic and unproductive.

[Aramike]

I read somewhere, Rassmussen perhaps, that the nation is becoming more conservative. The legacy and down fall of a one term president? Or the wishes of a torn nation?This is nothing new, really. We are a conservative nation. There's a reason liberals must disguise their liberalism in order to achieve power.

[CastleBravo]

I have been cautioned not to be conservative in my views. So as much as I would like to respond I cannot.

[Aramike]

I have been cautioned not to be conservative in my views. So as much as I would like to respond I cannot.Say wha???

[Sea Demon]

The idea that government always equals bad or always equals good is unrealistic and unproductive.

I'll leave your view regarding excise taxes alone. I gave you my own opinion on it. We disagree to an extent on it.

I don't believe that government is always bad. But it does have it's limitations. When it tries to break out of those limitations and intends itself to become too large and intertwined in people's lives at the expense of personal liberty, I do see it as bad. Not going to pretend it's good just to get along. I agree with your assessment above on this issue. It's not always good or bad. But these days, it's getting much more difficult to find any good IMO. The current government is the worst, most incompetent I've seen in my lifetime. And it's only been in existence for 7 months.

[Aramike]

I don't believe that government is always bad. But it does have it's limitations. When it tries to break out of those limitations and intends itself to become too large and intertwined in people's lives at the expense of personal liberty, I do see it as bad. I agree with you completely on this. The problems arise when the specifics of what personal liberties people are entitled to are discussed.

That is in fact the reason that I identify myself as an independent rather than a conservative. Indeed, most of my views are conservative. However, I refuse to back myself into that corner.

A great example of this occurred earlier in this thread. A poster was trying to equivocate nationalized healthcare with national energy regulations. Personally, I have different opinions on each issue, and don't believe that a certain viewpoint on any one issue justifies a viewpoint on the other. In other words, if I were to believe that healthcare should be more regulated (although that's not my belief) I am not a hypocrite to believe that energy industries should be less regulated.

In my opinion, far too many people simply take their party's line on what to think, rather than examining the issues for themselves. I'm not saying that you do, Sea Demon ... just saying.

[/rant]

[TDK1044]

It's the poor Canadians I feel sorry for. Because their socialized healthcare system is so bad, they currently all come here to the US when they need serious health care. Once Obama has destroyed our system, where will they go?

A smart entrepreneur in the medical field should now set up a state of the art medical facility in the Bahamas. Once Obama's system for making the hard working Americans pay for the lazy and the stupid is in place, then the quality of healthcare in this country will drop significantly, and the wait time for actually getting to see a doctor will increase massively.

Those of us who have worked hard and paid ever increasing taxes will now need to leave the country in order to get the level of healthcare we currently enjoy. That's ok though because all the quality Doctors will also have left.

[mookiemookie]

Your personal healthcare is not a common use item, as tens of millions don't need a government option. You are infringing on mine and many other citizen's liberties and have no business waving an American flag on July 4th celebrating independance from a tyrranical British government. You obviously don't understand or respect the liberty of the common person as you think you are owed healthcare. Go to work and pay for it yourself.

You can insult my patriotism all you like, but I'll leave you with this: wail about it all you want, but it's going to happen. Thank goodness clear thinking people are in charge. I'm through debating with you when you start getting personal.

It's the poor Canadians I feel sorry for. Because their socialized healthcare system is so bad, they currently all come here to the US when they need serious health care.

You believe that? Here's a scientific study that debunks that argument: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/19

And here's a whole page of Canadians who disagree with you: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8un4b/will_someone_please_explain_to_me_why_canadas/

Aaaaand, I'm done. Have fun with the rest of your debate :)

[TDK1044]

Cite all the meaningless studies you want. I lived in the UK for a long time and experienced the kind of socialized healthcase that you think will be wonderful here.

The only people who actually want this kind of healthcare are those who haven't experienced it. Maybe when you lose someone close to you because they couldn't get the care they needed fast enough you'll get it....but even then I don't think you'll get it.

[AVGWarhawk]

First off, please try to take this response in the context that, while I am in favor of nationalized healthcare, I think Obama's plan is idiotic.

You raise a valid point, but I think you're missing the middle ground. Indeed, under any nationalized plan the taxes of those covered would also be used to fund healthcare. However, by reducing the overall cost of healthcare and its artificial inflation caused by the current Patient's Bill of Rights, your insurance's company's costs (and, theoretically your costs) should be reduced substantially. Ultimately, you should see a wash under a well-formulated plan.

But that wash goes only wallet-deep. The advantages of a healthy workforce and assuring access to what I believe is a basic human right are incredible. For one, this would be true economic stimulus. You'd instantly raise the buying power of thousands and thousands of people who would otherwise find themselves ruined due to a massive medical problem propping up while being underinsured. Next, states will save BILLIONS in costs for healthcare plans for those at or near the poverty line, helping to offset the costs. Finally, providers will save billions in unpaid invoices - the costs of which are passed upon to the consumer, or the insurance companies as a proxy.

Again, those items are why I'm in support of a national plan. But I am NOT in support of Obama's iteration of one. Ideally, the purpose would be to lower healthcare costs to an acceptable level that the average Joe would be able to just go out and buy superior care if necessary, but will not be left hanging if unable to purchase it. ObamaCare does none of that.

I will touch on your last point only, Obama is putting the cart before the horse IMO. Bush attempted some form of tort reform and going after those who attempt frivilous lawsuits against hospitals and doctors. Want to bring down costs? Control the ambulance chasing lawyers who look to sue the hospital janitor right up to the CEO of every drug company known to man. Malpractice insurance is completely through the roof. Everyone jumps up and down about now we are already paying for the uninsured. Great, got it and have accepted it for over 30 years. This issue is only a very small chuck of why healthcare cost are very high. Dumping another 51 million (of which I'm not sure how many are non-contributing aliens) will not reduce healthcare costs. This iss just an additional 51 million who potentially will draw a frivilous lawsuit and overburden not only the ER but the court systems as well.

I think Obama healthcare plan is idiotic. Do I think nationalized healthcare is a good idea? Sure. However, if I'm paying for a plan outside of Obamacare than I should have the option to opt out of paying into Obamacare. Unfortunate like millions of others we are being forced to pay. In short, tough sh!t and chew a little harder is what we are being told.

[TheSatyr]

Obama himself said he wouldn't use "Obamacare" if anyone in his family was seriously ill. If it isn't good enough for Obama (and the rest of the freeloading politicians) than it sure as hell isn't good enough for me.

[AVGWarhawk]

Obama himself said he wouldn't use "Obamacare" if anyone in his family was seriously ill. If it isn't good enough for Obama (and the rest of the freeloading politicians) than it sure as hell isn't good enough for me.

Everyone on Capitol Hill can and will opt out of Obamacare. This has already been established. Capitol Hill will retain the top most insurance and care offered. Welcome to the the two tier system. If they want this program then Capitol Hill should be first in line to sign up for it. DO NOT HOLD YOUR BREATH WAITING ON THAT TO HAPPEN.:-?

[SteamWake]

Obama himself said he wouldn't use "Obamacare" if anyone in his family was seriously ill. If it isn't good enough for Obama (and the rest of the freeloading politicians) than it sure as hell isn't good enough for me.


Everyone on capitol hill will have their own health care plans.

You dont really expect them to live with the consiquences of their actions do you?

Ive heard it said that this bill is not really about healthcare at all rather its more about gaining greater power and control over the 'stupid' citizens.

[Onkel Neal]

Obama himself said he wouldn't use "Obamacare" if anyone in his family was seriously ill. If it isn't good enough for Obama (and the rest of the freeloading politicians) than it sure as hell isn't good enough for me.


Link?

[Onkel Neal]

I have been cautioned not to be conservative in my views. So as much as I would like to respond I cannot.


Not accurate. Actually you were warned not to be rude, troll, and spam the forums with the same political agenda too frequently.

[Buddahaid]

Part of the reasons doctors get paid a lot of money is because they are expected to be perfect and carry massive liability insurance because they are not. It is also emotionally taxing with long hours. It's not a life I would want.

Buddahaid

[Sailor Steve]

Very true, especially the insurance part. My friends wife, of whom I wrote earlier, was required by law to carry a huge malpractice policy, even though she was a pathologist and engaged solely in research.

[geetrue]

The US Congress has been trying to pass a national health care plan for over 60 years now ...

This is the worst one so far ... I say it needs more debate.

Put it on the back burner ... what is all the rush about? A campaign promise?

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=20785&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721 (http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=20785&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721)

Jun 22, 2009 ... La Raza (an open borders advocacy group) Demands Obama's Health Reform Plan Cover Illegal Aliens ... Congress to make every effort to ensure that health care reform reaches all ... Specific research has shown that many illegal aliens lack health insurance .... are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are ...


Behind closed doors they are considering the other citizens, the non-US citizens that is.

Want to make a bet that the number of people that the health plan covers goes up after they pass the bill, therfore making the one trillion dollars the minium number ... :yep:

[Aramike]

Not accurate. Actually you were warned not to be rude, troll, and spam the forums with the same political agenda too frequently.Heh, I was starting to think the place was the Drudge Report Lite. Good call.

[Takeda Shingen]

Heh, I was starting to think the place was the Drudge Report Lite. Good call.

Actually, SubSim.com is not a political forum, although you will find people that treat it like one. Most of us are here because we enjoy naval combat simulations, and it's on those forums that the real beauty and purpose of the site are best seen. GT is, at best, a sideshow. It is best not to spend too much time in and around it. It'll get to you, and I've seen it mess up a lot of good people over the years.

[Buddahaid]

Actually, SubSim.com is not a political forum, although you will find people that treat it like one. Most of us are here because we enjoy naval combat simulations, and it's on those forums that the real beauty and purpose of the site are best seen. GT is, at best, a sideshow. It is best not to spend too much time in and around it. It'll get to you, and I've seen it mess up a lot of good people over the years.

Where's the halfway house, I need a ten step program? I don't think the active ones ignore the game forums, you just reach a point where you've gleaned what you need and the fruit falls less often.

Buddahaid

[SteamWake]

Where's the halfway house, I need a ten step program? I don't think the active ones ignore the game forums, you just reach a point where you've gleaned what you need and the fruit falls less often.

Buddahaid

I pop into the SH4 and other sections now and then. Usually to help noobs with the game /shrug.

I post my fair share of socio-political items but try to keep it down to a dull roar instead of a tidal wave :cool:

With the way things are going right now politically its hard to avoid the subject. Even just going to the store or something. Everyone is on edge it seems.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Actually, SubSim.com is not a political forum, although you will find people that treat it like one. Most of us are here because we enjoy naval combat simulations, and it's on those forums that the real beauty and purpose of the site are best seen. GT is, at best, a sideshow. It is best not to spend too much time in and around it. It'll get to you, and I've seen it mess up a lot of good people over the years.

I say you just sticky a "Partisan Sniping" thread and ban other political threads. It's what they all degenerate into anyways.

PD

[Takeda Shingen]

Where's the halfway house, I need a ten step program? I don't think the active ones ignore the game forums, you just reach a point where you've gleaned what you need and the fruit falls less often.

Buddahaid

I am not saying that people that view GT are warped or evil, or that people should only read game forums. I suppose that the best way to explain my view is by saying that most of the people that leave SubSim, either by storming off in a huff or being banned outright, do so because of altercations that took place on GT. If you can read it all and it is fine to you, then that is great. But be aware that the environment is potentially toxic.

[Buddahaid]

I am not saying that people that view GT are warped or evil, or that people should only read game forums. I suppose that the best way to explain my view is by saying that most of the people that leave SubSim, either by storming off in a huff or being banned outright, do so because of altercations that took place on GT. If you can read it all and it is fine to you, then that is great. But be aware that the environment is potentially toxic.

For the few who will not accept others views or values as just that and get mad when they can't make converts, it is toxic. Name calling wars will get nothing but trouble which is why it's pointless to argue, or debate, a subject at all if you just label someone as this or that when they don't see your point of view. Otherwise it's stimulating and can provide insights you may not have considered. Plus, a worldwide sounding board is useful. :rock:

Buddahaid

[geetrue]

If you can read it all and it is fine to you, then that is great. But be aware that the environment is potentially toxic.


I actually know some of the toxic heads that no longer post here ...:woot:

Here's three of them ... :yep:

http://www.anythingradioactive.com/newprodpix/toxic1.jpg

Hey guys when's the last time you seen the Avon lady
she like split a long time ago, but I loved her retorts.

You loved her what?

[SteamWake]

I actually know some of the toxic heads that no longer post here ...:woot:

Here's three of them ... :yep:


Hey guys when's the last time you seen the Avon lady
she like split a long time ago, but I loved here retorts.

You loved her what?

She was pretty good but got driven off as described above.

[AVGWarhawk]

Part of the reasons doctors get paid a lot of money is because they are expected to be perfect and carry massive liability insurance because they are not. It is also emotionally taxing with long hours. It's not a life I would want.

Buddahaid

Exactly what my dad did. He was an ER physician. Been there and see what it does to an individual. Everyone thinks it is George Clooney and ER on TV. Not even close. I worked a 12 hours shift with my dad. Not my cup of tea bro. All walks of life walkin or are carted in. Got to look after then no matter what. My brother once said to my dad that he does nothing at work. So my dad took him in. My brother watched an old man die on the table after a car crash. My brother never said crap to my dad again.

[Sea Demon]

You can insult my patriotism all you like, but I'll leave you with this: wail about it all you want, but it's going to happen. Thank goodness clear thinking people are in charge.


I wouldn't bet money on it...if I were you. These so called "clear thinking" people are doing everything possible to be thrown out on their butts in less than 2 years time. This is the most incompetent, dishonest, and corrupt government I have ever seen in DC. Even Blue Dog Democrats are getting serious cold feet about many things regarding Obama's agenda. This is definitely not over.

This horrid agenda will be finished when the good guys come back. And this time, hopefully actually do what they're elected to do.

[SteamWake]

Not my words...


The chairman of the Republican Party (http://topics.breitbart.com/Republican+Party/) on Monday called President Barack Obama's plan to overhaul health care (http://topics.breitbart.com/health+care/) "socialism," accusing the president of conducting a risky experiment that will hurt the economy and force millions to drop their current coverage.



http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99I9EAO1&show_article=1

[mookiemookie]

Wow, the head of the opposition party doesn't like what the other guys are doing?

In other news, water is wet.

[Sailor Steve]

Of course it's socialism. So is any plan that puts the government in charge of running our lives. My biggest problem is that while I hate the idea, I'm not entirely convinced that it's really a bad thing. I'm not arguing for it - I just don't know.

[SteamWake]

Wow, the head of the opposition party doesn't like what the other guys are doing?

In other news, water is wet.

Yes water is indeed wet unless your in washington where the definition of the word 'IS' is in dispute :rotfl:

Frankly I'm glad to see someone call this out on the senate floor. I'm sure nothing will become of it but just glad to see someone call a spade a spade.

(no thats not a racial slur)

[Zachstar]

Do you drive on the highway?

Do you trust the police to protect you?

Do you trust the fire department to atleast try to save your home or your family in an emergency?

Hate to break it to you but socialism is everywhere. And guess what? The roads dont drive you. The police have their own way of solving crimes that may not be to your satisfaction and the fire department may be having a busy day.

Its called choice. You don't like the healthcare from the gov. Get private insurance.

[Takeda Shingen]

Don't we already have a health care thread?

[GoldenRivet]

Do you drive on the highway?

Do you trust the police to protect you?

Do you trust the fire department to atleast try to save your home or your family in an emergency?

Hate to break it to you but socialism is everywhere. And guess what? The roads dont drive you. The police have their own way of solving crimes that may not be to your satisfaction and the fire department may be having a busy day.

Its called choice. You don't like the healthcare from the gov. Get private insurance.

the problem with your statement here...

if you decide not to participate in the government run health care you STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT :nope:

its nonsense.

yes police protect you, and the fire department fights fires, and we use the highways... those things are funded by tax dollars... the things you have mentioned are not - never have been and probably will never be "private sector"

just think about how bias things would be if you elected not to use the police... but instead you had your own private police force that would track down criminals who have wronged you... it doesnt work that way :03:

funding something by tax dollars doesnt automatically make it "socialism".

HOWEVER

when the government bids to take over what has traditionally been a "private Sector" issue - THATS socialism.

so what do we say when the government decides to take over the restaurant business? or the auto sales business (which literally is not far off)?

what do we say when it doesnt stop there and they want to take over construction business? or the flight school business? or the lawn care business?

sounds pretty far fetched.

but it isnt

all that the infallible Obama has done since he took office was deepen the economic crisis and expand the government's ability to take over the private sector.

[Onkel Neal]

Yes we do, any objections to merging? :hmmm:

[SteamWake]

Yes we do, any objections to merging? :hmmm:

It got buried pretty deep but I dont care.

[Onkel Neal]

Yeah, merging brings it back to the fore.

thx
Neal

[mookiemookie]

when the government bids to take over what has traditionally been a "private Sector" issue - THATS socialism.
Private health insurance doesn't operate along the traditional laws of economics, so it should absolutely not be private. There cannot exist a free market for it, as the forces that drive a free market are so distorted when it comes to health care that it cannot operate as such. Take a concept from Econ 101: Supply and demand. Demand will adjust to equilibrium given a certain price level and vice versa. How does this work in the health care industry? Demand is not a conscious choice, for the most part. I don't choose to break my leg, I don't choose to need emergency medical care. So what then happens to your equilibrium price point? It doesn't function. I have to pay whatever price is dictated to me. If I'm laying in the street bleeding to death, I can't make a rational consumer decision to say "nah, the marginal utility of receiving health care isn't worth the marginal price."

so what do we say when the government decides to take over the restaurant business? or the auto sales business (which literally is not far off)?

what do we say when it doesnt stop there and they want to take over construction business? or the flight school business? or the lawn care business?We say you've fallen into the logical fallacy of the slippery slope argument.

[GoldenRivet]

Mookie -with respect - the only thing the government has proven to me in this lifetime is that it is completely incapable of managing anything... least of all health care.

Im all for Obamas health care nonsense as long as the only ones paying for it are the ones who intend to use it... but mark my words; some other poor dumb SOB of a president will be trying to fix this God awful sh*tty mess when my children are my age. :nope:

[SteamWake]

Its not just the 'opposition party' raising concearns.


The nation’s governors, Democrats as well as Republicans, voiced deep concern yesterday about the shape of the healthcare bill emerging from Congress, fearing that the federal government is about to hand them expensive new Medicaid obligations without providing the money to pay for them


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/07/20/governors_balk_over_what_healthcare_bill_will_cost _states/

[mookiemookie]

Here's your "free market" at work - United, WellPoint, Aetna, Cigna, GHI/HIP, Capital District Physicians' Health Plan, Independent Health, Excellus, MVP Health Care, HealthNow and Guardian Life Insurance all use the same database to set rates and drive down physician compensation

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/07/13/bisb0713.htm

[SteamWake]

Here's your "free market" at work - United, WellPoint, Aetna, Cigna, GHI/HIP, Capital District Physicians' Health Plan, Independent Health, Excellus, MVP Health Care, HealthNow and Guardian Life Insurance all use the same database to set rates and drive down physician compensation

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/07/13/bisb0713.htm

So there trying to keep their costs down... shamefull !

Anyhow heres a stellar example of the Fed's abilitys.

The Food and Drug Administration—which has struggled to fulfill its mission of regulating food, drugs and other consumer goods (http://topics.breitbart.com/consumer+goods/) that make up nearly a quarter of the U.S. economy—does not have the expertise to forecast its own budget needs, according to congressional investigators.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99I9O3O0&show_article=1

[mookiemookie]

So there trying to keep their costs down... shamefull !

You're missing the point. It's not a "free market". It's collusion and an oligopoly. And it's shameful enough for one state's attorney general to step in.

[TDK1044]

Under the genius of the Obama plan, I go from being a hard working individual providing a single tiered medical insurance plan for myself and my family, to being a hard working individual providing a two tiered medical insurance plan...one for myself and my family, and the other for people who would rather spend their money on necessities such as i phones, i pods, DVRs, and other 'must have' devices in their lives. :)

[mookiemookie]

Under the genius of the Obama plan, I go from being a hard working individual providing a single tiered medical insurance plan for myself and my family, to being a hard working individual providing a two tiered medical insurance plan...one for myself and my family, and the other for people who would rather spend their money on necessities such as i phones, i pods, DVRs, and other 'must have' devices in their lives. :)

Um, not quite.

About 9.1 million of the uninsured have household incomes (http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf) greater than $75,000, and 10 percent (about 4.7 million) make more (http://kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451-04.pdf) than 400 percent of the federal poverty threshold, according to KFF. In 2007 (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html), the most recent year of Census statistics, a family of four at 400 percent of the poverty level would have a household income of $84,812 or more.

So it's true that many of the uninsured could, in theory, spare the $3,354 average annual employee contribution (http://www.kff.org/newsroom/ehbs092408.cfm) for employer-sponsored family coverage, or even the $5,799 average premium (http://www.ahipresearch.org/pdfs/Individual_Market_Survey_December_2007.pdf) for individually purchased family coverage. But it's also true that 66 percent of the uninsured make less than 200 percent of the poverty level according to KFF, which is less than $42,406 for a family of four in 2007. And a family's premium costs may actually be much higher than the average for individually purchased insurance, depending on the number of dependents, the ages of family members, their state of health and the state in which they live. For instance, the average annual premium for individually purchased family coverage in Massachusetts, according to America's Health Insurance Plans' Center for Policy and Research, was $16,897 in 2006-2007 (before the state changed its insurance plan), and in New York it was $12,254.

Furthermore, even those who can afford coverage cannot always get it. AHIP found (http://www.ahipresearch.org/pdfs/Individual_Market_Survey_December_2007.pdf) that 72 percent of 2006 applications for health insurance were eventually approved, while the rest were withdrawn, not processed, or denied for medical or non-medical reasons. And of those who got coverage, 11 percent had to pay a higher rate than requested.

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/the_real_uninsured.html

[Onkel Neal]

Under the genius of the Obama plan, I go from being a hard working individual providing a single tiered medical insurance plan for myself and my family, to being a hard working individual providing a two tiered medical insurance plan...one for myself and my family, and the other for people who would rather spend their money on necessities such as i phones, i pods, DVRs, and other 'must have' devices in their lives. :)

Yes, and don't forget the guy who spent $4000 on his car stereo who is disturbing everyone around him, and causing extensive damage to his hearing. We need to help him get health care, he's going to seriously need it.

[TDK1044]

Mookie, instead of quoting meaningless studies that are slanted one way or the other, depending on which perspective the originator of the report is seeking to project, talk to people who have lived with the kind of healthcare system that you are proposing.

In the UK, all working men and women have a percentage of their wages 'deducted at source'. In other words, the money is taken from them before they even get it. This is the money that pays for their National Health Service.

The problem is that although the NHS is fine for going to the ER for treatment for a broken wrist or removing a bug from a child's ear or whatever, once you have to be admitted to the hospital and require a surgical procedure though, most people in the UK then use their private health insurance so that they can get this procedure done in days or weeks rather than months or years.

So, the reality is that the working population pays for the health insurance for those who, for the most part, choose not to pay for private health insurance each month. Hell, why should they if the Government makes other people pay for them.

[Tchocky]

The proposed plan is nothing like the NHS.

[TDK1044]

The proposed plan is nothing like the NHS.

They've dressed it up differently to sell it, but it will function EXACTLY like the NHS.

[Tchocky]

They've dressed it up differently to sell it, but it will function EXACTLY like the NHS.

Really? Can you back this up with anything?

So you'll get care free at the point of use, with or without insurance?
Doctors and nurses will be direct employees of the government?
The entire healthcare system, not just a part of the insurance market, will be funded by the government?

[danlisa]

They've dressed it up differently to sell it, but it will function EXACTLY like the NHS.

Ah you mean that Billions will be pumped into it and yet it will still manage to provide minimal care when you actually need it with at least 8 month waiting list for any major surgery.

Finally, a huge deficit blackhole is identified in the budget which causes the government to re-evaluate the entire system and propose a system where you have 2 tiers of care, where the less fortunate (poor) get a government allotted care level but the wealthy get a better level, better specialists, better drugs and better after care.

Good luck to you all.:up:

Personally, the UK's NHS is floored. While funded entirely out of taxes, be it National Insurance or part of Income Tax, I would rather pay into a Private Health care service and be free of my share of the Tax. Why should I pay for a plank who decides to wrap himself and his car around a tree. He'll get immediate life saving care thanks to his, mine and everyones tax contributions but when I need life saving care due to natural illness I get put on a waiting list after traversing our post code lottery.:down:

[mookiemookie]

Mookie, instead of quoting meaningless studies that are slanted one way or the other, depending on which perspective the originator of the report is seeking to project, talk to people who have lived with the kind of healthcare system that you are proposing.


"The facts don't bear me out so lets talk about something else completely unrelated to my original statement!"

Meaningless? The studies are meaningless? I'd say they're pretty MEANINGFUL as they just completely demolished your point. As for your statement about them being slanted, write a letter to Congess since a lot of it is Census data. Tell them you think the Census is slanted politically because the facts don't bear your worldview out.

If you could point out how any of that data is slanted, I'd be open to hear it. But that would require more work than just saying "Nuh-uh!"

So, the reality is that the working population pays for the health insurance for those who, for the most part, choose not to pay for private health insurance each month. Hell, why should they if the Government makes other people pay for them.

Except that we've just shown that isn't the case. Sticking to your statement in the face of factual evidence to the contrary doesn't make the statement right.

[Tchocky]

Pfft, you can prove anything with facts!

[TDK1044]

Pfft, you can prove anything with facts!


The only fact worthy of note, is that once again those who achieve will be paying for those who don't.

[geetrue]

The only fact worthy of note, is that once again those who achieve will be paying for those who don't.

Another worthy fact about this present health care plan bill on why it is not going to be passed is simply this (have not seen this on CNN yet): anti abortion warning for health care bill (http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/07/antiabortion_democrats_in_cong.html)


WASHINGTON -- Abortion is emerging as a flashpoint in the congressional debate over health care reform.

Even though none of the reform proposals grinding through congressional committees refer to abortion, a group of anti-abortion Democrats in Congress say they're worried the controversial procedure will be covered under the legislation even if it's not specifically mentioned.

Ninteen of them, including Ohio's Marcy Kaptur and Steve Driehaus, sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that vowed opposition to any health care reform package that spends tax dollars on abortion.

"We cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan," says the June 25 letter.

"By ensuring that any health care package will not fund or require funding for abortions, we will take this controversial issue off the table so that Congress can focus on crafting a broadly supported reform package."

[Zachstar]

This is where I do not agree with many Dems on. Personally I think there needs to be language in there preventing gov fund abortion.

Of course anyone who dares say that is labeled a sexist by a few but I don't want to pay for it. I want part of my taxes going into keeping people into normal checkup and healthcare schedules so they are better able to contribute to the economy.

I am personally against abortion but I am pro choice but not to the extent where it comes from taxpayers.

(Note when I say pro choice that means I am not going to tell a woman what she has to do with her body.)

[Max2147]

This is where I do not agree with many Dems on. Personally I think there needs to be language in there preventing gov fund abortion.

Of course anyone who dares say that is labeled a sexist by a few but I don't want to pay for it. I want part of my taxes going into keeping people into normal checkup and healthcare schedules so they are better able to contribute to the economy.

I am personally against abortion but I am pro choice but not to the extent where it comes from taxpayers.

(Note when I say pro choice that means I am not going to tell a woman what she has to do with her body.)
Agreed, for the most part. I'm another pro-choicer that doesn't like abortion. To put it simply, this isn't a fight worth fighting. Throw an amendment in there saying that this new insurance plan doesn't cover abortions and move on.

[mookiemookie]

Agreed, for the most part. I'm another pro-choicer that doesn't like abortion. To put it simply, this isn't a fight worth fighting. Throw an amendment in there saying that this new insurance plan doesn't cover abortions and move on.

Yessir. With you both on that. :salute:

[SteamWake]

Wait just a second.

Who 'likes' abortion?

Its like who likes pollution.

A silly argument.

[Max2147]

Wait just a second.

Who 'likes' abortion?

Its like who likes pollution.

A silly argument.
You're right, of course. But pro-lifers always like to accuse pro-choicers of being abortion lovers.

[Aramike]

You're right, of course. But pro-lifers always like to accuse pro-choicers of being abortion lovers."Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are misnomers. Pro-life is such a sweeping stance made by many of the same people that support the death penalty. The so-called pro-choicers convieniently ignore the fact that the woman DOES have a choice PRIOR to conception (in most cases at least; I support abortion rights for victims of rape). In any event, it's not about "choice" it's about abortion.

I wonder how the debate would play out if it were framed within the accurate terms, which are "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion".

My stance is simple: in ANY case except for imminent threat to the mother, once there's a detectable heartbeat abortions should not be permitted.

Oh, and one final thing: I don't buy the crappy argument that a woman has some sort of sacred right to do whatever she wants to with her body. By that stupid argument it would be perfectly legal for a crackhead to concieve and pump her pregnant body full of illegal drugs.

[Max2147]

But those who favor keeping abortion legal aren't necessarily pro-abortion. I think abortion should be legal, but I would never recommend it to anybody unless there was a major health issue. I'm a strong believer in adoption.

If I could press a magic button and make no woman ever want an abortion again, I'd do it. But the simple fact is that there will always be abortions whether they're legal or not. It's simple economics - as long as the demand exists, somebody will provide the supply. I say it's better to have those abortions that do take place performed by certified professional doctors in safe clinics instead of by rapist quacks in back alleys.

I think the anti-abortion drive should focus on reducing the demand for abortions, not the supply of abortions. If the demand drops the supply will drop too. Unfortunately, the debate is so polarized that neither side will accept that. The pro-lifers are so obsessed with getting abortion banned that they refuse to accept any plan that reduces abortions while still keeping them legal. Meanwhile, the pro-choicers are so paranoid that any move to reduce abortions will lead to abortions getting banned that they oppose any such moves.

Those are the things that really p*ss be off about this debate - the two sides are so focused on beating the other that they can't do things that both would probably agree to. When Obama tried to talk compromise at Notre Dame, he got savaged by both sides for it.

If you really want to be accurate, the proper terms for the abortion debate would be legal abortion vs. ban abortion.

[VipertheSniper]

"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are misnomers. Pro-life is such a sweeping stance made by many of the same people that support the death penalty. The so-called pro-choicers convieniently ignore the fact that the woman DOES have a choice PRIOR to conception (in most cases at least; I support abortion rights for victims of rape). In any event, it's not about "choice" it's about abortion.

I wonder how the debate would play out if it were framed within the accurate terms, which are "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion".

My stance is simple: in ANY case except for imminent threat to the mother, once there's a detectable heartbeat abortions should not be permitted.

Oh, and one final thing: I don't buy the crappy argument that a woman has some sort of sacred right to do whatever she wants to with her body. By that stupid argument it would be perfectly legal for a crackhead to concieve and pump her pregnant body full of illegal drugs.

You know what I don't get? Why men bother so much about a topic that isn't even relevant to them. Dertemine a time until which an abortion can take place, and leave it up to the mother to make up her mind until then. It's not like it's an easy decision to make, even if some of the anti-abortion people like to purport it as such.

To stay on topic, I think here abortions are not covered under government healthcare and I don't think it should be.

[Aramike]

Max, I don't necessarily disagree with you ... but I cannot for the life of me take the contradictory position of being anti-abortion but feel it should remain legal. Ask yourself: why do you believe abortion is wrong? I'm assuming that you find it to be a question of life (if this isn't the case, why bother wanting to "...press a magic button and make no woman ever want an abortion again..."?).

Therefore, if it is a question of the sanctity of life than how can one logically justify valuing one life over another, especially when the life being granted greater value is the one responsible for the dillema in the first place?

Just because people will do bad things (back-alley abortions, for instance) doesn't mean that bad things should be legal. I mean, REALLY think about this: let's say that mothers would kill their BORN babies in back alleys. Should we then legalize a clinical termination of life?

Like I said, I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I completely agree that both sides are too damned entrenched in their thinking. That's why I prefer my compromise: the heartbeat is the cut-off.

[Aramike]

You know what I don't get? Why men bother so much about a topic that isn't even relevant to them. Dertemine a time until which an abortion can take place, and leave it up to the mother to make up her mind until then. It's not like it's an easy decision to make, even if some of the anti-abortion people like to purport it as such.Not relevant to men? Are you nuts?

So wait, let's get this straight - a MAN and woman conceive a child. You know, a child that will effect the rest of both of their lives. ONLY the woman has the choice to carry that child to term. If it's, say, financially inconvienient for the woman, boom - terminate the pregnancy. Let's say it's financially inconvienient for the man (you know, child support and such). What's his out?

Obviously you don't have children else you'd never suggest that a pregnancy is only relevant to the woman.

[VipertheSniper]

Not relevant to men? Are you nuts?

So wait, let's get this straight - a MAN and woman conceive a child. You know, a child that will effect the rest of both of their lives. ONLY the woman has the choice to carry that child to term. If it's, say, financially inconvienient for the woman, boom - terminate the pregnancy. Let's say it's financially inconvienient for the man (you know, child support and such). What's his out?

Obviously you don't have children else you'd never suggest that a pregnancy is only relevant to the woman.

So, if it's financially inconvenient for the man, what is he gonna do? Force her to abort if she wants to keep the baby? And if she doesn't want to carry the child to term, force her to keep it? HUH??? I'd say the decision is entirely up to her.

The legal side of this whole thing might well be relevant to men, but not the physical act, whether it is carried out or not.

[OneToughHerring]

It's interesting how much debate the whole health care thing creates in the US. Here nobody really talks about the health care, except when something is clearly wrong, and then that thing is fixed. Seems to me that it's only a matter of time when there will be a more 'European' health care system in place in the US.

As for the whole abortion debate, looks like they are beginning to attack against doctors who perform abortions again. There was a case just recently. I wonder if the perpetrators of those terrorist acts will be tortured etc.

[TDK1044]

US healthcare is the classic Conundrum within an enigma. It is so vast and so corrupt, it's difficult to have a rational discussion regarding the subject.

One thing is true though, healthcare is the only service that I can think of where you have absolutely no idea of the final cost when you order the service.

If you take your car in for service, the cost is usually posted on the wall or shown to you on a computer screen. There may be unforseen extras that arise during the service, but you have a pretty good idea of the cost when you start.

With healthcare, try getting a hospital to quote you on the cost of a colonoscopy. It's a known procedure performed thousands of times a day in hospitals accross this land, but try getting one of them to give you a cost for it prior to you having it.

They won't. And why won't they? Because the price they quote to the insurance company is greatly inflated, and until they know what the insurance company will actually pay, they can't possibly tell the patient what their contribution will be.

[Tchocky]

Interesting comment thread on reddit comparing experiences in 'ealth care.

Mostly US-centric, but a few Auslanders commenting as well.

Obviously any conjecture about any health service has an anecdote to back it up, but there are some interesting ones here.

http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/93m8z/my_wife_recently_had_a_baby_this_is_the_bill/

[Max2147]

Max, I don't necessarily disagree with you ... but I cannot for the life of me take the contradictory position of being anti-abortion but feel it should remain legal. Ask yourself: why do you believe abortion is wrong? I'm assuming that you find it to be a question of life (if this isn't the case, why bother wanting to "...press a magic button and make no woman ever want an abortion again..."?).

Therefore, if it is a question of the sanctity of life than how can one logically justify valuing one life over another, especially when the life being granted greater value is the one responsible for the dillema in the first place?

Just because people will do bad things (back-alley abortions, for instance) doesn't mean that bad things should be legal. I mean, REALLY think about this: let's say that mothers would kill their BORN babies in back alleys. Should we then legalize a clinical termination of life?

Like I said, I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I completely agree that both sides are too damned entrenched in their thinking. That's why I prefer my compromise: the heartbeat is the cut-off.
I can't really ask myself that question because I don't believe abortion is morally wrong. I just don't like it. I also don't like cosmetic surgery, but I don't think it is morally wrong, and I certainly don't think it should be illegal.

But I agree with you on the larger point. I think setting a certain stage of fetal development as the cutoff is a good idea. The heartbeat is a good possibility, the first brain activity is another. I have to confess that I don't know which comes first.

[Tchocky]

Interesting snippet from a BBC article on last night's conference.

The president has given four prime-time news conferences in six months. That is how many George W Bush gave in eight years.

[SteamWake]

Interesting snippet from a BBC article on last night's conference.

Well I think he (Obama) finds the press much more accomodating than his predecessor.

[August]

So, if it's financially inconvenient for the man, what is he gonna do? Force her to abort if she wants to keep the baby? And if she doesn't want to carry the child to term, force her to keep it? HUH??? I'd say the decision is entirely up to her.

The legal side of this whole thing might well be relevant to men, but not the physical act, whether it is carried out or not.

Seems to me that there is a lot more to fatherhood than just a "legal side" but be that as it may i'd think that even the legal responsibilities alone are enough to justify a man having some say in this issue.

How about the woman makes the decision but if the man disagrees with it before the fact it absolves him of the legal or financial responsibility? That's fair ain't it?

[geetrue]

US healthcare is the classic Conundrum within an enigma. It is so vast and so corrupt, it's difficult to have a rational discussion regarding the subject.

One thing is true though, healthcare is the only service that I can think of where you have absolutely no idea of the final cost when you order the service.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Because the price they quote to the insurance company is greatly inflated, and until they know what the insurance company will actually pay, they can't possibly tell the patient what their contribution will be.

This is so true too bad newsmen don't tell it like it is ...

Sorry I got the thread going the wrong way on abortion ... I just wanted to point out that all is not fine and dandy in the democratic party.

Did you notice how many times Obama refered to himself as the President of the United States?

Twice in this press conference and twice in the last press conference (once with anger when the name of John McCain was mentioned).

I think he has an ego problem that can't stand any negative views about his presidency.

One person on CNN said "Obama spent more time on what dog to get and what to name the dog than he has on health care", but of course that's not true.

Obama's words bite back, but somehow it doesn't sound balanced more like a college debate that he intends to win.

Did you believe him when he said this is not about him?

[SteamWake]

Obama: Doctors Taking Tonsils Out For Money Instead Of Diagnosing It As Allergies


What the hell? Uhhh does he not understand how primary care and 'referels' work?

Sounds like some deep seeded resentment to me somehow.

Are all doctors just money hungry evil people?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/22/obama_doctors_taking_tonsils_out_for_money_instead _of_diagnosing_it_as_allergies.html

[Hawk66]

From a European view I do not understand the health care discussion in the US; I even do not understand some discussions in Germany.
For example here in Germany, most physicians in hospitals are not paid as much as in other Western countries and so a lot of (good) physicians go abroad.

I think health is prio 1 in one's life...what is life without a good health (or at least that you get the best available treatment to make it easier)?

It's clear that you have to spend a lot of money into the health care system - even when there would be no corruption and such things.

People buy huge cars, buy expensive electronic 'toys' and spend a lot of money for traveling; but they do not want spend money for one of the most important things in life?

And my opinion is: (necessary) treatment has to be independent of your income...this has nothing to do with socialism...it's just humanism!

[SteamWake]

Oh thank god ! :up:

Vote delayed untill the fall.

In the meantime give these jokers an earfull !

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99KA26G0&show_article=1

[mookiemookie]

From a European view I do not understand the health care discussion in the US; I even do not understand some discussions in Germany.
For example here in Germany, most physicians in hospitals are not paid as much as in other Western countries and so a lot of (good) physicians go abroad.

I think health is prio 1 in one's life...what is life without a good health (or at least that you get the best available treatment to make it easier)?

It's clear that you have to spend a lot of money into the health care system - even when there would be no corruption and such things.

People buy huge cars, buy expensive electronic 'toys' and spend a lot of money for traveling; but they do not want spend money for one of the most important things in life?

And my opinion is: (necessary) treatment has to be independent of your income...this has nothing to do with socialism...it's just humanism!

Because a lot of Americans buy into the horror stories fed to them by the media which in this case is the mouthpiece for the insurance companies who are spending $1.4 Million a day to push their disinformation. I'm sure to the rest of the world, watching this debate is like watching a debate as to whether we should install electricity and running water in our homes or not.

[geetrue]

Oh thank god ! :up:

Vote delayed untill the fall.

In the meantime give these jokers an earfull !

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99KA26G0&show_article=1

This is expected good news ... now the GOP can try and explain their side of the plan.

watch for these words to crop up ... "co-op"

I don't know what it means for health care yet, but sounds interesting

[August]

Vote delayed untill the fall.

That means it's dead. Too much time for the insurance industry to sway public opinion against it. The same thing that happened to Hillarycare.

[geetrue]

Here it is ... takes the government out of the plan: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/co-op-health-plan-emerging-as-a-senate-option/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/co-op-health-plan-emerging-as-a-senate-option/)


Many Democrats want to create a new public health insurance plan, to compete with private insurers. In place of a government-run plan, Mr. Baucus said Thursday that the public plan could take the form of an insurance cooperative, owned and operated for the benefit of its members.
“I am inclined, and I think the committee is inclined, toward a co-op,” Mr. Baucus said.
“It’s not going to be public, we won’t call it public, but it will be tough enough to keep insurance companies’ feet to the fire,” Mr. Baucus said of the co-op.


[http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/22/755867/-Health-Care-Reform:-Towards-a-Plan-That-Might-Work-QUOTE]
"There are two kinds of plans: those that won't work . . . and those that might."
As it is presently constructed, the Senate and House versions of Health Care Reform are "a plan that won't work." Bringing in elements from the French and German health care systems and more room for market forces could create "a plan that might work."
[/quote]

[mookiemookie]

That means it's dead. Too much time for the insurance industry to sway public opinion against it. The same thing that happened to Hillarycare.

And that's just who we want framing the debate. The insurance companies who all have not their bottom lines, but our best interests at heart. :roll:

[VipertheSniper]

Seems to me that there is a lot more to fatherhood than just a "legal side" but be that as it may i'd think that even the legal responsibilities alone are enough to justify a man having some say in this issue.

Maybe I should've written a longer reply explaining my view better.

You say there's a lot more to fatherhood than just a legal side and I agree with that, but when is an abortion considered mostly? I'd hazard a guess that it's not in situations where a couple is considering to get married because of the pregnancy, is about to get married anyway, or is married (apart from diagnosed birth defects or a child concieved in a rape). And in all those other situation which I didn't mention I think it should be entirely up to the woman to decide if she keeps the baby or not.

How about the woman makes the decision but if the man disagrees with it before the fact it absolves him of the legal or financial responsibility? That's fair ain't it?

Yeah would be fair probably, but how do you proove it?

[Sea Demon]

Here it is ... takes the government out of the plan: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/co-op-health-plan-emerging-as-a-senate-option/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/co-op-health-plan-emerging-as-a-senate-option/)


Good. The only way to make anything workable here is to remove the government from the plan. If these people want their health "co-ops", let them have them. And they can pay for and take responsibility for their own healthcare.

Glad to see the "universal single-payer" option is going to die. But still, we have to choke this government health initiative until it's dead. Keep the pressure up and don't let go until it ain't breathing anymore.

[August]

And that's just who we want framing the debate. The insurance companies who all have not their bottom lines, but our best interests at heart. :roll:

And how exactly does that make them any different from a government bureaucrat?

[SteamWake]

And how exactly does that make them any different from a government bureaucrat?

Thats easy Goverment doesnt give a crap about the bottom line. :yep:

[mookiemookie]

And how exactly does that make them any different from a government bureaucrat?

Because public policy should be set by elected representative government, not by corporations.

[August]

Because public policy should be set by elected representative government, not by corporations.

Public policy? I thought we were talking about health care insurance.

[SteamWake]

Because public policy should be set by elected representative government, not by corporations.

The key word here is 'elected' again I repeat the phrase 'taxation without representation'.

Very few of these bozo's on capitol have my best interest at heart.

So we are left with the fox watching the hen house.

[Aramike]

Lotsa good posts.

VipertheSniper:So, if it's financially inconvenient for the man, what is he gonna do? Force her to abort if she wants to keep the baby? And if she doesn't want to carry the child to term, force her to keep it? HUH??? I'd say the decision is entirely up to her.

The legal side of this whole thing might well be relevant to men, but not the physical act, whether it is carried out or not.I cannot in my right mind differentiate the legal side from the physical side.

Case in point, imagine your father has cancer. Does that cancer only affect him even though the treatments only physiologically affect him?

Max:I can't really ask myself that question because I don't believe abortion is morally wrong. I just don't like it. I also don't like cosmetic surgery, but I don't think it is morally wrong, and I certainly don't think it should be illegal.Okay, fair enough - but please validate your reasons for not liking something that you do not believe is morally wrong? I mean, I understand that some people just don't like, say, cake, but a matter of life and death is not a dessert. But I agree with you on the larger point. I think setting a certain stage of fetal development as the cutoff is a good idea. The heartbeat is a good possibility, the first brain activity is another. I have to confess that I don't know which comes first. I do give you a lot of credit, Max, as you haven't tried to make the issue one of absolutes. And it is reasurring that you and I, who may be opposed to the morality of the entire issue of abortion, can find a middle ground. In fact, I suspect that we both share the same morality on the issue once a certain stage of development is attained.

But, regardless, I applaud you for not simply seeing the issue as black and white and attempting to find a way to compromise.

August:Seems to me that there is a lot more to fatherhood than just a "legal side" but be that as it may i'd think that even the legal responsibilities alone are enough to justify a man having some say in this issue.

How about the woman makes the decision but if the man disagrees with it before the fact it absolves him of the legal or financial responsibility? That's fair ain't it? You understood my point precisely, as usual. Also, you articulated it more clearly than I, as usual. Kudos!

Viper:Maybe I should've written a longer reply explaining my view better.

You say there's a lot more to fatherhood than just a legal side and I agree with that, but when is an abortion considered mostly? I'd hazard a guess that it's not in situations where a couple is considering to get married because of the pregnancy, is about to get married anyway, or is married (apart from diagnosed birth defects or a child concieved in a rape). And in all those other situation which I didn't mention I think it should be entirely up to the woman to decide if she keeps the baby or not.That's a pretty biased (and sexist) assumption to base a law upon...

In any case, under your idea of making woman the sole decision-maker when it comes to bringing children into the world, please justify the concept of child support.

For example, let's say a child is the result of an one-night stand. If the woman has the complete decision upon whether or not to bring that pregnancy to term, how can you justify the man being accountable for ANY of the responsibility of that decision?

[VipertheSniper]

Viper:That's a pretty biased (and sexist) assumption to base a law upon...


I certainly wouldn't base a law on that, but I'm talking about situations where a mother is probably left alone with the decision. If both parents have an interest in the child I think they should of course both be part of the decision, whatever that decision may be.


In any case, under your idea of making woman the sole decision-maker when it comes to bringing children into the world, please justify the concept of child support.

For example, let's say a child is the result of an one-night stand. If the woman has the complete decision upon whether or not to bring that pregnancy to term, how can you justify the man being accountable for ANY of the responsibility of that decision?

I'm not sure if I understand you right, do you mean that leaving the decision to abort or not to the woman is somehow making a man not responsible for his choice to not use contraceptives (I know there are no 100% safe contraceptives)?

If the woman conceived despite him using a condom, or other contraceptive measures, I indeed cannot justify the concept of child support, and I thought long about it, and I don't like that at all. So thanks for opening my eyes.

[Platapus]

=SteamWake;1139091
Are all doctors just money hungry evil people?



Doctors are human and as such are a representation of humanity. There are good doctors, bad doctors, Doctors interested in helping people, doctors interested in money. You can't lump *all* doctors in to one classification, just like you can't lump all people into one classification.

It is, however, important to recognize that a growing number of doctors are becoming involved in elective practices (plastic surgery, cosmetic treatments, etc). These are not, usually, medically necessary, but are elective.

The Frau, had to visit a cosmetic surgeon after her facial surgery. You should have seen the sales job this "doctor" laid on her. :nope:

He was pushing (pretty hard) surgeries that had nothing to do with her facial surgery. "Don't worry, we will find a way to get the insurance company to pay for it!" Uh Doc, what does cosmetic breast surgery have to do with her facial surgery?????? I would be very interested in how you are going to justify a tummy tuck (unnecessary in my opinion) to the insurance company?

Well of course in the fine print it says that if the insurance company does not pay, we do. Funny he did not mention that during the sales pitch.

His attitude had little to do with The Frau's health but more to do with manipulating an older woman to elect surgery she did not need. It was all about the money.

So there are some doctors who are out for the money.

My opinion: Once a doctor moves into trying to sell elective techniques, they lose their professional ethic. That is not the way doctors are supposed to act, in my opinion. :nope:

How can I trust this type of doctors? Do I really need this technique or is he/she just trying to sell me stuff for more profit?

I should not even have to think about this... but I do.

Even my frickin dentist is trying to sell me stuff!!!!!! Every doctor seems to be trying to max out the profit.

I am not looking forward to my next proctologist visit thats for sure.:o

[geetrue]

#1: Never tell anyone everything you know


Every doctor seems to be trying to max out the profit.

I am not looking forward to my next proctologist visit thats for sure.:o

Now I gotta deal with this picture in my head all day ...

Oh not the one of you going ... the one of my needing to go :cry:

[CastleBravo]

From the looks of things Mr. Obama gave it a shot in his presser. But the only thing anyone remembers is his other moment. From all indications this isn't going to pass. After all the US health care system isn't really broken. Very few leave the US for health care, more people come here for the health care not provided by their own countries. :hmmm:

[Zachstar]

Obama just screwed up politically. And I am not dem enough to deny that. By doing what he did with the gates situation he opened a giant hole for health care reform opposition freaks to flood the airwaves with things distracting the issue. And then of course the completely bought and paid for Reid used it to declare it no vote until fall.

[SteamWake]

Obama just screwed up politically. And I am not dem enough to deny that. By doing what he did with the gates situation he opened a giant hole for health care reform opposition freaks to flood the airwaves with things distracting the issue. And then of course the completely bought and paid for Reid used it to declare it no vote until fall.

Actually Reid declared the no vote the morning before the conference.

Please dont get side tracked by this Gates thing. Its not that important. Its just a diversion and at worst a reflection of the current adminstrations outlook towards racial issues.

What is important is that now Ms Pelosi and her minions are trying to find a way to bypass the blue dogs and force a vote on the healthcare bill even if they have to stay through the recess.

Furthermore Obama has stated that even if it isnt voted up that it would be pressed through by some other method.

The dems are scared to death that if they do not vote on this untill the fall more and more pepole will see the ugly facts and the unsustainablity of the current bill and popular opinion will be even more negative than it is now.

Pro or Con a measure of this magnatitude should be considered carefully and not rushed to judgement.

[CastleBravo]

I don't think we need healthcare reform. Healthcare is working. We need catostrophic insurance reform. That is what scares everyone. The sudden illness/accident which devastates peoples income and savings.

The numbers I have heard are far less than 1 trilloin dollars. 39-40 billion dollars.

[SteamWake]

Just going after and stopping fraud would save millions. That would be a good place to start.

[CastleBravo]

Just going after and stopping fraud would save millions. That would be a good place to start.

The unfortnate part is the many multiples of millions/billions which will be available for fraud under a government plan. You hear about it all the time, government contracts, which is what this would be, used in fraud.

[CastleBravo]

bad news

Obama rushes to quell racial uproar he helped fire
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_harvard_scholar

[Platapus]

Ron Paul made an interesting comment. He recommended that the United States reduce some of the foreign aid and use that money for the various programs that help Americans.

[CastleBravo]

Ron Paul made an interesting comment. He recommended that the United States reduce some of the foreign aid and use that money for the various programs that help Americans.

I'd be interested in hearing what Mr. Paul has to say. Can you post a link to any specifics Platapus?

[Platapus]

I remember it being on Cnn.com but I can't seem to find it in the archive :(

[donut]

Subject: Wain Reily - Are you concerned enough to read parts of the Obama Socialist Health Care Bill?



YES, I LIVE IN MISSISSIPPI AND I CAN READ... SO DO NOT IGNORE ME OR UNDER ESTIMATE ME!

I FOR ONE AM MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE ANYMORE OF IGNORANT PEOPLE TELLING ME WHAT TO DO WHEN I KNOW FULL WELL THEY ARE CREATING AN OUT OF CONTROL MONSTER THAT THEY CAN NOT CONTROL, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT READ THE BILL AND DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE BILL!

AS YOU CAN SEE I HAVE E-MAILED THIS TO EVERY ONE FROM BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II ON DOWN... I WILL GET TO THE REST OF THEM LATER AND I HOPE YOU WILL DO THE SAME!

From: Wain Reily <Here I us an e-mail address I have set up for e-mailing government people only>

To: Paul Gallo <pgallo@telesouth.com (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=pgallo@telesouth.com)>,
"Pres. Barack Hussein Obama II (Dem.)" <info@messages.whitehouse.gov (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=info@messages.whitehouse.gov)>,
"Rep. D. Stephen Holland (Dem.)" <jcompretta@house.ms.gov (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jcompretta@house.ms.gov)>,
"Rep. Gary Chism (Rep.)" <gchism@house.ms.gov (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gchism@house.ms.gov)>,
"Rep. John Mayo (Dem.)" <jmayo@house.ms.gov (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jmayo@house.ms.gov)>,
"Rep. John W. Hines, Sr. (Dem.)" <jhines@house.ms.gov (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jhines@house.ms.gov)>,
"Rep. Mac Huddleston (Rep.)" <mhuddleston@house.ms.gov (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mhuddleston@house.ms.gov)>,
"Rep. Willie Bailey (Dem.)" <wbailey@house.ms.gov (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wbailey@house.ms.gov)>,
"Rep.Greg Ward (Dem.)" <gward@house.ms.gov (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gward@house.ms.gov)>,
Roger Larsen <columbuspacket@cableone.net (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=columbuspacket@cableone.net)>,
"Sen. John McCain (Rep.)" <john@countryfirstpac.com (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=john@countryfirstpac.com)>,
"Senator Bob M. Dearing (Dem.)" <bdearing@senate.ms.gov (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=bdearing@senate.ms.gov)>,
"Senator Sidney Albritton (Rep.)" <salbritton@senate.ms.gov (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=salbritton@senate.ms.gov)>,
"Senator Terry Brown (Rep.)" <tbrown@senate.ms.gov (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=tbrown@senate.ms.gov)>,
"Senator Terry C. Burton (Rep.)" <tburton@senate.ms.gov (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=tburton@senate.ms.gov)>,
"Senator Videt Carmichael (Rep.)" <vcarmichael@senate.ms.gov (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vcarmichael@senate.ms.gov)>,
"U. S. Rep. Travis Childers (Dem.) Mississippi" <ms01ima@mail.house.gov (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ms01ima@mail.house.gov)>,
"U. S. Sen. John McCain (Rep.) Arizona" <john@johnmccain.com (http://us.mc819.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=john@johnmccain.com)>

Date: Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Subject: Wain Reily - Are you concerned enough to read parts of the Obama Socialist Health Care Bill?

O. W. (Wain) Reily, III - Columbus, Mississippi

http://sthumbnails.match.com/sthumbnails/51/61/56075161C.jpeg http://thumbnails.match.com/thumbnails/51/61/56075161A.jpeg (http://www.match.com/photomanager/PhotoDetail.aspx?P=1&lid=107)


(You may forward anything that I send to you!)

"GOD BLESS AMERICA" for "IN GOD WE TRUST"




I Love this country...
It is the government that concerns me!

#yiv903817019 .ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P{padding:0px;}#yiv903817019 .ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

Scroll down.

Specifics in the proposed Health Care Bill. Now you can read what Nancy Pelosi does not want you to see and why Barack Hussein Obama wants to rush the bill quickly through to passage.



It reads like a Communist Dictatorship!

And IF passed, that's exactly what we will be a Communist State!




I have been reading the 1000+ page house bill and I am e-mailing you my findings.

Read the last paragraph and YOU decide.



**************************************************





Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL


EMPLOYERS that self insure!!





Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that


decides what treatments and benefits you get





Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!





Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your


HC benefits for you. You have no choice!





Pg 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US


citizens, illegal or otherwise





Pg 58 HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access to individuals'


finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!





Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your


banks' accounts for election funds transfer





Pg 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their


families in unions & community orgs (ACORN).





Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating a HC Exchange to bring private HC


plans under Govt control.





Pg 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs for private


HC plans in the Exchange





Pg 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt


will ration your Healthcare!





Pg 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic-appropriate


services. Example: Translation for illegal aliens





Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups (i.e., ACORN &


Americorps) to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan





Pg 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels for Plans. #AARP members


- your health care will be rationed.





PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid-eligible individuals will be


automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.





Pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No


“judicial review” against Govt Monopoly.





Pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU


what you can make.





Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST automatically enroll employees


into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE





Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for health care for part-time


employees AND their families.





Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY employer with a payroll of $400k and above


who does not provide pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll





Pg 150 Lines 9-13 Businesses with payroll between $251k & 400k who


don't provide pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll





Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC


according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income





Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from


individual taxes. (Americans will pay)





Pg 195 HC Bill - Officers and employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will


have access to ALL Americans' financial and personal records.





Pg 203 Line 14-15 HC - “The tax imposed under this section shall


not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that.





Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician services for


Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected





Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors will all be paid the same,


regardless of what specialty you have.





Pg 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of doctor's time, professional


judgment, etc. Literally value of humans.





Pg 265 Sec 1131 Govt mandates and controls productivity for private


HC industries





Pg 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental and purchase of power


driven wheelchairs





Pg 272 SEC. 1145. Treatment of certain cancer hospitals. Cancer


patients: welcome to rationing!





Pg 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals for what it


deems preventable re admissions.





Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Doctors who treat a patient during initial


admission that results in a readmission will be penalized by the Govt.





Pg 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells


doctors what/how much they can own.





Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is


mandating hospitals cannot expand





Pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT


community input required. Can you say ACORN?!!





Pg 335 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Govt mandates establishment of outcome-


based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing





Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv


Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps into Govt plan





Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs


people.! WTF. My sis has down syndrome!!





Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory


Committee. Can you say HC by phone?





Pg 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult.


Think Senior Citizens end of life





Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct and consult regarding living


wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!





Pg 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides approved list of


end of life resources, guiding you in death. Excuse me???!?!?!?





Pg 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of


life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends





Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An “advance care planning consult” will be used


frequently as patients health deteriorates





Pg 429 Lines 10-12 “Advance care consultation” may include an


ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV





Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write


an end of life order.





Pg 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you


will have at end of life





Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs.


Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?




Pg 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. One monthly


payment to a community-based org. Like ACORN?





Pg 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy.


Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage





Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Services including


defining, creating, rationing those same services



As I said there are over 1000 pages in this Bill. If I can read it so can the law makers.
Notice I did not say your law maker, because most of us have a renegade running
brainless in the halls of Congress... not representing us.

Wain Reily

Sounds; socialized dictatorship

[mookiemookie]

Words


That's already been debunked.

It amazes me that people forward on these distortions, half truths and out and out fabrications. Absolutely amazes me. At least we know why the politicians are opposed to health care refrorm - they're getting campaign contributions by the insurance companies. But everyday Americans who forward this garbage on and act as insurance company shills...let me tell you something: they are screwing us. They do not care about us. Are you really married to the party line so much that you'll repeat "healthcare reform is bad" because your paid-for lord and masters in Washington do it? Even when it's in such clear opposition to your own well being?

I'm sure the executives at Aetna, Wellpoint and the rest are having a good laugh at the rubes who help them spread their message. It reminds me of the battered wife who protects her husband and won't press charges or leave him because "he's not so bad, and it's not his fault."

[SteamWake]

they're getting campaign contributions by the insurance companies. But everyday Americans who forward this garbage on and act as insurance company shills...

The bill passed in the house yesterday.

Off to the senate it goes.

So much for that theory.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99PPHV80&show_article=1

[Aramike]

The bill passed in the house yesterday.

Off to the senate it goes.

So much for that theory.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99PPHV80&show_article=1The bill didn't pass in the House. It just got through committee. It won't hit the floor of the House until September.

[SteamWake]

The bill didn't pass in the House. It just got through committee. It won't hit the floor of the House until September.

You are correct sorry about that. Well now they have a summer reading project :haha:

[mookiemookie]

Hey this guy sounds like he's got a future here in GT:


What’s Not to Like?

Reform? Why do we need health-care reform? Everything is just fine the way it is.
By Jonathan Alter (http://www.newsweek.com/id/182970) | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jul 31, 2009

Go ahead, shoot me. I like the status quo on health care in the United States. I've got health insurance and I don't give a damn about the 47 million suckers who don't. Obama and Congress must be stopped. No bill! I'm better off the way things are.

I'm with that woman who wrote the president complaining about "socialized medicine" and added: "Now keep your hands off my Medicare." That's the spirit!

Why should I be entitled to the same insurance that members of Congress get? Blue Dogs need a lot of medical attention to treat their blueness. I'm just a regular guy and definitely deserve less.

I had cancer a few years ago. I like the fact that if I lose my job, I won't be able to get any insurance because of my illness. It reminds me of my homeowners' insurance, which gets canceled after a break-in. I like the choice I'd face if, God forbid, the cancer recurs—sell my house to pay for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment, or die. That's what you call a "post-existing condition."

I like the absence of catastrophic insurance today. It meant that my health-insurance plan (one of the better ones, by the way) only covered about 75 percent of the cost of my cutting-edge treatment. That's as it should be—face cancer and shell out huge amounts of money at the same time. Nice.

I like the "lifetime limits" that many policies have today. Missed the fine print on that one, did you? It means that after you exceed a certain amount of reimbursement, you don't get anything more from the insurance company. That's fair.

Speaking of fair, it seems fair to me that cost-cutting bureaucrats at the insurance companies—not doctors—decide what's reimbursable. After all, the insurance companies know best.

Yes, the insurance company status quo rocks. I learned recently about something called the "loading fees" of insurance companies. That's how much of every health-care dollar gets spent by insurance companies on things other than the medical care—paperwork, marketing, profits, etc. According to a University of Minnesota study, up to 47 percent of all the money going into the health-insurance system is consumed in "loading fees." Even good insurance companies spend close to 30 percent on nonmedical stuff. Sweet.

The good news is that the $8,000 a year per family that Americans pay for their employer-based health insurance is heading up! According to the Council of Economic Advisers, it will hit $25,000 per family by 2025. The sourpusses who want health-care reform say that's "unsustainable." Au contraire.

And how could the supporters of these reform bills believe in anything as stupid as a "public option"? Do they really believe that the health-insurance cartel deserves a little competition to keep them honest? Back in the day, they had a word for competition. A bad word. They called it capitalism. FedEx versus the U.S. Postal Service, CNN versus PBS—just because it's government-backed doesn't mean you can't compete against it. If they believed in capitalism, the insurance companies would join the fray and compete.

I'm glad they don't. I prefer the status quo, where the for-profit insurance companies suck at the teat of the federal government. Corporate welfare's what we've got, and it's a damn good system. Through a wonderful program called Medicare Advantage, the insurance companies receive hundreds of billions of dollars in fees to administer a program that the government is already running. Don't touch that baby. You'd be messing with the handiwork of some fine lobbyists.

You know what part of the status quo I like best? It's a longstanding system for paying doctors called "fee for service." That's where doctors get paid for each procedure they perform, as if my auto dealer got paid separately for the steering wheel, brakes, and horn instead of for the car. Fee-for-service is why the medical care at that doc-in-a-box at my mall is so superior to the Mayo Clinic or Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, where the doctors are on salary. Who would want to mess with that?

OK, if you really press me, I'm for one change. It's the one that Republicans trot out to prove they're "reformers," too. We could save our whole system if we just capped malpractice awards. Two of our biggest states—California and Texas—did it a few years ago and nothing has changed there, but who cares? It sounds good.

So tell your congressmen and senators when they're home for the summer recess that it's too soon to address this issue. We've only been debating it for 97 years, since Theodore Roosevelt put national health insurance in the Bull Moose Party platform of 1912. We've only had 745 congressional hearings on the subject (I made that number up, but it's got to be close). That's not enough! Let's study this problem more before we do anything about it.

Did I say "problem"? Who said there was a problem? Not me. I like the status quo.
Find this article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/209817

[CastleBravo]

Do you want this......really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egcIKZoNGd8

Thanks for the merge!!

[Onkel Neal]

That means it's dead. Too much time for the insurance industry to sway public opinion against it. The same thing that happened to Hillarycare.


Speaking of insurance industry, how did I miss this? :o



The president and his party have received more money from private insurers and the for-profit health care industry than even Republicans, with the president alone taking $19 million in the 2008 election cycle alone, (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=H&cycle=2008&recipdetail=P&mem=N&sortorder=U) more than all his Repubican, Democratic and independent rivals combined.


Now, how does one square that?

Quote lifted from:
Top Ten Ways To Tell Your President & His Party Aren't Fighting For Health Care For Everybody (http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/top-ten-ways-tell-your-president-his-party-arent-fighting-health-care-everybody)

[Steel_Tomb]

I think everyone is entitled to free health care, whoever and wherever they are. I think its sickening that you have to pay for health care over there to be honest. "I'm sorry Mrs Jones, but your son passed away on the operating table... that'll be $5000 please".

If your fortunate to be able to afford private insurance, great... good for you. But what about the poor sod and his family who has no job, lost there home and now one of them is suffering from a serious illness... you think its right for them to simply be left to suffer whilst the fortunate few get great care...

Its wrong... no matter how you morally try to justify it.

I think it would be an amazing achievement for the USA to create something resembling the NHS over here in the UK (just preferably one that works and is funded properly). The US has the money and the capability to make this work... and work very well... I will follow this with interest.

[Onkel Neal]

Entitled? No. Quite honestly, there's no future in that.

[AVGWarhawk]

Entitlement should never be part of the equation in this or any instance.

[mookiemookie]

Neither should people having to die because a Wall Street investor demands year over year EPS growth.

[AVGWarhawk]

Neither should people having to die because a Wall Street investor demands year over year EPS growth.

Can you show me the correllation between Wall Street and health care? I do not see any to be honest. :hmmm: The drug companies have a play on Wall Street but there is much more to the equation than just drug companies.

[Tchocky]

Yep, HMO's are nice mom-and pop places.

[mookiemookie]

Can you show me the correllation between Wall Street and health care? I do not see any to be honest. :hmmm:


"[T]hey confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors," former Cigna senior executive Wendell Potter said during a hearing on health insurance today before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Potter, who has more than 20 years of experience working in public relations for insurance companies Cigna and Humana, said companies routinely drop seriously ill policyholders so they can meet "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

"They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment," Potter said. "…(D)umping a small number of enrollees can have a big effect on the bottom line."http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Health/story?id=7911195&page=1

[AVGWarhawk]

Potter has some hard evidence of this? I would suspect if this was found to be true said insurance company that was practicing this would be in a crap load of trouble. No? There is so much more than just insurance companies involved when it comes to the high cost of healthcare. There is malpractice insurance that do to people looking to retire early on tort cases involving doctors or a hospital. We have to remember, some of this is brought on by the patient and not just the hospitals/drug companies. All can not be pinned on Wall Street. The ENTIRE system needs an overhaul to be honest Mookie. Wall Street is just part of that overhaul.

[TDK1044]

Neither should people having to die because a Wall Street investor demands year over year EPS growth.

They'll certainly start dying once health care rationing is imposed by the Government. And a rationing of healthcare is a certainty if the Obama plan reaches fruition.

Once you eliminate private health insurance, which is Obama's ultimate goal, then you can't possibly service the needs of all the sick people all of the time, and so you start to set criteria boundries. They would start to deny certain procedures and treatments based on age or pre existing conditions.

When my father needed heart bypass surgery in the UK about 15 years ago, the wait time for his surgery using the British National Health Service was 1 year. He'd have been dead in 3 months had my sister and I not paid for the surgery ourselves and got him the operation he needed in under two weeks.

Under the Obama plan, my sister and I would not have been allowed to use our own money to save our father's life. After all, that's cheating right? Why should we be allowed to spend thousands of Dollars we worked very hard to save so that we could choose to save the life of our father?

Obama is an honorable man and he means well, but if he can't run 'cash for clunkers' without turning it into a cluster f**k, then his naive healthcare plan will be literally breath taking!

[Tchocky]

Under the Obama plan, my sister and I would not have been allowed to use our own money to save our father's life. After all, that's cheating right? Why should we be allowed to spend thousands of Dollars we worked very hard to save so that we could choose to save the life of our father?[citation needed]

EDIT - Have you any sources for this, TDK?

[AVGWarhawk]

Obama is an honorable man and he means well, but if he can't run 'cash for clunkers' without turning it into a cluster f**k, then his naive healthcare plan will be literally breath taking!

Dead on TDK! Just look at Medicade..it is in shambles.

[AVGWarhawk]

Truly, Bush was a disgrace in many things but Walter Reed takes the cake:


Recovering soldiers face bureaucratic delays, overworked case managers and appalling living conditions, including black mold, cheap mattresses and cockroaches.


This is a government run hospital for veterans. This is how the government handles veteran healthcare and recovery. Do you think the common citizen will see anything better? Doubtful at best.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-rieckhoff/walter-reed-hospital-mice_b_41693.html

[mookiemookie]

Potter has some hard evidence of this? I would suspect if this was found to be true said insurance company that was practicing this would be in a crap load of trouble. No? There is so much more than just insurance companies involved when it comes to the high cost of healthcare. There is malpractice insurance that do to people looking to retire early on tort cases involving doctors or a hospital. We have to remember, some of this is brought on by the patient and not just the hospitals/drug companies. All can not be pinned on Wall Street. The ENTIRE system needs an overhaul to be honest Mookie. Wall Street is just part of that overhaul.

Tort reform has already happened in California and Texas. Back in 06 Texas capped malpractice claims at $250k against doctors and it has done nothing to stem the tide of rising healthcare costs. It's like you're throwing a cup of water on a house fire.

And it CAN all be pinned on he fact that these are FOR PROFIT companies acting to maximize their bottom lines.

They'll certainly start dying once health care rationing is imposed by the Government. And a rationing of healthcare is a certainty if the Obama plan reaches fruition.

We already ration healthcare according to ability to pay.

Milton Friedman (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/milton_friedman/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s beloved line (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/magazine/27wwwl-guestsafire-t.html) is a good way to frame the issue: There is no such thing as a free lunch. The choice isn’t between rationing and not rationing. It’s between rationing well and rationing badly. Given that the United States devotes far more of its economy to health care (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Charts/Report/The-Swiss-and-Dutch-Health-Insurance-Systems--Universal-Coverage-and-Regulated-Competitive-Insurance/H/Health-Expenditures-as-a-Percentage-of-GDP--1980-2006.aspx) than other rich countries, and gets worse results by many measures, it’s hard to argue that we are now rationing very rationally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html

[geetrue]

We already ration healthcare according to ability to pay.



+ Transportation, housing and food all come under the same heading.

I grew up in a world where the rich were rich and the poor were poor ...

Now someone wants us all to be equal ... not right away of course, but if they pass this health care bill it can only lead to more of the government being involved in your everyday life from the time you are born till the day you die.

[AVGWarhawk]

Tort reform has already happened in California and Texas. Back in 06 Texas capped malpractice claims at $250k against doctors and it has done nothing to stem the tide of rising healthcare costs. It's like you're throwing a cup of water on a house fire.



Mookie...that is only two states sir! :hmmm: Hardly a dent in this issue. Every state needs it!

[Steel_Tomb]

How the heck do you guys think that certain people shouldn't be allowed to get care when they need it? To simply give health care to people who are wealthy is wrong... people who are poor and unable to buy insurance are just as deserving of care when they're sick or injured as anyone else weather it be joe blogs or the president himself. Your all people, but you think that some people aren't worth the effort from what I read here.

[SteamWake]

How the heck do you guys think that certain people shouldn't be allowed to get care when they need it? To simply give health care to people who are wealthy is wrong... people who are poor and unable to buy insurance are just as deserving of care when they're sick or injured as anyone else weather it be joe blogs or the president himself. Your all people, but you think that some people aren't worth the effort from what I read here.

The health care industry at least in the united states curently turns no one away regardless of wether or not they can pay. In fact it is one of the factors leading to the astronomical costs.

There are some cases where 'poor' patients are deferred to 'other' health care facilitys but I dont want to get into the first ladys closet and they still recieved at least some help.

[AVGWarhawk]

How the heck do you guys think that certain people shouldn't be allowed to get care when they need it? To simply give health care to people who are wealthy is wrong... people who are poor and unable to buy insurance are just as deserving of care when they're sick or injured as anyone else weather it be joe blogs or the president himself. Your all people, but you think that some people aren't worth the effort from what I read here.

No one here believes certain people should not be allowed to get health care. That is nonsense. However, some people choose not to have it. Some employers offer it but the employee gets less pay or they pay the employee more but the employee has to go get his own insurance. I have never worked for a company that did not offer healthcare benefits nor will I. If someone takes a job without benefits that is their choice. If they decide to have more take home pay instead of benefits that is their choice. If they sit on the couch and decide not to work and have no benefits...why should I have to pay for this person benefits?

[TDK1044]

Ironically, I think this is as much a legal issue as it is a medical one.

If you ask the simple question "why is private healthcare so expensive in this Country?" I think there are two main reasons. The first is because of the massive amount of malpractice insurance that Doctors have to pay to cover themselves against nonsense lawsuits. If you have to earn $150,000 a year just to pay your malpractice insurance, then it's little wonder we are where we are.

The second is that insurance by definition is supposed to cover a person against unforseen events that may occur unexpectedly in their life. But that's not how people have been sold on it or how they use it. People see insurance as a payment plan to cover events that are forseen.

If a couple is going to have a baby for example, they will take out medical insurance....not so much in case of a problem during delivery, but to help them pay for all of the hospital visits, tests etc that happen during the 9 months prior to the birth. These are not unforseen events. These events are part of having a baby and should not be covered by insurance. If you can't afford them then don't have one.

If we used insurance the way it was designed to be used, and if we protected Doctors against nonsense lawsuits by setting a cap in most non life threatening or life altering cases, guess what would happen to the cost of your insurance folks? It would drop faster that Dolly Parton's boobs.

[August]

These events are part of having a baby and should not be covered by insurance. If you can't afford them then don't have one.

FYI you're talking upwards of $20k assuming everything goes well. Hundreds of thousands more if it doesn't. That's a lot of scratch for most people.

[Tchocky]

Well that's just your hard luck, I imagine.

I like the system whereby I've already paid my part through taxes, and no matter what happens during the pregnancy/birth, I'll be able to find care without bankrupting myself. I'd like to live somewhere like that, too. Alas...

[AVGWarhawk]

I like the system whereby I've already paid my part through taxes, and no matter what happens during the pregnancy/birth, I'll be able to find care without bankrupting myself. I'd like to live somewhere like that, too. Alas...

Sounds like Utopia. Unfortune that Utopia does not exist.

[AVGWarhawk]

FYI you're talking upwards of $20k assuming everything goes well. Hundreds of thousands more if it doesn't. That's a lot of scratch for most people.

Concerning care for those without insurance...they get the care but those that pay for private health insurance pay for that 'free' care in the premiums. The Johns Hopkins NICU had several babies from mothers on crack who obviously were not insured. The babies got the same care.

[TDK1044]

FYI you're talking upwards of $20k assuming everything goes well. Hundreds of thousands more if it doesn't. That's a lot of scratch for most people.


Sure. I certainly take your point. My point is that there is a difference between a payment plan and insurance. We take structural insurance out on our houses in case a tree falls on it during a storm, and we take out content insurance because of the slight possibility of an electrical fire or theft. Most people will thankfully never use that insurance, but it's there if an unforseen event takes place.

I've paid medical insurance for 30 years, and I used it (other than office copays) for the first time this year. I had a life threatening, unforseen event that put me in the icu for 5 days. My medical bill was just under $100,000...my contribution was $3500. And with my insurance, because I have now met the max payout for the year, I'm getting a colonoscopy done free. That's how insurance should work.

[Max2147]

Capping malpractice suits has been tried in several states. It hasn't brought down the cost of health care at all.

[AVGWarhawk]

Capping malpractice suits has been tried in several states. It hasn't brought down the cost of health care at all.

No, it needs to be done in all states and held in place. This is only part of the problem. Obviously drug companies need to be looked at and explain why some drugs cost are outlandish. Hospitals need to look be at and find out why their costs are high. It is an entire overhaul of the system. Malpractice insurance is a huge one and obviously that starts with tort reform and ridiculas lawsuits.

[August]

I'm getting a colonoscopy done free. That's how insurance should work.

I got one of those coming up next year and i'm not looking forward to it.

[AVGWarhawk]

I got one of those coming up next year and i'm not looking forward to it.

No worries...it will all be BEHIND you before long.

[SteamWake]

No worries...it will all be BEHIND you before long.

Everything will work out in the end, hope it comes out allright :haha:

[August]

Everything will work out in the end, hope it comes out allright :haha:

I just know it will be a pain in the ass!

[SteamWake]

I just know it will be a pain in the ass!

Just make sure the practitioner doesent have both hands on your shoulders :har:

[mookiemookie]

The health care industry at least in the united states curently turns no one away regardless of wether or not they can pay. In fact it is one of the factors leading to the astronomical costs.

There are some cases where 'poor' patients are deferred to 'other' health care facilitys but I dont want to get into the first ladys closet and they still recieved at least some help.

Really? I'm sure that will come as news to the woman in this story who was denied the cancer treatment recommended by her doctor. Blue Shield stepped in between the doctor and patient and said NO.

http://cbs5.com/local/cancer.treatment.denied.2.1007394.html

[Steel_Tomb]

Well that's just your hard luck, I imagine.

I like the system whereby I've already paid my part through taxes, and no matter what happens during the pregnancy/birth, I'll be able to find care without bankrupting myself. I'd like to live somewhere like that, too. Alas...

Sounds like the NHS ;), you pay for it through tax and have access to it when ever you need it.