PDA

View Full Version : Yeah we don't need Healthcare Reform


Stlrs4Life
08-04-2009, 09:20 PM
You neo cons are right:


http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN07651650



France best, US worst in preventable death ranking




By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON, Jan 8 (Reuters) - France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.

If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.

Researchers Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine tracked deaths that they deemed could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, and ranked nations on how they did.

They called such deaths an important way to gauge the performance of a country's health care system.

Nolte said the large number of Americans who lack any type of health insurance -- about 47 million people in a country of about 300 million, according to U.S. government estimates -- probably was a key factor in the poor showing of the United States compared to other industrialized nations in the study.

"I wouldn't say it (the last-place ranking) is a condemnation, because I think health care in the U.S. is pretty good if you have access. But if you don't, I think that's the main problem, isn't it?" Nolte said in a telephone interview.

In establishing their rankings, the researchers considered deaths before age 75 from numerous causes, including heart disease, stroke, certain cancers, diabetes, certain bacterial infections and complications of common surgical procedures.

Such deaths accounted for 23 percent of overall deaths in men and 32 percent of deaths in women, the researchers said.

France did best -- with 64.8 deaths deemed preventable by timely and effective health care per 100,000 people, in the study period of 2002 and 2003. Japan had 71.2 and Australia had 71.3 such deaths per 100,000 people. The United States had 109.7 such deaths per 100,000 people, the researchers said.

After the top three, Spain was fourth best, followed in order by Italy, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, Britain, Ireland and Portugal, with the United States last.

PREVIOUS RANKINGS

The researchers compared these rankings with rankings for the same 19 countries covering the period of 1997 and 1998. France and Japan also were first and second in those rankings, while the United States was 15th, meaning it fell four places in the latest rankings.

All the countries made progress in reducing preventable deaths from these earlier rankings, the researchers said. These types of deaths dropped by an average of 16 percent for the nations in the study, but the U.S. decline was only 4 percent.

The research was backed by the Commonwealth Fund, a private New York-based health policy foundation.

"It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance," Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen said.

"The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals and efforts to improve health systems make a difference," Schoen added in a statement.

(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)




&*$% FRANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Better than us!

JEFF4i
08-04-2009, 09:23 PM
The French are afraid of everything, even death?

Makes sense to me.

MACH1
08-04-2009, 09:31 PM
http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/images/jtr10/07-01-07c-1_obama_koolaid.jpg

Godfather
08-04-2009, 09:34 PM
We absolutely need health care reform. But the current proposals in Congress suck donkey balls.

SteelersinCA
08-05-2009, 12:06 AM
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

I was unaware that Great Britain, France or the United States were in tropical or subtropical regions. What's next a study that smoking is good for you from an arctic medical school?

X-Terminator
08-05-2009, 12:17 AM
I didn't know being against Obama's version of "healthcare reform" meant that we don't need it. :noidea:

Come on, dude. There's no question that the system needs reformed. A full government takeover of the system is NOT the answer, however. A public-private partnership is, IMO, the way to go. People can still purchase their own plans or keep the insurance that their employers offer, while having the public option available for those who are unable to afford or aren't eligible for health benefits through their employers. Bottom line - I should NOT have to be forced to take the government plan if I don't want to, especially if it's better than anything the government has to offer.

Oh and BTW, when you have a LOT of people from those countries with "better" health care systems coming to the U.S. to have their medical procedures done, I think that's a pretty good indicator that our health care does not suck.

revefsreleets
08-05-2009, 07:46 AM
No doubt the system is broke. But is the answer some half-assed bill no one has read being snuck in at the last minute?

No.

Sorry, this dog don't hunt. As Godfather said, the current proposal sucks Bengals Butt...

Instead, the government should take time. Go slow. Examine ALL the options. Make a wise and sound plan, go slowly, and do it right. Dole/Daschle have a semi-workable proposal. I'm sure there are other, much more sensible plans that can be implemented. The POS in congress will take a good thing with lots of problems and make it a bad thing with nothing BUT problems.

KeiselPower99
08-05-2009, 08:16 AM
http://bedlammagazine.com/files/images/news/Obama-socialism_0.jpg

CantStop85
08-05-2009, 12:12 PM
http://bedlammagazine.com/files/images/news/Obama-socialism_0.jpg

http://www.demotivateus.com/posters/sense-darth-vader-demotivational-poster1.jpg

Dino 6 Rings
08-05-2009, 12:22 PM
So in France, when someone finally gets around to actually being ALLOWED to see the doctor and actually is ALLOWED to have the surgery performed that they were waiting for in some cases for years, they tend to live.

Total Propagda BULLLSHIT Post trying to convince the US That having the Government Take Over our Current system is the way to go. Its total nonsense.

Allow Insurance companies to compete from state to state and TORT REFORM will cause Premiums to go down all Dropping the cost of Health Care. But the Fcking Lawyers in Washington don't want any kind of Tort Reform. Nope...they suck the system dry with their lawsuits upon lawsuits while we pay $500 bucks for an asperin in the Emergency Room.

Dino 6 Rings
08-05-2009, 12:26 PM
Yes something needs to be done. But for the Current Administration and Current Majority in the Congress to try and sell us on the Government being in charge of ALL Health Care is total BS. There is no way I want some lawyer in Washington deciding what type of medical treatment my Doctor (Who I know personally) can give me and for how much. That should be left up to me and him. OR with different competing Insurance Companies that are trying to get my business.

EPIC FAIL is what is happening right now. 1100 pages of Bullllshiiiit.

steelreserve
08-05-2009, 12:42 PM
We absolutely need health care reform. But the current proposals in Congress suck donkey balls.

Exactly. We had a meeting at the company I work for this morning, and the CEO remarked that we currently spend about 15% of the payroll on health coverage (and employees contribute about half that amount on top of it, out of their own paychecks). The government's proposal is that if a company doesn't provide health insurance, it'll face an 8% tax on its payroll.

Knowing that, is the government's 8% plan going to pay for health coverage that's very good? And since the government program would essentially be giving employers a way to slash their operating expenses by 10%, it would be absolutely stupid of them not to say, "OK, we're getting rid of our health insurance program; you can all go to Obamacare now."

That in itself is going to lead to fully government-run health care almost overnight -- and shitty health care at that -- despite all the bullshit about it just being one option that competes with private insurance plans.

SteelCityMan786
08-05-2009, 01:16 PM
Yes we need reform.

But The Conservatives Do NOT want the govt. running it. You know what happens with govt. run systems

Indo
08-05-2009, 04:32 PM
First, the Reuters article you referenced was published in Jan. 2008...

Second, Relying on any news organization to accurately report scientific data is just silly. They are full of bias and completely unreliable as they typically report only one side of the story

Here is a link to a retort to the findings published in that article...


http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/27/4/1196-a

Pay particuliar attention to this sentence, taken from the retort::

The argument might well be made that the other countries should emulate the United States in terms of mortality decline from other causes.

Interpretation--this whole "scientific research paper" may be a bunch of Bullsh*t

SteelTalons
08-05-2009, 06:49 PM
You neo cons are right:


http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN07651650



France best, US worst in preventable death ranking




By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON, Jan 8 (Reuters) - France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.

If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.

Researchers Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine tracked deaths that they deemed could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, and ranked nations on how they did.

They called such deaths an important way to gauge the performance of a country's health care system.

Nolte said the large number of Americans who lack any type of health insurance -- about 47 million people in a country of about 300 million, according to U.S. government estimates -- probably was a key factor in the poor showing of the United States compared to other industrialized nations in the study.

"I wouldn't say it (the last-place ranking) is a condemnation, because I think health care in the U.S. is pretty good if you have access. But if you don't, I think that's the main problem, isn't it?" Nolte said in a telephone interview.

In establishing their rankings, the researchers considered deaths before age 75 from numerous causes, including heart disease, stroke, certain cancers, diabetes, certain bacterial infections and complications of common surgical procedures.

Such deaths accounted for 23 percent of overall deaths in men and 32 percent of deaths in women, the researchers said.

France did best -- with 64.8 deaths deemed preventable by timely and effective health care per 100,000 people, in the study period of 2002 and 2003. Japan had 71.2 and Australia had 71.3 such deaths per 100,000 people. The United States had 109.7 such deaths per 100,000 people, the researchers said.

After the top three, Spain was fourth best, followed in order by Italy, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, Britain, Ireland and Portugal, with the United States last.

PREVIOUS RANKINGS

The researchers compared these rankings with rankings for the same 19 countries covering the period of 1997 and 1998. France and Japan also were first and second in those rankings, while the United States was 15th, meaning it fell four places in the latest rankings.

All the countries made progress in reducing preventable deaths from these earlier rankings, the researchers said. These types of deaths dropped by an average of 16 percent for the nations in the study, but the U.S. decline was only 4 percent.

The research was backed by the Commonwealth Fund, a private New York-based health policy foundation.

"It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance," Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen said.

"The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals and efforts to improve health systems make a difference," Schoen added in a statement.

(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)




&*$% FRANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Better than us!

Dont try and make conservatives think. Ive learned that its like screaming at a brick wall.

And to those who think oh well thats an old article. The fact still stands we pay far to much for health care right now for such a mediocre result. If you don't trust a scientific research paper(one that has to be checked for its accuracy) who do you trust?! Collect multiple sources and compare the data.

Of course, a lot of this just stems from people not wanting to pay taxes to pay for it. Lets face it people didn't care about taxation without representation. They didn't want any damn taxes period. Just look at the Articles of Confederation, you saw how that worked out didn't you? Hence why we have the constitution now. :banging:

You woulda thought considering we are in a recession and all the drama around the world. And the healthcare being suspect at best, people would warm up to the idea of fixing a broken system. Instead they complain and offer NO SOLUTIONS to the problem besides leave it as it is.

And its not just healthcare its everything. Why are people so afraid of the government? Do you trust some greedy executive with your healthcare. You'll really hate them when they screw you out of coverage or drop you. Id much rather have to government running it considering if they screw up we can boot them out and put someone else in charge of it. Even if it has a Czar who we didn't elect, pressure his boss that you elected and that boss will replace him.

Id love it, it healthcare worked as well as something like... The post office.

MACH1
08-05-2009, 06:55 PM
Dont try and make conservatives think. Ive learned that its like screaming at a brick wall.

And to those who think oh well thats an old article. The fact still stands we pay far to much for health care right now for such a mediocre result. If you don't trust a scientific research paper(one that has to be checked for its accuracy) who do you trust?! Collect multiple sources and compare the data.

Of course, a lot of this just stems from people not wanting to pay taxes to pay for it. Lets face it people didn't care about taxation without representation. They didn't want any damn taxes period. Just look at the Articles of Confederation, you saw how that worked out didn't you? Hence why we have the constitution now. :banging:

You woulda thought considering we are in a recession and all the drama around the world. And the healthcare being suspect at best, people would warm up to the idea of fixing a broken system. Instead they complain and offer NO SOLUTIONS to the problem besides leave it as it is.

And its not just healthcare its everything. Why are people so afraid of the government? Do you trust some greedy executive with your healthcare. You'll really hate them when they screw you out of coverage or drop you. Id much rather have to government running it considering if they screw up we can boot them out and put someone else in charge of it. Even if it has a Czar who we didn't elect, pressure his boss that you elected and that boss will replace him.

Id love it, it healthcare worked as well as something like... The post office.

Yup...we wouldn't want anybody to have a mind of their own or opinions that differ from the all mighty OMGbaaama. :coffee:

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
08-05-2009, 07:08 PM
As much as we need national healthcare, it is not on the republican agenda (politics) so people will not think for themselves and see the good, Many will just listen to talk radio and fox (news)/ entertainment.

SteelTalons
08-05-2009, 07:21 PM
Yup...we wouldn't want anybody to have a mind of their own or opinions that differ from the all mighty OMGbaaama. :coffee:

Hey Im not asking for much man. All I want you conservatives to do is put together a plan to fix healthcare. And one that is actually viable, if you could come up with one that would be an improvement. Id consider it, especially if it was cheaper and offered something similar to what we are gonna get with this one OMGbaaama the almight messiah of us Kool-aid drinkers is trying to push through.

But there is one key problem. You dont have one! Why are you gonna bad mouth something if you can't come up with anything better.

This should not a matter of Republican vs Democrats. This should be a matter of fixing a broken system and presenting viable ways of fixing it. Not this nonsense of, let the free markets do it, look if you wanna play that route we have to come with some rules so people dont get hurt by corporate greed and a good way of making it affordable to everyone.

Not this crap where a lot of people aren't covered period!

HometownGal
08-05-2009, 07:55 PM
This should not a matter of Republican vs Democrats.

Dont try and make conservatives think. Ive learned that its like screaming at a brick wall.


Ahem . . . . :tap: You were saying?


Not this crap where a lot of people aren't covered period!

Do you include illegals in that lot? Under Obaaaaaama's current proposal, the health care plan would include those leeches who feed off of OUR country and OUR tax dollars.

Ask any Brit or Canadian on this board how they feel about socialized medicine.

MACH1
08-05-2009, 07:56 PM
Hey Im not asking for much man. All I want you conservatives to do is put together a plan to fix healthcare. And one that is actually viable, if you could come up with one that would be an improvement. Id consider it, especially if it was cheaper and offered something similar to what we are gonna get with this one OMGbaaama the almight messiah of us Kool-aid drinkers is trying to push through.

But there is one key problem. You dont have one! Why are you gonna bad mouth something if you can't come up with anything better.

This should not a matter of Republican vs Democrats. This should be a matter of fixing a broken system and presenting viable ways of fixing it. Not this nonsense of, let the free markets do it, look if you wanna play that route we have to come with some rules so people dont get hurt by corporate greed and a good way of making it affordable to everyone.

Not this crap where a lot of people aren't covered period!

The plan as it is now SUCKS ASS.

I'm not health care expert. Oh wait, neither is obaaama or acorn. He should stick to what he knows, organizing a community circus. Um....

And yes, the system needs tweaking, they should start by tweaking the insurance companies and drug mfgs , not tweaking the people who are going to be the ones paying to get on the waiting list to die.

Stlrs4Life
08-05-2009, 08:00 PM
I was unaware that Great Britain, France or the United States were in tropical or subtropical regions. What's next a study that smoking is good for you from an arctic medical school?


Oh, when I went to school, I thought Florida in a way is a tropical region.

Stlrs4Life
08-05-2009, 08:02 PM
Yes we need reform.

But The Conservatives Do NOT want the govt. running it. You know what happens with govt. run systems


Doesn't have to be gov't run. Republicans want status qou.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts840



Op-Ed: Health reform will empower families against market constraints



Tue Jul 28, 4:48 am ET
By Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
Washington, DC — For decades, Washington has talked about fixing a broken health care system. And for decades Washington failed to act – allowing the special interests to stall reform while the cracks in the system turned into crevices, then craters.
But today, we are closer than ever to the change we need. Key committees in Congress have reached a striking degree of consensus about how to control costs, guarantee coverage, and provide more choices for every American. America’s doctors and nurses have announced their support. And even hospitals, drug and insurance companies have pledged to do their part to control costs.

Change is never easy and recently, some defenders of the status quo have made themselves heard.

One Republican Senator said, “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” And a leading political strategist urged fellow Republicans to “resist the temptation” to be “constructive or, at least responsible,” and instead work to “kill” health care reform.

These opponents of change may understand how to score political points in Washington, but they don’t seem to understand the stakes for the country. The health care status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable for our families, our businesses, and our nation as a whole.

Today nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured and are one illness or accident away from losing everything. Millions more are under-insured. Since 2004, the number of under-insured families – those who pay for coverage but are unprotected against high costs – rose by 60 percent.

Even Americans with insurance find themselves paying more and getting less. In the past decade, premiums have doubled, rising three times as fast as wages and leaving families scrambling to close the gap. Last year, more than half of Americans skipped their medications or postponed medical because they couldn’t afford it.

Businesses – especially small businesses – aren’t faring much better. Skyrocketing health costs are making it even harder to compete in today’s global economy and forcing business owners to choose between staying afloat and providing health care for their workers.

At the same time, health care spending today consumes 30 percent more of state and local budgets than it did 20 years ago, forcing governments to choose between cutting services and raising taxes. And our national budget faces the same threat, with health care costs representing the single largest contributor to exploding long-term deficits.

America can’t afford to wait any longer for health care reform.

Some opponents of reform will try to scare Americans into thinking they’ll lose what they already have. Millions of Americans are happy with the coverage they have now, so let’s be clear: under any plan the Obama administration will support, if you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance; if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

In fact, the real threat to what works in our system comes from doing nothing. Without action, prices will continue to spiral out of control. More Americans will not be able to afford insurance at all, and those who can will continue to pay more for less.

So what will reform actually look like?

First, to provide Americans with more affordable choices, we’ll set up a marketplace where you can compare plans and pick the one that’s right for you. None of the plans would be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. And one of the options should be a public plan that would increase competition and keep private insurance companies honest.

Second, we have to align incentives for doctors and hospitals so that they’re rewarded based on the quality of care they provide, not on how many tests or procedures they prescribe.

Third, we need to move from a sickness system to a wellness system. By investing in prevention and emphasizing healthy lifestyles, we can save money while improving health.

Finally, reform must not add to our deficit over the next ten years. To that end, we have already identified hundreds of billions of dollars in savings – savings from money that’s already being spent on health care, but is funding waste and overpayments to insurance companies.

Put together, these changes will make quality, affordable coverage available to every American while bending the cost curve so that we don’t bury our children in debt. Fixing the system has never been so critical, and it has never been more squarely within our reach. Now it’s time to make reform a reality.

SteelTalons
08-05-2009, 08:07 PM
The plan as it is now SUCKS ASS.

I'm not health care expert. Oh wait, neither is obaaama or acorn. He should stick to what he knows, organizing a community circus. Um....

And yes, the system needs tweaking, they should start by tweaking the insurance companies and drug mfgs , not tweaking the people who are going to be the ones paying to get on the waiting list to die.

Here we go with that waiting list to die again. And also you must have missed the things Obama has been doing talking to healthcare providers and Drug Companies to low the price of healthcare.

Provide me with a factual argument against this system being proposed. Show me some reason reason for hating this system other than Glenn Beck and the Republican clowns pointing at often false or exaggerated things. No system is perfect obviously, but if you want addition coverage(like a supplement plan to compliment what you get) then Im sure that you will be able to pay for it. If not, you will at least get more than what a lot of people have now.

MACH1
08-05-2009, 08:13 PM
Here we go with that waiting list to die again. And also you must have missed the things Obama has been doing talking to healthcare providers and Drug Companies to low the price of healthcare.

Provide me with a factual argument against this system being proposed. Show me some reason reason for hating this system other than Glenn Beck and the Republican clowns pointing at often false or exaggerated things. No system is perfect obviously, but if you want addition coverage(like a supplement plan to compliment what you get) then Im sure that you will be able to pay for it. If not, you will at least get more than what a lot of people have now.


Ask someone from Canada or Brittan how that works.

Show me anything specific that ombaaama said about how the plan is going to work, who's going to pay for it. Not just general bs that he spews.

Stlrs4Life
08-05-2009, 08:16 PM
Have talked to canadiens about it. They have no problem with it.

Stlrs4Life
08-05-2009, 08:17 PM
Here we go with that waiting list to die again. And also you must have missed the things Obama has been doing talking to healthcare providers and Drug Companies to low the price of healthcare.

Provide me with a factual argument against this system being proposed. Show me some reason reason for hating this system other than Glenn Beck and the Republican clowns pointing at often false or exaggerated things. No system is perfect obviously, but if you want addition coverage(like a supplement plan to compliment what you get) then Im sure that you will be able to pay for it. If not, you will at least get more than what a lot of people have now.


Finally somebody else on this board gets it. Nice post. When I was in the Army, was I on Gov't Health Insurance? If so, I can't complain.

SteelTalons
08-05-2009, 09:52 PM
Ask someone from Canada or Brittan how that works.

Show me anything specific that ombaaama said about how the plan is going to work, who's going to pay for it. Not just general bs that he spews.

I have friends in both countries, one of whom is studying to become a doctor in the UK and is getting towards the end of that. Ive heard no complaints out of any of them about their healthcare. They are still rather shocked we don't have a similar plan.

And before I get started if Im not mistaken the US Military healthcare is one of the few true socialized medicines in the world. The other notable being the UK's NHS program.

Anyway... On to the healthcare. What has Obama about paying for this, well lets see. We are looking to first of all work out deals with the healthcare providers and the drug companies to work out of way to cut costs there. Then we are cutting unnecessary(as in things that we pay for but dont get a lot of use out of, or serve any major purpose; not bailouts and so forth) programs and spending in order to gather more of the money needed to cover the cost of healthcare. And then finally, and much to your chagrin will probably raise taxes. Of course they are aiming them at the people earning more than 350k a year.

Of course we all know thats the move of a raging Marxist. Or Teddy Roosevelt for a more in camp example. But I wont say the average person wont see a little tax increase, if we want healthcare worth a damn its understandable we might have to chip in.

With that said. I could go into all this indepth talk here, but like Obama. Going into great depth about it is pointless here. Might I suggest skimming the bill's table of contents and glancing at the sections to get a more indepth idea of what each one means exactly. Not just a general overview or summary of whats going on like I have said, or he has on TV.

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Of course this is all subject to change, since the bill hasnt passed yet. But you get the idea Im sure. :coffee:

MACH1
08-05-2009, 11:16 PM
Going into great depth about it is pointless here.

Kinda like reading wtf is in bills before ya sign em. :doh: Whats the point, right

X-Terminator
08-05-2009, 11:54 PM
Anyway... On to the healthcare. What has Obama about paying for this, well lets see. We are looking to first of all work out deals with the healthcare providers and the drug companies to work out of way to cut costs there. Then we are cutting unnecessary(as in things that we pay for but dont get a lot of use out of, or serve any major purpose; not bailouts and so forth) programs and spending in order to gather more of the money needed to cover the cost of healthcare. And then finally, and much to your chagrin will probably raise taxes. Of course they are aiming them at the people earning more than 350k a year.

Of course we all know thats the move of a raging Marxist. Or Teddy Roosevelt for a more in camp example. But I wont say the average person wont see a little tax increase, if we want healthcare worth a damn its understandable we might have to chip in.

With that said. I could go into all this indepth talk here, but like Obama. Going into great depth about it is pointless here. Might I suggest skimming the bill's table of contents and glancing at the sections to get a more indepth idea of what each one means exactly. Not just a general overview or summary of whats going on like I have said, or he has on TV.

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Of course this is all subject to change, since the bill hasnt passed yet. But you get the idea Im sure. :coffee:

First of all, Obama's advisors have already said that they may have to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for this. Which pretty much means it's going to happen, despite his promises to the contrary. With so many people struggling to make ends meet, proposing to raise taxes is NOT going to go over well.

Secondly, since you asked earlier...it's not that those of us who oppose this bill are AFRAID of the government. It's that we don't TRUST the government, especially when it comes to running any kind of program both cheaply and efficiently. If they could, I doubt you'd hear a whole lot of complaining. But the fact of the matter is that the feds do not have a good track record of keeping costs to a reasonable level while still delivering a quality product. It also does not make me all warm and fuzzy having this much power and control in their hands (and before you go there, it doesn't make me warm and fuzzy to have my health care in the hands of CEOs either). Therefore, they cannot be trusted with control of 1/7 of this nation's economy and our health care decisions. Honestly, I'd have no problem with a government option, so long as that it truly IS an option, and people who want to keep their current insurance and companies who offer private insurance should be allowed to do so without penalty. But that's not what they really want, is it? They want everyone on the public dole, period, with little or no choice available. Unless there are some major changes, such as dropping the penalties on businesses and individuals who choose NOT to go the government route and some kind of legitimate cost control - not just lip service - there is no way in hell I can support this bill.

As far as people in the UK and Canada not complaining about their health care, well there are plenty of stories about their citizens coming to the U.S. to have their medical procedures done, because over here, there are no waiting lists and the quality of our health care is superior. Don't know about you, but I'm not willing to sacrifice quality of care just to ensure that everyone is covered.

devilsdancefloor
08-06-2009, 12:01 AM
http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/23/health-care-around-the-world-great-britain/

« Health Care Around the World: Greece • Cavalcade of Risk #50 »
Health Care Around the World: Great Britain

April 23, 2008 in Health Care Around the World, International Health Care Systems

Great Britain represents all that is good and bad with centralized, single-payer health care systems. Health care spending is fairly low (7.5% of GDP) and very equitable. Long wait lists for treatment, however are endemic and rationing pervades the system. Patients have little choice of provider and little access to specialists.

Percent Insured. ~100%

Funding. Great Britain has a single payer system funded by general revenues. With any centralized system, avoiding deficits is difficult. In 2006, Great Britain had a £700 million deficit despite the fact that health care spending increased by £43 billion over five years.

Private Insurance. 10% of Britons have private health insurance. Private health insurance replicates the coverage provided by the NHS, but gives patients access to higher quality care, and reduced waiting times.

Physician Compensation. Unlike in the case of other single payer systems such as Norway, most physicians and nurses are mostly government employees. In 2004, the NHS negotiated lower salaries for doctors in exchange for reduced work hours. Few physicians are available at night or on weekends. Because of low compensation, there is a significant shortage of specialists. (dont get sick on the weekend or at night DDF)

Physician Choice. Patients have very little physician choice. However, under the experimental London Patient Choice Project, patients waiting more than six months for treatment will be offered a choice of four different treatment providers.

Copayment/Deductibles. There are no deductibles and almost no copayments except for small copayments for prescription drugs, as well as for optical and dental care.

Waiting Times. Waiting lists are a huge problem in Great Britain. Some examples: 750,000 are on waiting lists for hospital admission; 40% of cancer patients are never able to see an oncologist; there is explicit rationing for services such as kidney dialysis, open heart surgery and care for the terminally ill. Further, minimum waiting times have been instituted to reduce costs. “A top-flight hospital like Suffolk Est PCT was ordered to impose a minimum waiting time of at least 122 days before patients could be treated or the hospital would lose a portion of its funding.”

Benefits Covered. The NHS system offers comprehensive coverage. Because of rationing, care might not be as easy to get as advertised. Terminally ill patients may be denied treatment. David Cameron has proposed that the NHS refuse treatment to smokers or the obese (see 7 Sept 2007 post). (dont smoke or enjoy a hamburger DDF)

Yes this is what i want in health care!!! If you think the guvmunt can run health care ALL you have to do is look at medicare and medicad!! If those programs are not FUBAR i dont know what is.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lynn-davidson/2007/08/27/french-health-care-expert-frances-system-broken-should-copy-us-media-

French Health Care Expert: France's System Broken, Should Copy US; Media Yawn
By Lynn Davidson (Bio | Archive)
August 27, 2007 - 07:56 ET

* [Email this to friend]
* [Printer-friendly version]


Magnet by Souvenirs de Paris

Alert Michael Moore! Both he and the World Health Organization say France has the best health care system in the world, and America's system is barely better than Slovenia's. However, French professor Alice Teil not only said the French system is “not sustainable anymore,” but copying parts of America's could save it.

Teil turned to a privately-owned hospital in Utah after a survey of international health care experts ranked Salt Lake City's Intermountain Health Care the number one hospital in the world. You would think that a media so hyper-worried about the “broken” US health care system would report the encouraging news, but other than some bare bones local coverage, this story was ignored.

Maybe it was ignored because Teil's startling description of France's situation did not match the media's typical positive depiction of “free” health care. Tiel says the cost of France's socialized health care is growing faster than its economy. Workers pay about fifty percent of their paycheck each month into healthcare (yes FREEEEEEEEEEE health care DDF, retirement and unemployment and more companies are outsourcing jobs to avoid those costs. Quality of care also suffers in France, says Teil, because hospitals and doctors resist government requirements to report their success and failures.

Considering America's aging population and earlier Democratic stabs at socialism (the failing Medicare and Social Security), why wouldn't the media find Teil's opinions vitally important and interview her about France's ailing health care system, which she condemned as having "no incentives to be the best?" Good thing the Morning News spoke to her:

It was a democratic ideal that worked well when there was enough money to pay for it, says Teil, but it has become problematic as costs have risen, baby boomers have aged and the economy has stalled.

Maybe it's time to rethink the extent of France's notion of egalite when it comes to, for example, providing 100 percent of the costs for knee replacements and other "comfort services," she says. "We need to raise those issues to the population, because it's not sustainable anymore."

Contrary to the media standard portrayal of top-rated French health care, Teil stated that the system of “free” unlimited care requires high taxes, and with unlimited care, including costly sex-change operations, in vitro fertilization and alternative medicine, France has a dying system and should look to America for a fix, especially now that the French protested rationing benefits and the government stopped bailing out over-budget public hospitals.

As far as Democrats and advocates of “free” health care are concerned, it's a good thing that the media ignored a story about the sorry state of the "best" health care system in the world


http://i29.tinypic.com/4rwchx.jpg

X-Terminator
08-06-2009, 12:20 AM
It won't matter to them, DDF. We're just a bunch of greedy capitalists who would rather stick with the "status quo" because we dare to oppose Obama's version of "health care for all." :coffee:

MACH1
08-06-2009, 12:30 AM
Maybe we should hire ourselves out as the fake unruly mob. :rolleyes:

X-Terminator
08-06-2009, 01:19 AM
OK, in the interest of fairness and debate, here is a good story on the French health care system that does a good job of presenting both sides of the argument. This system could work IF they could find a way to control the cost and burden on taxpayers, but I'm not sure it's possible - still too mistrusting of government on that score.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/051709dnbusfrance.40cc221.html

Is French health system a model for U.S.?

08:09 AM CDT on Monday, May 18, 2009

By JIM LANDERS / The Dallas Morning News

PARIS – Houston native Jennifer Hua gave birth to her first two children in Texas, and her last two in France. The Houston hospital looked like a luxury hotel. The hospital in Paris was a converted prison.

Amenities aside, she prefers Paris.

The American health care model, she says, is too expensive and too insecure. France offers her family good medical treatment, better insurance, more convenience and no worries about how to pay medical bills if her husband's job changes.

"If we were to consider returning to the U.S., health care would be one of my top concerns," the Rice University alum said.

Dallas native Anna Marie Mattson heads the University of Texas alumni group in France (Texas Exes). She's lived in Paris since 1990 and has seen members of her family go through hospitalizations. Mattson says the French model encourages people to put health ahead of economic anxiety.

"Under the U.S. system, I never wanted to get sick, and when I did, I went to the pharmacy to try to find a way to treat myself," she said. "In France, you go to the doctor immediately."

As America seeks a better way to provide medical care, France offers an example of a system where everyone has government-provided, basic health insurance – citizens and immigrants alike. Expenses for such chronic illnesses as cancer, diabetes and multiple sclerosis are covered entirely by the state so patients can focus on treatment rather than financial ruin.

But if France is instructive on health security, it also shows how high, vexing medical bills push government into a constant reform struggle. Lately, the French are taking a page or two from the U.S. playbook to try to cope by exploring managed-care practices.

Rice University alum Elizabeth Dutertre, who's lived in France since 1968, has had good and bad experiences with French health care.

"Many liberal Americans are convinced that the French system is the be-all and end-all solution to health care costs in the United States," she said. "But the system is costly to both the workers and the state. In fact, it is going bankrupt."

Bankruptcy looms for America as well. Health care absorbs more than 17 percent of the U.S. economy, or $2.4 trillion. The French fork over 11 percent.

In 2006, U.S. spending averaged $6,714 per person. The average resident of France spent $3,450. This year, U.S. spending is expected to near $8,000 per person, while French officials estimate spending there will come in below $5,000. It's not that the French are younger. One in six of France's 61 million people are over the age of 65; one in eight Americans are over 65.

France and the United States pay for their health care in different ways. Most U.S. health care spending is private. The government's share – what you pay for in taxes for Medicare, Medicaid, military and other government employees – is 46 percent. The rest is paid through insurance split between employers and workers, and in out-of-pocket expenses borne by consumers.

In France, national health insurance pushes the government's share of health care spending to 80 percent. Consumers and their employers pay for the rest through supplemental, private insurance and out-of-pocket expenses.

In both countries, patients with the money to pay for more or better care not covered by insurance are able to buy it through private clinics and doctors. Health expenditures have grown faster than prices for nearly everything else in both countries for many years, despite decades of reforms aimed at capping prices, supply and demand.

President Barack Obama has made a priority of providing health insurance for all Americans while lowering health care inflation. France has insurance for all but battles health care costs in the National Assembly every year.

Rationing by price

People in both countries tell pollsters that rationing health care is abhorrent, but both ration by price. American and French men and women who make too much money to qualify for indigent care, but too little to afford comprehensive insurance, often go without needed medical treatment.

France blends public and private insurers and hospitals with (mostly) self-employed doctors. There's a national insurance plan that covers between 60 and 70 percent of health care spending for everyone. (Forty-six million Americans do not have health insurance.)

In France, private companies and trade groups offer supplemental health insurance. Consumers use it to pay the charges not covered by national insurance.

Although U.S.-style managed care has started creeping in, the French insurance system leaves consumers free to choose their doctors and leaves French doctors free to make whatever prescriptions and treatment recommendations they think best.

Everyone who's lived in France for at least three months is covered by national health insurance.

People with chronic illnesses get continuing medical attention without facing a bill for it. Treatments and survival rates for cancers and other diseases are better in the United States, although French cancer patients routinely get access to experimental drugs.

Far more Americans get heart surgeries to clear clogged arteries, but the French death rate from heart attacks is about one third of the American rate.

The French live longer. They have more hospital beds and more doctors.

Price difference

For health economist Didier Tabuteau, though, there is one overriding difference between the U.S. and French systems.

"The difference is the price, not the number of doctors or the number of hospitals," he said. "You pay a very high price for drugs and doctors."

The French government negotiates price ceilings with pharmaceutical companies. French doctors earn about 60 percent of what their American counterparts make, although they get free medical school tuition and don't face high malpractice insurance premiums.

Like us, however, the French have a looming problem with the cost of medical care. If the American way is generous to doctors and drug makers, the French way is generous to consumers. With no deductibles and with out-of-pocket expenses averaging less than $250 a year, the French visit their doctors about twice as often as Americans. The French lead the world in drug consumption.

Cost-control steps taken over the last 20 years have created a two-tier system where medical care is readily available to the very poor and those who are well off. It's harder to come by for the lower middle class who can't get comprehensive, supplemental health insurance through their employers and can't afford to buy such policies on their own.

Tabuteau says a third of French consumers complain they can't get the dental care, eyeglasses or other treatments they want because of cost.

Jennifer Hua and her French husband can choose any doctor they want. They've had their pediatrician come to the house on a Sunday to care for a sick child.

The Huas pay their doctors at the time of service for house calls and office visits, but their insurance deposits reimbursements into their checking account in a matter of days. All of their medical care is covered by two health insurance policies that together cost them 77 euros a month, or about $102. The Huas used to spend another $100 a month for a better supplemental insurance policy than the one offered by Mr. Hua's employer, but they dropped that policy after he switched to a job with better benefits.

X-Terminator
08-06-2009, 01:20 AM
(story continued)

Identity cards

Insurers and providers use a common electronic billing system tied to identity cards that carry a microchip containing reimbursement information. Health economist Gérard de Pouvourville said the system's efficiency reduces overhead to less than 4 percent of the plan's cost.

For several years, a team of researchers at Harvard Medical School has argued that up to a third of the U.S. medical bill goes toward overhead for insurance companies, marketing, hospital and physician billing departments, pharmaceutical advertising and the like.

(Insurance firms and others dispute that overhead estimate. Comparable estimates for France are hard to come by. The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development collects health care overhead estimates from governments showing France at 6.9 percent, and the U.S. at 7.5 percent. OECD health data expert Gaetan Lafortune says both estimates are too low.)

In France, the national insurance plan's trustees negotiate a fee schedule with physicians' unions and hospitals. An office visit with a general practitioner costs 23 euros, or about $30. Patients are expected to pay one euro of that cost out of their own pockets. Insurance reimburses them for the rest.

Most doctors stay within the plan, but about 30 percent have opted out and are free to charge what they like. (Leaving the plan cuts them out of a government-funded pension.)

Employers contribute 12.8 percent of employee compensation for national health insurance. Workers contribute 0.75 percent. Chronic deficits have forced the government to add large amounts of tax revenues to health insurance financing, including a 5.25 percent income tax surcharge.

Tabuteau, head of the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Institute of Political Studies in Paris, warns that this is an inadequate model that will force the French government to either raise employee contributions or limit national health insurance to the 10 million people with chronic illnesses.

Money still talks

Elizabeth Dutertre has had three surgeries to correct double vision. The first was at the Hôtel-Dieu, a public hospital across the street from Notre Dame Cathedral, where an unexpected opening in her surgeon's schedule let her get an operation within two months of diagnosis.

"At the end of it, I had nothing to pay," she said.

The second time, she was told it would take two years before her surgeon could schedule her at a public hospital. She went instead to a private hospital, where her surgeon operated within three weeks. At discharge, she got a bill for 350 euros, or about $465.

"They immediately wanted a check – no Visa card, no American Express," she said. "If you can afford the out-of-pocket expense, you get quicker, better care."

Dr. Marie-Laure Alby, a general practitioner in Paris who shares a practice with three other doctors, said government-set fees don't provide enough money to cover expenses. The practice where she works offers patients care six days a week, 12 hours a day, including house calls. The four doctors share the cost of two secretaries and one nurse.

General practitioners in France earned about $84,000 in 2004, or $62,000 less than their American counterparts, according to the latest estimates collected by the OECD.

"The solution would be to have more money if you offer a better service," she said.

Alby no longer works within the government fee schedule. Instead of charging $30 for an office visit, she charges $42.

"It's about one-tenth of what you pay in the States," she said.

Alby argues consumers are too used to the idea that health care should be free.

"In France, one specific problem is the emergency room of the hospital," she said. "Many people in France would think less about going there than they would to go to a café."

Patients who go to a public hospital emergency room aren't given a bill to pay at the end of their treatment.

None of this is free, of course. The share of taxes in the French economy is more than 40 percent. In the United States, it's just over 25 percent.

The French government knows about emergency room overuse but has not cracked down.

"It's a pure scandal," Alby said.

SteelersinCA
08-06-2009, 01:24 AM
When I was in the Army, was I on Gov't Health Insurance? If so, I can't complain.

You were on gov't health care and the critical distinction is you were forced to pay INTO it. I'm quite certain if there were a way to force every American to pay for his/her family' health plan we would be just fine and dandy. When you come up with that kind of solution let me know, hell let all of us know!

The military takes it out of your pay and just so you know I can't roll up to a military hospital and get care as a civilian, I'm not even allowed on the base! So if your proposal is to require EVERY AMERICAN to pay into the system and for those that don't pay into it to be denied medical care, that's something I can get behind.

Otherwise comparing the military's health care to socialized care is apples and oranges. Oh by the way, how's the VA system working out???

tony hipchest
08-06-2009, 01:27 AM
Maybe we should hire ourselves out as the fake unruly mob. :rolleyes:
that would definitely be cheaper than hiring illegal immigrants. :noidea:

many people around here do the "unruly mob" thing for free. :chuckle:

J Dogg
08-06-2009, 08:06 AM
Abortion is a preventable death, but liberals want to every woman to have the right to kill her babies.

More Democratic hypocrisy.

PS: If you never complained about military medical care, you never used it.

revefsreleets
08-06-2009, 08:58 AM
How DARE we question Obama's plan, you know, the one he'd be comfortable signing off on before even reading it. To question Obama is, according to several posters here, to be an unthinking automaton...

Quite the opposite actually. I haven't even see a conservative poster here say that the current system (status quo, in case the people bandying about the term don't know what it means, and that seems to be the case) is doing a good job.

I think we can all agree that the system needs repaired. What I'm questioning is why don't we try to repair what we have? Why tear the solid structure and foundation down along with the few rotted walls? Why not KEEP what works and fix what's broke?

This thread is fatally flawed. It starts with a faulty premise (the title says it all) and only goes downhill from there...

The plan in Congress sucks. It's WORSE than the mess we have now. Why is the left blindly defending it? Why the name calling and condescension? I just don't understand...

J Dogg
08-06-2009, 09:05 AM
NONONONONO

The "system" is just fine and dandy thank you very much. It's access and cost that needs reformed. It drives me insane sometimes that all the WH really needs to do is stop calling it health care refrom and start calling it cost reform and 99% of the protests will stop. Right now insurance companies run an incredibly corrupt raket. They charge you out the butt for coverage and can drop you pretty much at any time for any reason. Plus you have to see their doctors and can be forced to pay out of pocket to see specialists. It's a bit of a scam really.

What the WH and Demos want to do is give more people access. But they're so out of touch with reality, that they keep getting in their own way with the way they say and write things. That and the fact that they're bullheaded about giving ILLEGAL immigrants health care on LEGAL citizen's dime.

Indo
08-06-2009, 09:30 AM
Dont try and make conservatives think. Ive learned that its like screaming at a brick wall.

And to those who think oh well thats an old article. The fact still stands we pay far to much for health care right now for such a mediocre result. If you don't trust a scientific research paper(one that has to be checked for its accuracy) who do you trust?! Collect multiple sources and compare the data.

Of course, a lot of this just stems from people not wanting to pay taxes to pay for it. Lets face it people didn't care about taxation without representation. They didn't want any damn taxes period. Just look at the Articles of Confederation, you saw how that worked out didn't you? Hence why we have the constitution now. :banging:

You woulda thought considering we are in a recession and all the drama around the world. And the healthcare being suspect at best, people would warm up to the idea of fixing a broken system. Instead they complain and offer NO SOLUTIONS to the problem besides leave it as it is.

And its not just healthcare its everything. Why are people so afraid of the government? Do you trust some greedy executive with your healthcare. You'll really hate them when they screw you out of coverage or drop you. Id much rather have to government running it considering if they screw up we can boot them out and put someone else in charge of it. Even if it has a Czar who we didn't elect, pressure his boss that you elected and that boss will replace him.

Id love it, it healthcare worked as well as something like... The post office.




You obviously missed the whole point...
You get your information from a news source---Reuters, CNN, Fox, etc., all of them, no doubt considered to be the epitome of Scientific Knowledge. No bias by any of them, right?
I provided a link whereby the WHOLE closing argument and conclusion provided by
Ellen Nolte was questioned by another respected researcher. I guess it was convenient for you to ignore that fact----in much the same way Obama and your boys ignore the scientific research which disproves the whole BS about global warming.

You say that you have a friend who is about to become a doc in the UK----I am going to make an assumption here, and you can correct me if I am wrong---but that makes your friend, and I'm guessing---you---about 25-28 years old.
I assume that the people that you have spoken to in the UK and Canada are about the same age.
Most people in this age group are healthy and have no need for a health care system in any form...I'm guessing that this is and accurate description of you and your friends. Do you suppose that that may be why they think it works OK? They don't really need to undergo tests or operations for cancers and heart disease at this point in their lives, so they don't REALLY understand how much their systems DON'T WORK.

I could go on about the current system in this country (it DOES need to be fixed---in places), but it be broken even further if we follow Your Savior's proposal. Trust me. I deal with this every day of my life and I know coniderably more about it than you do.

Indo
08-06-2009, 10:05 AM
Many of you on this forum know that I'm a doctor. I wish to relate a true story to all of you who feel that the new proposed health-care system will be a gem.

The patient was sent to me for lower abdominal pain. After examining her I believed that I could feel a mass in her lower pelvis. It was difficult to determine if she did indeed have a mass due to the fact that she was somewhat overweight. I had ordered a CT scan to determine whether there was indeed a mass or not. To my surprise, this CT scan that I had ordered was denied by her insurance company (that means they refused to pay for it). Because I felt that it was in her best interest and of the utmost importance for her to have the CT scan, I called the insurance company to ask them why they had refused to allow it to be done. The answer was,” We will pay for her to have an ultrasound of the abdomen and pelvis, but not a CT scan”. Again, I was amazed at the fact that they would choose to perform an inferior test for this woman. After a lengthy conversation, the insurance representative was adamant that they would not pay for a CT scan and would only pay for a pelvic ultrasound. I thought about this for a moment. And my reply to them was,” That's fine. I will order a pelvic ultrasound for this patient. If the ultrasound shows that there is a growth in the patient's abdomen, I will then order a CT scan, because I cannot operate on a patient to remove a growth in her abdomen on the basis of an ultrasound alone, which does not adequately show blood vessels or other vital structures, which may be near the tumor. If, on the other hand, the pelvic ultrasound does not show a tumor growth, I will still then order a CT scan because the tumor may not show up on ultrasound. Therefore, if the ultrasound does show a tumor, the patient will need a CT scan. If the ultrasound does not show a tumor, the patient will need a CT scan. In any event, the patient will need a CT scan. I will be happy to order the pelvic ultrasound first if you wish, and then I will subsequently order the CT scan. If your company wishes to pay for both studies, that is your business. I however would prefer to order the one best test, which is a CT scan.”

The insurance company’s reply was one of amazement and surprise:
“Since you explained it to us that way, we will allow you to order the CT scan!”


Now here's the interesting part:

The only reason I was able to convince the insurance company to see the error of their ways was because I was actually able to talk to a representative of the insurance company. This was a private payor, and was therefore accessible (this means that they had a representative who could answer questions regarding approvals and denials of procedures).

When one is dealing with Medicaid or Medicare (the Government) this is not the case. Those who are sitting behind a computer making these decisions of whether or not to approve or deny a procedure have absolutely no medical background or training. They often cannot spell NFL. That's how stupid they are. Those are the people making decisions about whether or not you as a patient can undergo a certain procedure or test. This is how it works NOW. How do you think it will work when Obama puts his plan into place? The patient described above would have had two tests instead of the one best test and her health-care costs would have been higher because no one would have been able to intervene and show them the error of their ways.

Make no mistake, the proposed plan will delay healthcare; will result in increased costs; will result in a country full of dissatisfied citizens; and will ultimately ruin this country.

HERE ENDETH THE LESSON


(incidentally, the patient did not have a tumor--- this was clearly proven by the one best test, the CT scan)

SteelTalons
08-06-2009, 10:17 AM
Okay, so you are concerned that you will get screwed out of coverage. Obama has already said, if you like you're health insurance as it is. You can keep it.

There will just be several tweaks to cover those who aren't. Increase quality and lower the costs. Its not all as doom and gloom as you conservatives wanna it to be.

And heres a video from Humana:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KfZfgkX6uEk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KfZfgkX6uEk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

J Dogg
08-06-2009, 10:44 AM
Okay, so you are concerned that you will get screwed out of coverage. Obama has already said, if you like you're health insurance as it is. You can keep it.
There will just be several tweaks to cover those who aren't. Increase quality and lower the costs. Its not all as doom and gloom as you conservatives wanna it to be.

And heres a video from Humana:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KfZfgkX6uEk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KfZfgkX6uEk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This from a guy who just ranted about gathering info from multiple sources.

You're a joke.

Indo
08-06-2009, 11:02 AM
[QUOTE=SteelTalons;634695]Okay, so you are concerned that you will get screwed out of coverage. Obama has already said, if you like you're health insurance as it is. You can keep it.

There will just be several tweaks to cover those who aren't. Increase quality and lower the costs. Its not all as doom and gloom as you conservatives wanna it to be.




WOW. You Really do see and hear only what you want to see and hear.

My whole post was not about me getting screwed out of coverage. I don't make a penny on the CT scan or the Ultrasound that I mentioned in the post.


PAY ATTENTION NOW--this may be a little complicated
It is about the Patient getting screwed out of coverage.


It is about someone who has NO CLUE about your health or the appropriate test to make the proper diagnosis making decisions about which tests will and will not be approved.
Do you think the person making those decisions will be a Doctor?

Indo
08-06-2009, 11:09 AM
OH,
By the Way

HUMANA is run by the government (related to Medicare)
Bet you didn't know that

Do you think they might be biased?

SteelMember
08-06-2009, 11:11 AM
Many of you on this forum know that I'm a doctor. I wish to relate a true story to all of you who feel that the new proposed health-care system will be a gem.

The patient was sent to me for lower abdominal pain. After examining her I believed that I could feel a mass in her lower pelvis. It was difficult to determine if she did indeed have a mass due to the fact that she was somewhat overweight. I had ordered a CT scan to determine whether there was indeed a mass or not. To my surprise, this CT scan that I had ordered was denied by her insurance company (that means they refused to pay for it). Because I felt that it was in her best interest and of the utmost importance for her to have the CT scan, I called the insurance company to ask them why they had refused to allow it to be done. The answer was,” We will pay for her to have an ultrasound of the abdomen and pelvis, but not a CT scan”. Again, I was amazed at the fact that they would choose to perform an inferior test for this woman. After a lengthy conversation, the insurance representative was adamant that they would not pay for a CT scan and would only pay for a pelvic ultrasound. I thought about this for a moment. And my reply to them was,” That's fine. I will order a pelvic ultrasound for this patient. If the ultrasound shows that there is a growth in the patient's abdomen, I will then order a CT scan, because I cannot operate on a patient to remove a growth in her abdomen on the basis of an ultrasound alone, which does not adequately show blood vessels or other vital structures, which may be near the tumor. If, on the other hand, the pelvic ultrasound does not show a tumor growth, I will still then order a CT scan because the tumor may not show up on ultrasound. Therefore, if the ultrasound does show a tumor, the patient will need a CT scan. If the ultrasound does not show a tumor, the patient will need a CT scan. In any event, the patient will need a CT scan. I will be happy to order the pelvic ultrasound first if you wish, and then I will subsequently order the CT scan. If your company wishes to pay for both studies, that is your business. I however would prefer to order the one best test, which is a CT scan.”

The insurance company’s reply was one of amazement and surprise:
“Since you explained it to us that way, we will allow you to order the CT scan!”


Now here's the interesting part:

The only reason I was able to convince the insurance company to see the error of their ways was because I was actually able to talk to a representative of the insurance company. This was a private payor, and was therefore accessible (this means that they had a representative who could answer questions regarding approvals and denials of procedures).

When one is dealing with Medicaid or Medicare (the Government) this is not the case. Those who are sitting behind a computer making these decisions of whether or not to approve or deny a procedure have absolutely no medical background or training. They often cannot spell NFL. That's how stupid they are. Those are the people making decisions about whether or not you as a patient can undergo a certain procedure or test. This is how it works NOW. How do you think it will work when Obama puts his plan into place? The patient described above would have had two tests instead of the one best test and her health-care costs would have been higher because no one would have been able to intervene and show them the error of their ways.

Make no mistake, the proposed plan will delay healthcare; will result in increased costs; will result in a country full of dissatisfied citizens; and will ultimately ruin this country.

HERE ENDETH THE LESSON


(incidentally, the patient did not have a tumor--- this was clearly proven by the one best test, the CT scan)

Great story Indo, and quite honestly I was waiting for you to say the insurance company would almost be willing to approve BOTH scans (in the order they preferred) as opposed to just doing only the one requested. Or maybe even ask if the mass was pre-existing, because under the patients plan, neither would be covered :doh:

MACH1
08-06-2009, 11:40 AM
Okay, so you are concerned that you will get screwed out of coverage. Obama has already said, if you like you're health insurance as it is. You can keep it.

There will just be several tweaks to cover those who aren't. Increase quality and lower the costs. Its not all as doom and gloom as you conservatives wanna it to be.



http://www.ncc-1776.org/tletoon/obama-koolaid.jpg

SteelTalons
08-06-2009, 11:53 AM
YOU PEOPLE ARE UNBELIEVABLY DENSE! :banging:

Look! I get my water straight from the well. I look at what comes out of the government officials mouths. I look at the bill, and I form my opinion. You people on the other hand cherry pick facts...

And let me explain the degree to which you do that! This is like go to the store, bought a jigsaw puzzle. Forced two completely unrelated pieces together. And tossed the rest into the trash! Claiming that you are finished.

You are taking the statistics about the shortfalls of government run healthcare. I do not doubt their validity, and don't try and cherry pick this line because what Im about to say is complete 180. You people are failing to understand the point!

That a lot of people have NO COVERAGE what so ever. This is what that is about. To provide SOME coverage, maybe not always the best for their needs but some coverage to help out the uninsured.

Now, as for you, you can continue to see your doctor, or whatever. Doing what you do on your plan. But, there is an improvement. They are working with the companies and the providers to insure that its cheaper for you, you know. The co-pays you sometimes have. The government plan can supplement you, then insurance plan you pick from the exchange and cover you, and if worst comes to worse you chip in a small co-pay.

No system is prefect, it will cost money, but the government is looking at cutting unnecessary costs and programs(not the bailouts before you try to run that route; things that we spend money on thats not used to prop up the economy until it straightens out or give us very little return), not to mention a progressive tax scale mostly effecting those that make more than 350k year. And to top that off as I have said before they have worked out deals with healthcare providers to lower costs and the drug companies to help make the costs to you cheaper, and to base how much people are paid on the basis of the quality of care not the amount. Of course these will go into effect as the plan is implemented.

Now, whats wrong with the coverage? Your gonna screwed out of treatment. It might not be PERFECT but its much needed coverage the millions of uninsured. And turns our healthcare industry to preventing disease not treating it(but of course they will treat it, preventing is just cheaper and the best plan for dealing with disease). Now if you aren't happy with going to a government approved doctor. Then you can use your existing plan, to go to who you want. And the government will help out with paying the costs.

Now... Let me calm down for a second. This next part burns my ass because its absolute horseshit. This really is the last refuge of a person with no argument, trying to slander the information... You people are as paranoid as the 9/11 truthers. All this doom and gloom saying the media is lying and the government is lying. Look...

I understand that, you look at things with skepticism. Only a fool would believe everything he is told, but the proof is there. Where you can go out and get the information, put two and two together and verify it from multiple sources. Then your IGNORANCE is not an excuse!

But that is not the worst part! The worst part is that you some how try to undermine what I am saying by saying that I get my information from biases sources. That some how the Humana video is proof of that. Let me explain why I put that video on here.

Its not because I trust every word they say! I put it there because it echos the same things I have found as I looked over this whole healthcare plan. And to boot it presented it as a simple explanation. So I posted it to save me having to type, in essence this post!

But you wanted to attempt to derail me with it, so I had to come back with this! So, my dear conservatives. As I have outlined, this is an improvement to our existing system. Would you deny covering the uninsured with SOMETHING is better than nothing? And the fact that you can still pick addition coverage, similar to that you have now with no strings attached?

That helps the uninsured, that still gives you your choice in it. I see nothing wrong with this! And the way you try to make everything sound like a conspiracy even when its plain as day its not is ridiclous.

Think about it. :coffee:

xfl2001fan
08-06-2009, 11:57 AM
Okay, so you are concerned that you will get screwed out of coverage. Obama has already said, if you like you're health insurance as it is. You can keep it.

There will just be several tweaks to cover those who aren't. Increase quality and lower the costs. Its not all as doom and gloom as you conservatives wanna it to be.


Sure, for the first 5 years. But after that, the governement will intervene more and more. That's per the bill that's in congress right now. Obama is being told to tell partial truths on a bill he probably hasn't read much up on.

This conservative chooses not to take a politcian at face value. Any politician, whether they are liberal/conservative, rep/dem. If you want to drink the kool-aid so be it. Obama has already busted a bunch of campaign promises and flip-flopped more than a fish on land. If you can't see it, that's a "you" problem.

J Dogg
08-06-2009, 12:01 PM
YOU PEOPLE ARE UNBELIEVABLY DENSE! :banging:

Look! I get my water straight from the well. I look at what comes out of the government officials mouths. I look at the bill, and I form my opinion. You people on the other hand cherry pick facts...

And let me explain the degree to which you do that! This is like go to the store, bought a jigsaw puzzle. Forced two completely unrelated pieces together. And tossed the rest into the trash! Claiming that you are finished.

You are taking the statistics about the shortfalls of government run healthcare. I do not doubt their validity, and don't try and cherry pick this line because what Im about to say is complete 180. You people are failing to understand the point!

That a lot of people have NO COVERAGE what so ever. This is what that is about. To provide SOME coverage, maybe not always the best for their needs but some coverage to help out the uninsured.

Now, as for you, you can continue to see your doctor, or whatever. Doing what you do on your plan. But, there is an improvement. They are working with the companies and the providers to insure that its cheaper for you, you know. The co-pays you sometimes have. The government plan can supplement you, then insurance plan you pick from the exchange and cover you, and if worst comes to worse you chip in a small co-pay.

No system is prefect, it will cost money, but the government is looking at cutting unnecessary costs and programs(not the bailouts before you try to run that route; things that we spend money on thats not used to prop up the economy until it straightens out or give us very little return), not to mention a progressive tax scale mostly effecting those that make more than 350k year. And to top that off as I have said before they have worked out deals with healthcare providers to lower costs and the drug companies to help make the costs to you cheaper, and to base how much people are paid on the basis of the quality of care not the amount. Of course these will go into effect as the plan is implemented.

Now, whats wrong with the coverage? Your gonna screwed out of treatment. It might not be PERFECT but its much needed coverage the millions of uninsured. And turns our healthcare industry to preventing disease not treating it(but of course they will treat it, preventing is just cheaper and the best plan for dealing with disease). Now if you aren't happy with going to a government approved doctor. Then you can use your existing plan, to go to who you want. And the government will help out with paying the costs.

Now... Let me calm down for a second. This next part burns my ass because its absolute horseshit. This really is the last refuge of a person with no argument, trying to slander the information... You people are as paranoid as the 9/11 truthers. All this doom and gloom saying the media is lying and the government is lying. Look...

I understand that, you look at things with skepticism. Only a fool would believe everything he is told, but the proof is there. Where you can go out and get the information, put two and two together and verify it from multiple sources. Then your IGNORANCE is not an excuse!

But that is not the worst part! The worst part is that you some how try to undermine what I am saying by saying that I get my information from biases sources. That some how the Humana video is proof of that. Let me explain why I put that video on here.

Its not because I trust every word they say! I put it there because it echos the same things I have found as I looked over this whole healthcare plan. And to boot it presented it as a simple explanation. So I posted it to save me having to type, in essence this post!

But you wanted to attempt to derail me with it, so I had to come back with this! So, my dear conservatives. As I have outlined, this is an improvement to our existing system. Would you deny covering the uninsured with SOMETHING is better than nothing? And the fact that you can still pick addition coverage, similar to that you have now with no strings attached?

That helps the uninsured, that still gives you your choice in it. I see nothing wrong with this! And the way you try to make everything sound like a conspiracy even when its plain as day its not is ridiclous.

Think about it. :coffee:

So EVERYBODY gets the same mediocre health coverage. Good plan.

Like I said.....a joke.

xfl2001fan
08-06-2009, 12:03 PM
YOU PEOPLE ARE UNBELIEVABLY DENSE! :banging:

Think about it. :coffee:

Why are you shouting? It doesn't make you look smarter when you shout. It actually does the opposite. And you call us dense.

Here's the thing. Those statistics of the large numbers of folks who are uninsured. How many are illegal aliens? How many choose to be uninsured? That's a large chunk. I was uninsured for a while when I was single and had no kids (many many years ago.) Seemed to me that I was ok with being unisured because I saved money by opting out of coverage I didn't feel like I needed.

For these illegal aliens, who foots the bill for their insurance. You and I do. What is so hard to see about that? Why should I spend my money on criminals? (In case you were wondering, if you're an illegal alien, you are breaking the law. Hence the term, "illegal".) I have no desire to support them. None. That's not my job. My job is to support myself, my family and my nation. Illegal aliens should be some other nations problems. Not mine. Why can't you see that? Why are you so dense?

J Dogg
08-06-2009, 12:06 PM
Why are you shouting? It doesn't make you look smarter when you shout. It actually does the opposite. And you call us dense.

Here's the thing. Those statistics of the large numbers of folks who are uninsured. How many are illegal aliens? How many choose to be uninsured? That's a large chunk. I was uninsured for a while when I was single and had no kids (many many years ago.) Seemed to me that I was ok with being unisured because I saved money by opting out of coverage I didn't feel like I needed.

For these illegal aliens, who foots the bill for their insurance. You and I do. What is so hard to see about that? Why should I spend my money on criminals? (In case you were wondering, if you're an illegal alien, you are breaking the law. Hence the term, "illegal".) I have no desire to support them. None. That's not my job. My job is to support myself, my family and my nation. Illegal aliens should be some other nations problems. Not mine. Why can't you see that? Why are you so dense?

There are two answers to that.

Answer #1 is that liberals feel like it's the "human" thing to do.

Answer #2 is that they're buying Latino votes left and right.

Choose whatever one you want.

MACH1
08-06-2009, 12:10 PM
You people on the other hand cherry pick facts...



Facts are facts!

Choose to ignore them and pay the price!

stlrtruck
08-06-2009, 12:36 PM
And let me explain the degree to which you do that! This is like go to the store, bought a jigsaw puzzle. Forced two completely unrelated pieces together. And tossed the rest into the trash! Claiming that you are finished.


This to me sounds like Obama's current HCR that's on the floor. It's very clear to me that this bill is for the minority amount of people who either choose not to have insurance or choose not to get a job to get insurance or the illegals in this country. I don't need that type of HCR.

While HCR is necessary, it's not necessary at the expense of the greater good!

HometownGal
08-06-2009, 01:57 PM
So EVERYBODY gets the same mediocre health coverage. Good plan.

Like I said.....a joke.

Ain't that the sad truth?

I guess all of the years we've busted our asses and trimmed our own budgets in order to be able to obtain good health care coverage is all for naught. :banging:

I have pre-existing conditions (cancer, MVP, anxiety) and my private insurer covers everything. I pay a small co-pay for doctors' office visits, prescriptions, specialists and hospitalizations. Instead of going out partying every week, eating at expensive restaurants on a regular basis, buying things I just don't need and running up my credit cards, I act responsibly, live on a strict budget and am able to afford health insurance coverage. :thumbsup:

I have many friends in Canada and several buddies in the UK, some of whom have very serious medical conditions. They have to wait months upon months to be seen by their physicians under the "government plan". People have died waiting to be seen by their doctors. Obaaaaama can take his socialized medicine plan and stick it up his hiney.

xfl2001fan
08-06-2009, 02:07 PM
Obaaaaama can take his socialized medicine plan and stick it up his hiney.


That's just it...he isn't really affected by this. Neither him, nor our great congressmen. And by great, I mean lying, backstabbing, greedy polticians.

If he was...he'd have to wait 6 months to get an appointment to possibly see a proctologist.

HometownGal
08-06-2009, 02:17 PM
If he was...he'd have to wait 6 months to get an appointment to possibly see a proctologist.

Obaaaaaama could self-treat, as he is America's proctologist - giving it to us up the ass on a daily basis.

revefsreleets
08-06-2009, 02:26 PM
This is about covering the people who aren't covered?

Which ones?

The illegal aliens? I read today that NO provision will cover them (and THAT is proper...we should NOT have healthcare plans that siphon money from legal taxpayers to illegals PERIOD...people who are legal but don't pay taxes are a separate issue).

The people who choose NOT to be covered?

The young and relatively healthy?

Out of the number that's constantly bandied about (45 million, give or take), it's reasonable to suspect that the ACTUAL number of people who WANT and NEED health insurance and legitimately cannot afford it (and I am NOT speaking about people who are "broke" but still have Xbox 360, a $500 iPhone, and $125 a month in digital cable) is probably closer to 10 million, and quite possibly even lower.

The question I then ask myself is, why can't we just tweak Medicade a little and pick them up in a little bigger "scoop"?

THEN we can talk about healthcare reform from the inside out, instead of scrapping most of what already works.

I am NOT denying that costs have spiraled out of control. And I DO think that a little government oversight could correct that. But let's be honest here...the US still has the best doctors and best hospitals in the World, and we got that way for a reason. You DO NOT tear down the whole house because the wiring is wrong, you fix the wiring...

xfl2001fan
08-06-2009, 02:41 PM
Thank you Revs - Unfortunately, you aren't winning any arguments with the blind kool-aid drinkers who are overly-enchanted with Obama's teleprompter reading skills. They'll follow him blindly as he leads us into a darker day...at a faster rate than what GWB was leading us. (Until Congress improves, no President will help, regardless of their ideology).

J Dogg
08-06-2009, 03:00 PM
The fact is that no final version of the bill has been written yet.

I can pretty much promise you that there will be something in there to cover illegals. And seeing as how I get all my taxes back every year anyway, I don't give a damn.

Indo
08-06-2009, 03:05 PM
SteelTalons

First of all, calling everybody else a bunch of idiots (in so many words) is NOT the way to get people to listen to you.

Second----I understood your point in bringing up the Humana video---I was simply pointing out that its purpose is to convince people how wonderful everything will be when the govt fixes it all----all the while being another govt source that is trying to convince us all how wonderful the govt will be

Now---and pay attention again----since you never corrected my guess at your age I will assume I am correct. You are somewhere between 25-28 years old and in no need of REAL health coverage. Similar to what xflfan says above, your are in a period of your life where it really doesn't affect you.And where everything is just black and white and oh so simple.
Go find a doctor to follow around for one month. Make sure that the patient population at that hospital is comprised of both insured and indigent (uninsured) patients. You will NEVER truly understand the problem unless you quit relying on all of the spoon-fed BS you are reading about how wonderful it will be and go and see for yourself how the proposed plan won't work.

Start with this----most people in this country who don't have insurance don't have insurance because they CHOOSE not to have it. They want to spend their money on other things.

Will the Government who wants you (thru your taxes) to pay for those who choose to engage in behaviors that DIRECTLY impact their health (like smoking, for example) require them to stop smoking? Do you smoke? Many Americans do. In fact, smoking correlates with lower economic status (sorry, can't find the link right now)
Should I be forced to pay for your insurance to take care of your empysema/COPD and cardiac disease and lung cancer because you want to smoke?

It's not all black and white, is it?

So, to be fair, and cut health care costs-----perhaps the govt should say, "Let's make it a healthier country for all, and "we" The Govt will pay for your health care (thru increased taxes). In return, to lower our costs of health care, EVERYONE who smokes MUST stop. It is bad for your health and we don't want to pay for you to continue to engage in such self-destructive behaviors."
Are you willing to buy in to this---the GOVT telling you that you must modify your behavior to accomodate them paying for someone else's health?
Because---and I PROMISE YOU---this WILL happen

revefsreleets
08-06-2009, 03:05 PM
The fact is that no final version of the bill has been written yet.

I can pretty much promise you that there will be something in there to cover illegals. And seeing as how I get all my taxes back every year anyway, I don't give a damn.
If Pelosi and Obama had gotten their way, perhaps. They both have made it VERY clear that they want EVERYONE covered.

But we've all won a pretty decisive victory in that we've managed to slow this process down and shine a spotlight on the actual piece of legislation. These are all still, at the end of the day, elected officials, and they exist for one REAL reason only: To get re-elected.

Public sentiment is catching up with them. I don't believe illegals will get covered under whatever bill ultimately gets passed.

J Dogg
08-06-2009, 03:10 PM
If Pelosi and Obama had gotten their way, perhaps. They both have made it VERY clear that they want EVERYONE covered.

But we've all won a pretty decisive victory in that we've managed to slow this process down and shine a spotlight on the actual piece of legislation. These are all still, at the end of the day, elected officials, and they exist for one REAL reason only: To get re-elected.

Public sentiment is catching up with them. I don't believe illegals will get covered under whatever bill ultimately gets passed.

I do....and quite frankly I'd rather have them covered than what happens now where they use ERs as their family practice and then never pay. Because guess what, you end up paying for them anyway.

revefsreleets
08-06-2009, 03:19 PM
Hmmmm, Dogg, that's an interesting observation. Since I KNOW that the insured get a better "rate" than the uninsured, you may actually be right about that.

However, I also see the flip side. If we pay for insurance for 10-12 million people will it be more or less expensive than just eating their bill when they come in for emergencies? After all, it's not like all 12 million of them are going to be heading to the doctors office the days they start getting free healthcare...

Indo
08-06-2009, 03:22 PM
The problem with that is that you can tell all of them that you will pay for them to go to the doctor, but you can't force them to go to the doctor. One of the biggest flaws in the whole plan is the notion that offering to pay for health maintenance check-ups will actually make people schedule an appointment!

xfl2001fan
08-06-2009, 03:24 PM
The problem with that is that you can tell all of them that you will pay for them to go to the doctor, but you can't force them to go to the doctor. One of the biggest flaws in the whole plan is the notion that offering to pay for health maintenance check-ups will actually make people schedule an appointment!

I'm more concerned with the flipside.

You'll get an overabundance of scheduled visits for every lil cough, sniffle and sneeze. The additional visits will cause more money to be spent...which will have to come from the pockets of taxpayers.

J Dogg
08-06-2009, 03:27 PM
Hmmmm, Dogg, that's an interesting observation. Since I KNOW that the insured get a better "rate" than the uninsured, you may actually be right about that.

However, I also see the flip side. If we pay for insurance for 10-12 million people will it be more or less expensive than just eating their bill when they come in for emergencies? After all, it's not like all 12 million of them are going to be heading to the doctors office the days they start getting free healthcare...

It's better than nothing. I've waited over 8 hours in an ER in Tucson on a weekend because illegals were there acting like it was their regular doc. Even knock off 25% of that and it's a big improvement.

Indo
08-06-2009, 03:29 PM
I'm more concerned with the flipside.

You'll get an overabundance of scheduled visits for every lil cough, sniffle and sneeze. The additional visits will cause more money to be spent...which will have to come from the pockets of taxpayers.

This, too, will be a problem...this is where the average time to see your doctor will increase from approximately 11 days to (I think ) 50+ days, like it is in Massachusetts where they already have a system in place that is similar to the system the govt wants to implement for the whole country.

revefsreleets
08-06-2009, 03:46 PM
This, too, will be a problem...this is where the average time to see your doctor will increase from approximately 11 days to (I think ) 50+ days, like it is in Massachusetts where they already have a system in place that is similar to the system the govt wants to implement for the whole country.

Didn't you hear the latest? The system in MA is near perfect, came in under budget, everyone in the state is perfectly healthy and happy, etc etc...and anyone who thinks different is just a negative evil stupid Republican poopy head...any problems like cutting care for legal immigrants and big hospitals having to sue for more benefits, and now your news that your wait times will more than quadruple are all just Rush Limbaugh lying or, you know, whatever...

That's the latest from the left. Read it for yourself here...

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/52568962.html

The following editorial appeared in the Boston Globe on Wednesday:
Pundits and politicians who oppose universal health care for the nation have a new straw man to kick around — the Massachusetts reform plan that covers more than 97 percent of the state's residents. In the myth that these critics have manufactured, this state's plan is bleeding taxpayers dry, creating nothing less than a medical Big Dig.


The facts — according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation — are quite different. Its report this spring put the cost to the state taxpayer at about $88 million a year, less than four-tenths of 1 percent of the state budget of $27 billion. Yes, the state recently had to cut benefits for legal immigrants, and safety-net hospital Boston Medical Center has sued for higher state aid. But that is because the recession has cut state revenues, not because universal health care is a boondoggle.


The main reason costs to the state have been well within expectations? More than half of all the previously uninsured got coverage by buying into their employers' plans, not by opting for one of the state-subsidized plans.


This should be exciting news for those fiscal conservatives, including both Republicans and ''blue dog'' Democrats, who claim to support the goal of universal coverage while despairing over its budget impact. But that's not what you hear from the Massachusetts bashers.


Trying to scare off the nation from helping the uninsured get coverage, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly said recently, ''You don't have to look any further than the universal health-care mess in Massachusetts to see disaster ahead.'' New York Times columnist Ross Douthat on Monday accused President Obama of ''pushing a health plan that looks a lot like the system currently hemorrhaging money in Massachusetts.''


The Republican governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, has also gotten his licks in. Costs in Massachusetts, he wrote in the Washington Post on Monday, ''have been dramatically higher than expected.'' Pawlenty's purpose in attacking this state's plan might be both to discredit a national plan and to score points against former Gov. Mitt Romney, one of the architects of what Massachusetts has accomplished. Romney, of course, is a possible rival of Pawlenty for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.


Whether out of ignorance or convenience, all three bashers have it wrong. Unlike the Big Dig, health reform came in on time and under budget. It will be proportionately more expensive nationally to provide coverage for the uninsured than it has been here simply because the state began the task with a much lower rate of uninsured, 7 percent, compared with the U.S. rate of 17 percent.
But a national plan that relies, as Massachusetts' does, on both government-subsidized insurance and a mandate on employers to offer insurance or pay a penalty (in Massachusetts' case, a very small penalty) should be able to cover nearly everyone without busting the budget.


In Massachusetts, cost estimates for the reform plan before its passage in 2006 were so low that Romney and the reform law's Democratic supporters in the legislature were able to get away without creating a new tax to fund it. After the costly Wall Street bailout and the $787 billion stimulus package, that option is not open to President Obama and Congress. But Congress should not allow itself to be buffaloed by false claims about Massachusetts into fearing a tsunami of red ink.


There is one other statistic about the Massachusetts plan that politicians, in particular, should appreciate. According to Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health and the Kennedy School of Government, the law's approval rating in June 2008 was 69 percent. That is a figure officeholders can only dream about.

Indo
08-06-2009, 04:20 PM
Didn't you hear the latest? The system in MA is near perfect, came in under budget, everyone in the state is perfectly healthy and happy, etc etc...and anyone who thinks different is just a negative evil stupid Republican poopy head...any problems like cutting care for legal immigrants and big hospitals having to sue for more benefits, and now your news that your wait times will more than quadruple are all just Rush Limbaugh lying or, you know, whatever...

That's the latest from the left. Read it for yourself here...

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/52568962.html

The following editorial appeared in the Boston Globe on Wednesday:
Pundits and politicians who oppose universal health care for the nation have a new straw man to kick around — the Massachusetts reform plan that covers more than 97 percent of the state's residents. In the myth that these critics have manufactured, this state's plan is bleeding taxpayers dry, creating nothing less than a medical Big Dig.


The facts — according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation — are quite different. Its report this spring put the cost to the state taxpayer at about $88 million a year, less than four-tenths of 1 percent of the state budget of $27 billion. Yes, the state recently had to cut benefits for legal immigrants, and safety-net hospital Boston Medical Center has sued for higher state aid. But that is because the recession has cut state revenues, not because universal health care is a boondoggle.


The main reason costs to the state have been well within expectations? More than half of all the previously uninsured got coverage by buying into their employers' plans, not by opting for one of the state-subsidized plans.


This should be exciting news for those fiscal conservatives, including both Republicans and ''blue dog'' Democrats, who claim to support the goal of universal coverage while despairing over its budget impact. But that's not what you hear from the Massachusetts bashers.


Trying to scare off the nation from helping the uninsured get coverage, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly said recently, ''You don't have to look any further than the universal health-care mess in Massachusetts to see disaster ahead.'' New York Times columnist Ross Douthat on Monday accused President Obama of ''pushing a health plan that looks a lot like the system currently hemorrhaging money in Massachusetts.''


The Republican governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, has also gotten his licks in. Costs in Massachusetts, he wrote in the Washington Post on Monday, ''have been dramatically higher than expected.'' Pawlenty's purpose in attacking this state's plan might be both to discredit a national plan and to score points against former Gov. Mitt Romney, one of the architects of what Massachusetts has accomplished. Romney, of course, is a possible rival of Pawlenty for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.


Whether out of ignorance or convenience, all three bashers have it wrong. Unlike the Big Dig, health reform came in on time and under budget. It will be proportionately more expensive nationally to provide coverage for the uninsured than it has been here simply because the state began the task with a much lower rate of uninsured, 7 percent, compared with the U.S. rate of 17 percent.
But a national plan that relies, as Massachusetts' does, on both government-subsidized insurance and a mandate on employers to offer insurance or pay a penalty (in Massachusetts' case, a very small penalty) should be able to cover nearly everyone without busting the budget.


In Massachusetts, cost estimates for the reform plan before its passage in 2006 were so low that Romney and the reform law's Democratic supporters in the legislature were able to get away without creating a new tax to fund it. After the costly Wall Street bailout and the $787 billion stimulus package, that option is not open to President Obama and Congress. But Congress should not allow itself to be buffaloed by false claims about Massachusetts into fearing a tsunami of red ink.


There is one other statistic about the Massachusetts plan that politicians, in particular, should appreciate. According to Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health and the Kennedy School of Government, the law's approval rating in June 2008 was 69 percent. That is a figure officeholders can only dream about.



Amazing!

I think that because this has been such a HUGE success we should award the Patriots with another first round draft!

7SteelGal43
08-09-2009, 12:55 AM
Maybe we should hire ourselves out as the fake unruly mob. :rolleyes:

does that position come with a healthcare package ?

7SteelGal43
08-09-2009, 01:06 AM
I'm more concerned with the flipside.

You'll get an overabundance of scheduled visits for every lil cough, sniffle and sneeze. The additional visits will cause more money to be spent...which will have to come from the pockets of taxpayers.

I think your right. Three days ago, my ankle was hurting so bad. By the time I was going to bed, the pain was excruciating. Something told me nothing "serious" was wrong but...what if ? The only thing that kept me from going to the emergency room was that I didn't have 24 hours to spare. By the next afternoon, it was just fine.

Preacher
08-09-2009, 02:13 AM
Okay, so you are concerned that you will get screwed out of coverage. Obama has already said, if you like you're health insurance as it is. You can keep it.

There will just be several tweaks to cover those who aren't. Increase quality and lower the costs. Its not all as doom and gloom as you conservatives wanna it to be.

And heres a video from Humana:


That is the same company I worked for... for about a year. I quit when I had surgery and the company demanded I come back to work, EVEN AFTER MY SURGEON SENT A LETTER WITH A LATER RELEASE DATE.

Humana? You have to do WAY better than that.

St33lersguy
08-09-2009, 08:55 AM
Our system is just fine. It's the best healthcare in the world, so good that leaders of other countriescome here when they are sick

Godfather
08-09-2009, 10:55 AM
Here's my proposal:

Raise the HSA contribution limit to $12,000 a year or the highest premium quote an individual receives, whichever is higher. Eliminate all restrictions on using an HSA to pay for a third party's health care--you should be able to help your parents and grandparents, your domestic partner, your neighbor, your fellow parishioner, your co-worker, a child you've never met. Eliminate the requirement that an HSA be paired with a HDHP--and absolutely NO INSURANCE MANDATES.

Do that and people are in charge of their own health care instead of forcing everyone into a system where a bean counter with a vested interest in saying no is between you and your doctor.

Then allow providers to charge less for patients paying out of pocket. That's common sense business practice. Those patients are cheaper to treat because there are no administrative costs.

7SteelGal43
08-09-2009, 11:57 AM
Okay, so you are concerned that you will get screwed out of coverage. Obama has already said, if you like you're health insurance as it is. You can keep it.

There will just be several tweaks to cover those who aren't. Increase quality and lower the costs. Its not all as doom and gloom as you conservatives wanna it to be.

And heres a video from Humana:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KfZfgkX6uEk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KfZfgkX6uEk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

So you're just ignoring the fact that Obama over the last 5 (or more) years has clearly stated he's FOR single payer coverage. You're ignoring the fact that he's clearly stated "we will get there".

Preacher
08-09-2009, 11:58 AM
Here's my proposal:

Raise the HSA contribution limit to $12,000 a year or the highest premium quote an individual receives, whichever is higher. Eliminate all restrictions on using an HSA to pay for a third party's health care--you should be able to help your parents and grandparents, your domestic partner, your neighbor, your fellow parishioner, your co-worker, a child you've never met. Eliminate the requirement that an HSA be paired with a HDHP--and absolutely NO INSURANCE MANDATES.

Do that and people are in charge of their own health care instead of forcing everyone into a system where a bean counter with a vested interest in saying no is between you and your doctor.

Then allow providers to charge less for patients paying out of pocket. That's common sense business practice. Those patients are cheaper to treat because there are no administrative costs.

Those are all pretty smart... the last one is tricky though, because insurance companies will demand a contract... and will demand lower than what people are paying if they walk in. However, you have hit a key problem on the head there.

I put in with that, Tort reform. It is outrageous that many doctors have to pay half a mill or more in malpractice insurance. They just pass it on to us. Limit damages except in the most severe cases. Ban advertising from drug companies, make all health care costs tax exempt REGARDLESS of income... No HSA, simply EXEMPT. Along with the above suggestions, that is a BIG beginning to solving the healthcare problem without turning it into the the DMV....

revefsreleets
08-09-2009, 03:09 PM
Krauth had a very simple proposal today in his op/ed piece. Too bad it would never fly in a trillion years because of the trial lawyers super heavy influence on the Democratic party. It's too bad, really, because this is a really simply common sense answer to the question:

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/52816672.html

A radical alternative to Obamacare

By Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post

Published on Sunday, Aug 09, 2009

WASHINGTON: In 1986, Ronald Reagan and Bill Bradley created a legislative miracle. They fashioned a tax reform that stripped loopholes, political favors, payoffs, patronage and other corruptions out of the tax system. With the resulting savings, they lowered tax rates across the board. Those reductions, combined with the elimination of the enormous inefficiencies and perverse incentives that go into tax sheltering, helped propel a 20-year economic boom.

In overhauling any segment of our economy, the 1986 tax reform should be the model. Yet today's ruling Democrats propose to fix our extremely high quality (but inefficient and therefore expensive) health care system with 1,000 pages of additional curlicued complexity — employer mandates, individual mandates, insurance company mandates, allocation formulas, political payoffs and myriad other conjured regulations and interventions — with the promise that this massive concoction will lower costs.

This is all quite mad. It creates a Rube Goldberg system that simply multiplies the current inefficiencies and arbitrariness, thus producing staggering deficits with less choice and lower-quality care. That's why the administration can't sell Obamacare.

The administration's defense is to accuse critics of being for the status quo. Nonsense. Candidate John McCain and a host of other Republicans since have offered alternatives. Let me offer mine: Strip away current inefficiencies before remaking one-sixth of the U.S. economy. The plan is so simple it doesn't even have the requisite three parts. Just two: radical tort reform and radically severing the link between health insurance and employment.

1. Tort reform: As I wrote recently, our crazy system of casino malpractice suits results in massive and random settlements that raise everyone's insurance premiums and creates an epidemic of defensive medicine that does no medical good, yet costs a fortune.

An authoritative Massachusetts Medical Society study found that five out of six doctors admitted they order tests, procedures and referrals — amounting to about 25 percent of the total — solely as protection from lawsuits. Defensive medicine, estimates the libertarian/conservative Pacific Research Institute, wastes more than $200 billion a year. Just half that sum could provide a $5,000 health insurance grant — $20,000 for a family of four — to the uninsured poor (U.S. citizens ineligible for other government health assistance).

What to do? Abolish the entire medical-malpractice system. Create a new social pool from which people injured in medical errors or accidents can draw. The adjudication would be done by medical experts, not lay juries giving away lottery prizes at the behest of the liquid-tongued John Edwardses who pocket a third of the proceeds.

The pool would be funded by a relatively small tax on all health-insurance premiums. Socialize the risk; cut out the trial lawyers. Would that immunize doctors from carelessness or negligence? No. The penalty would be losing your medical license. There is no more serious deterrent than forfeiting a decade of intensive medical training and the livelihood that comes with it.

2. Real health-insurance reform: Tax employer-provided health care benefits and return the money to the employee with a government check to buy his own medical insurance, just as he buys his own car or home insurance.

There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically senseless. It makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness.

The health care benefit exemption is the largest tax break in the entire U.S. budget, costing the government a quarter-trillion dollars annually. It hinders health-insurance security and portability as well as personal independence. If we additionally eliminated the prohibition on buying personal health insurance across state lines, that would inject new and powerful competition that would lower costs for everyone.

Repealing the exemption has one fatal flaw, however. It was advocated by candidate John McCain. Obama so demagogued it last year that he cannot bring it up now without being accused of the most extreme hypocrisy and without being mercilessly attacked with his own 2008 ads.

But that's a political problem of Obama's own making. As is the Democratic Party's indebtedness to the trial lawyers, which has taken malpractice reform totally off the table. But that doesn't change the logic of my proposal. Go the Reagan-Bradley route. Offer sensible, simple, yet radical reform that strips away inefficiencies from the existing system before adding Obamacare's new ones — arbitrary, politically driven, structural inventions whose consequence is certain financial ruin.
Krauthammer is a Washington Post columnist. He can e-mailed at letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

cubanstogie
08-09-2009, 10:22 PM
This health care BS is just like taxes. The richest and those with the most coverage cover the arses of the uninsured and the people who don't pay taxes and sit on their rears. Of the 46 million uninsured, I have read 10 million are illegal aliens, 17 million were in households making over 50k a year and 18 million were between the ages of 18 and 34. Like some stated earlier people make choices to buy an ipod or cell phone rather than buy catastrophic insurance for a reasonable price. The illegals and ones on medicare simply don't use cost effective judement when seeking health care. It is much too easy to call 911 for an ambulance to the ER than to find a ride or take the bus to the DR's office. They exploit the system and the ones with insurance are the ones who get charge 100 dollars for an aspirin. Not to mention people sue happy, c'mon when people are suing McDonalds for coffee thats too hot all it takes is for a physician to make one little mistake and they will lose millions, thanks to guys like Jon Edwards.The facade the libs use about 46 million uninsured is BS. Half of our financial problems wouldn't exist if you shut the borders and sent the aliens back where they came from instead of letting them exploit our system and suck us dry. The elderly paid there dues, I will gladly give them a pass. The fact is the libs need people dependent on them, and this just proves it. Obama the savior, I still can't believe anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size still believes this guy and his Chicago mafia is going fix this mess.

SteelTalons
08-10-2009, 11:00 AM
Hrm... Okay, lets see... The United States of America ranks 37th in the world when it comes to healthcare.

This information supplied by the World Health Organization and is based on: Life Expectancy by Country, Health Performance Rank by Country, Total Healthcare Expenditure as % of GDP, Infant Morality Rate, and so on and so forth. Just look up the report via Google, pick which ever reputable source you like its the same report regardless since I know you have your preferences when it comes to that.

Now, to the point. The USA spends the most money on healthcare, yet it ends up with a rather mediocre result when compared to the rest of the world. I mean just look:

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America

Saudi flipping Arabia spends less on healthcare and gets a better result than us for Christ sake. So even with the horror stories you hear from Canada(30th) and Britain(18th), there systems would none the less be an improvement. Granted they are along the lines of a socialized medicine, the UK literally being one.

Now, lets look at number 1... France, they have a hybrid system. Of government and private sector insurers. That is along the same model that our current system is going towards. Notice it has already been said, that if you like your plan you can keep it. But as I said this will provide healthcare to millions of uninsured.

Of course it will cover some of the worthless, dont wanna work bums. Every system has its flaws. But think of the benefit to small business owners, who cant afford to get coverage because as they start there business all there money goes into new supplies, the employees, and so on. They have to put all the profit back into the business to grow it and only take enough to survive until it gets financially stout and they are ready to grow and expand the business.

They need the government help with insurance. And so do the employees at their business because they aren't making enough to cover the astronomical costs of healthcare plans in America.

And to those who think well my coverage is great. Apparently you've missed the insurers denying certain treatments but every couple of years or months, or not covering things all together. Or dropping people because of their age, not giving them coverage due to a preexisting condition, or not covering treatments which is forcing families to go bankrupt, just to save a loved one.

You people love our current system because you're not the one getting screwed. Or at least not yet. By the time most of you get any type of seriousness illness your Medicare, a government run program by the way, will kick in to save your butts.

But what of everyone else? This is why we need reform. Because it will not only help the millions of uninsured, or ones with crappy plans because they dont make enough to afford the good ones, but it will help you. It will force the healthcare providers to be there when you need them. You pay them all those years for help only for them to deny you coverage or drop you when shit hits the fan.

This proposal is to, of course allow profits. But not at your expense. It will base things on the quality of care given, not the amount of it.

This is the very reason why I am disgusted with these people claiming all this nonsense. No system is perfect, I get that. But this mixture will allow you to be in charge of your healthcare, and will at least give you a fighting chance to get past your illness when that day comes. Because it will come its only a matter of when.

Now... Im gonna leave you with this. And I know someone is gonna be like, thats MSNBC you cant trust Olbermann you jackass! Well... Ive come to a similar conclusion he has. And when I saw this on Youtube, I had to take my hat off to him. :hatsoff:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IbWw23XwO5o&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IbWw23XwO5o&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

revefsreleets
08-10-2009, 11:07 AM
Yikes...

First off, the primary reason the US falls down the charts in these comparisons is BECAUSE of the cost. It's a horribly inefficient system. And I still don't see anyone putting forth a legitimate argument that the system IS NOT broken. It is.

I don't have time to watch Olbermann, and I will readily admit that I have great trouble taking ANYTHING this guy supports seriously, but I will watch it when i get home and comment.

X-Terminator
08-10-2009, 11:15 AM
SteelTalons, I admire your persistence, but the fact of the matter is that the government cannot be trusted. Period. A hybrid system sounds good and I'd possibly get on board with that, but Americans making their own choices is not something the government is in the business of. My mother has a slew of health problems right now that require immediate and continued care. She needs to see her doctors regularly, not wait 6 freaking months or longer to get in to see them. If she needs a medical procedure, it needs to be done immediately, not put on a waiting list for 6 months or a year or longer. That quite literally would cost her her life. If I had one iota of faith in the government to run this program without any kind of changes in quality and access to health care, and without costs spiraling out of control (for all the praise France's system gets, even it is running into funding problems), I'd be on board. But I don't. There is NO QUESTION that our system is broken and needs to be fixed. I can't stress that enough. I KNOW there are problems. Most people who are against Obama's plan knows that there are problems with the system. But a government takeover IS NOT the answer, and for all of their talk about people being able to keep their plans if they like them, it's BS, because they want nothing less than everyone on the public dole.

Sorry, dude.

And I won't be watching your video either. Olbermann is about as credible as a brick wall, and just about on par with Rush Limbaugh.

Vincent
08-10-2009, 11:50 AM
Here's my proposal:

Here's my proposal. The federalies tend to a secure border, provide funding for the bad-ass-est military on the planet, maintain a viable currency, provide the representatives and senators with meeting space, and stay the @#$% out of ALL else as all else is the province of the states.

3+ $Trillion a year. You people are thieves.

SteelTalons
08-10-2009, 12:53 PM
Yikes...

First off, the primary reason the US falls down the charts in these comparisons is BECAUSE of the cost. It's a horribly inefficient system. And I still don't see anyone putting forth a legitimate argument that the system IS NOT broken. It is.

I don't have time to watch Olbermann, and I will readily admit that I have great trouble taking ANYTHING this guy supports seriously, but I will watch it when i get home and comment.

I agree with you, on that. Most of the reason we are ranked that low is to do with the cost. Of course when you look at the data, it does show that we have a lot to be desired other than a cheaper price tag.

Olbermann I dont think said anything out of line or bullshit. He was merely just calling out people who are getting the way of reform and pointing out how much money they are hauling in from the health sector. And lays out an argument towards the end similar to what I did.

@X-Terminator
As far as how healthcare waiting lists and what have you... I understand that, my grandma died a couple years ago but when she was alive there was flipping tons of doctor visits. She had diabetes since she was in her 20s or so, and ate the way she was supposed to because of it. No cheating at all... But over the last ten years of her like... The diabetes caused her to have to get a leg amputated. It was destorying her organs, she was on tons and tons of pills. I mean had to take like 16pills at once for various things. Had some heart problems due to it, and that doctor visit alone as a nice 1million dollar price tag. But because of the surgery it shut her kidney's down and they put her on dialysis hoping it would job start her kidneys again. However it never did.

So she had to go over to some clinic and do that hours every other day. Until they trained her for an at home dialysis machine. And she had tons and tons of boxes from Baxter of supplies piled up the wall in the dinning room. However... She got an infection over the course of all this. And had to go to the hospital to get treated for that. Once she come home... She was swelling up. And it turned out the at home dialysis wasnt working. So she had to go back to he clinic. And then... The unthinkable. She gets cancer, luckily because she was in and out the hospital do much they caught it early and nixed it.

And all looked good for a while, she was in the nursing home, rehabilitating as planned... And she got and infection along the lines of MRSA which killed her on March 6th, 2008. She lasted three days longer than expected with that... While in the hospital though the doctor noticed her only foot looked mangled... It was broken, apparently due to the staff at the nursing home dropping her. However they never called to tell the family. And she sat in that place with the f'd up foot until they finally noticed something was wrong with her and rushed her to the hospital only to find her eat up with a drug resistant infection.

And if that dont beat all, few months later... My grandpa gets a bill. You owe the nursing home 22,000 for you're wifes stay with us. He was gonna call a sue them for their neglect... But... I think he finally just said enough is enough. And he didn't ever do it. He just wants to move on.

This alone is why Im in favor of a this reform. Medicare chewed tons of the cost, where her plan only covered parts of it all. The rest they had to pay out of pocket however...

This reform will insure that healthcare providers will be held accountable. So nobody has to endure the hell my grandmother did. So they wont have to get in debt over trying to save a loved one. The government runs Medicare, and that works pretty good. Why not allow the government to rework the entire system, change the nature of the industry from making money by treating instead of curing and preventing.

I dont have an issue with the government getting involved as long as its to be for our benefit as citizens. So we aren't hurt by the greed of corporations.

I dont see a single proposal out of the Republican camp that can hold a candle to Obama's. So pardon my hostility over this matter... Now you know, why Im so passionate about this subject.

Peace. :tt03:

Vincent
08-10-2009, 01:29 PM
I dont see a single proposal out of the Republican camp that can hold a candle to Obama's.

I do. Theirs is "Leave it alone - It works better than anything else on the planet." It's more expensive, but so are Bimmers.

You can bring thousands of such cases to the fore. Individually and collectively they don't negate that "health care" in this country is superior top that of any other country by leaps and bounds. And having lost that argument, the crisis is now the "Health insurance crisis", which also doesn't exist.

If indeed, bho's "intent" is to fix what doesn't work for the chronically uninsured, then let's hear about that. And that only. But that is not his intent as evidenced by sucking 1/2 a trillion out of medicare to help "pay for" the big power grab, leaving the oldsters gasping for the medicare they worked for and were "promised". "Oh, 'those people' are going to die anyway". Read pages 425-30 of the bill.

The rationale that this is a crisis because "we need to contain healthcare spending or it will bankrupt us" is beyond ridiculous in light of the profligacy we see from this bunch of socialist bastards.

Peace :tt03:

RunWillieRun
08-10-2009, 01:49 PM
I dont have an issue with the government getting involved as long as its to be for our benefit as citizens. So we aren't hurt by the greed of corporations.






Your right, it is much better to get hurt by the greed and corruption of the government.
:doh:

revefsreleets
08-10-2009, 01:55 PM
Here's what worries me. The US Government is currently running a monopoly on letter carrying. That monopoly LOST 7 billion dollars last year.

If they can't make money on a monopoly, how are they going to make health care solvent?

OK, here's my take on Olbermann:


A) Olbermann calling people a liar is the ultimate irony.
B) Real reach on the abortion thing equaling bureaucracy.
C) What about the trial lawyers owning the Democratic party?
D) Why attack the Democrats who want compromise?
E) Pulling up ONE specific example is particularly underhanded...there are 305 million people in this country, and I'm sure it's not hard to find thousands of examples of things going amok. No system is perfect.
F) Let the government run this and I bet we can find MILLIONS of cases of incompetence...
G) Not making a quick knee-jerk decision on this bill is the RIGHT THING TO DO. As it stands now, it's unworkable and creates a Rube Goldberg maze of red tape and nonsense and will fix nothing. Yet here's Keith ripping people up for going slowly and making sure this 10 trillion dollar investment isn't a complete eff up.
H) Olbermann was, is, and will continue to be so full of shit that I literally want to punch him in the face by the end of this. He's smug, arrogant, biased, and has lost his head. He's SO far left he has NO idea what is REALLY going on in this country anymore...

I can't believe people still watch this jackass spout off his hate based nonsense...

Vincent
08-10-2009, 02:14 PM
Not making a quick knee-jerk decision on this bill is the RIGHT THING TO DO. As it stands now, it's unworkable and creates a Rube Goldberg maze of red tape and nonsense and will fix nothing. Yet here's Keith ripping people up for going slowly and making sure this 10 trillion dollar investment isn't a complete eff up.

Rube Goldberg?

But this is so well thought out, Rev. Why, it's a picture of efficiency and savings.

.http://lansingmiteaparty.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/dems-health-care-plan.jpg

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::r ofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rof l:

Its easier to navigate Disney.

revefsreleets
08-10-2009, 04:01 PM
Wow, watch the Union guys beat up anti-Obama healthcare protesters...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXBOgPCh9w&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.steelernation.com%2Fforums%2 Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D28767&feature=player_embedded

MACH1
08-10-2009, 04:10 PM
If you can't beat em, Beat em down.

A glimpse of how the next 3 1/2 years are going to be if you speak out against obaama and his thugs.

revefsreleets
08-10-2009, 04:32 PM
If you can't beat em, Beat em down.

A glimpse of how the next 3 1/2 years are going to be if you speak out against obaama and his thugs.


I'm not ready to call the union Obamie's jackbooted thugs just yet...but it sure looks like they are ready, able and willing to be just that, if called upon. They have already demonstrated the obligatory lack of questioning of their leadership that such a role necessarily entails.

More...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umPRxBU3fFM

Interesting...the Union tells him he should support Obamie because they are both black. Nice.

Preacher
08-10-2009, 06:33 PM
Wow, watch the Union guys beat up anti-Obama healthcare protesters...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXBOgPCh9w&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.steelernation.com%2Fforums%2 Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D28767&feature=player_embedded

And now people know why I was so upset we elected a CHICAGO DEMOCRAT.

X-Terminator
08-10-2009, 06:58 PM
Wow, watch the Union guys beat up anti-Obama healthcare protesters...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXBOgPCh9w&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.steelernation.com%2Fforums%2 Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D28767&feature=player_embedded

So this is what it's come to, huh? And it's funny - all we heard for 8 years was how the previous administration was trying to silence dissent. Now, what are some of these same people doing over Obama's plan? Yes, that would be silencing dissent, and by force if necessary.

More hypocrisy from the left.

SteelTalons
08-10-2009, 09:54 PM
So this is what it's come to, huh? And it's funny - all we heard for 8 years was how the previous administration was trying to silence dissent. Now, what are some of these same people doing over Obama's plan? Yes, that would be silencing dissent, and by force if necessary.

More hypocrisy from the left.

Oh please, one guy gets mad and kicks someones ass and its silencing the masses. Tell that to the apeshit crazy crowd in Florida.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qeMQ4KXo_DA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qeMQ4KXo_DA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Very crappy silencing the masses. Maybe your right, government is garbage at doing things... And to think Stalin made communism look so easy! :doh:

X-Terminator
08-11-2009, 12:17 AM
Oh please, one guy gets mad and kicks someones ass and its silencing the masses. Tell that to the apeshit crazy crowd in Florida.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qeMQ4KXo_DA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qeMQ4KXo_DA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Very crappy silencing the masses. Maybe your right, government is garbage at doing things... And to think Stalin made communism look so easy! :doh:

Yeah, but it's just the next step. I mean, we've already had the supporters of Obama's plan label opponents as "manufacturing hate" and have been told, in no uncertain terms, to shut up by not only members of his administration but by rank and file types as well.

Defend that.

And as far as your little video here, you have only confirmed my overall point. Similar disruptions happened by left protesters all during the past 8 years, and that was just peachy. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and they're called "apeshit crazy."

You can't have it both ways.

MACH1
08-11-2009, 12:28 AM
Yeah, but it's just the next step. I mean, we've already had the supporters of Obama's plan label opponents as "manufacturing hate" and have been told, in no uncertain terms, to shut up by not only members of his administration but by rank and file types as well.

Defend that.

Shhhhhhh..Its Un-American to speak against the saviors word.

Wouldn't want ya to end up on the snitch list.

'Flag@Whitehouse.Gov' A Snitch Line

The Obama administration seems to have committed another political misstep when it set up an email address, 'flag@whitehouse.gov', in order to allow supporters to report on "misinformation" on health care reform.

According to Fox News, "The White House is under fire for a blog post asking supporters to send "fishy" information received through rumors, chain e-mails and casual conversations to a White House e-mail 'flag@whitehouse.gov'."


The news that the Obama administration is gathering information on American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights has caused a firestorm, from Washington, to the talk radio airways, to the Internet.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2030790/flagwhitehousegov_a_snitch_line.html

Hard to defend that. We're not in the soviet union.

Gnutella
08-11-2009, 07:47 AM
How 'bout this for a novel concept: I can develop a health care plan directly with my doctor!

RunWillieRun
08-11-2009, 07:48 AM
What does everyone think:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/


5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform
If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.
By Shawn Tully, editor at large
July 24, 2009: 10:17 AM ET

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform.

A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.

If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.

In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.

Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under Obamacare:

1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan

The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.

Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.

The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.

2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs

As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.

Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.

Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000.

Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.

3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage

The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less.

Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care.

The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed."

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan

This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.

The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs (GE, Fortune 500) and Time Warners (TWX, Fortune 500) and most other big companies.

The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.

But read on.

The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.

The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.

The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.

(continued below)

RunWillieRun
08-11-2009, 07:48 AM
(continued)

5. Freedom to choose your doctors

The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.

Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.

The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-service in a hurry," says Goodman.

In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.

Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs, especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under control in the righteous name of job creation.

The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high deductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that's strictly taboo in the bills). I'll propose my own solution in another piece soon on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system, but we still have our Five Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered Freedoms.

Gnutella
08-11-2009, 08:00 AM
Shhhhhhh..Its Un-American to speak against the saviors word.

Wouldn't want ya to end up on the snitch list.


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2030790/flagwhitehousegov_a_snitch_line.html

Hard to defend that. We're not in the soviet union.

You know what the ultimate irony is? Black people in the ghetto have a well-documented and highly-effective "anti-snitch" policy. Basically, if a crime goes down in the ghetto, and witnesses to the crime cooperate with any authorities, then the perpetrators and/or his friends seek revenge on them. Sometimes it even involves taking people's lives.

This is exactly why Ray Lewis was convicted of obstruction of justice. He may have known who killed those guys in Atlanta (and no, it was NOT him), but if he cooperated with the authorities, he would have been labeled a "snitch," and possibly had his life in danger. I'm not trying to justify what he did, and I think it's sad that that's how it is, but I understand why it happened. I would imagine that an obstruction of justice conviction is probably preferable to being killed.

With all that said, now snitching is suddenly OK among black people at large if it means that Barack Obama and anybody who supports him gets carte blanche in the process. (Or should that be carte noir?)

revefsreleets
08-11-2009, 08:46 AM
That attack was only one of many on YouTube...there seems to be a well coordinated Union effort to beat down anyone protesting Obamie's health care fiasco...

SteelTalons
08-11-2009, 12:10 PM
That attack was only one of many on YouTube...there seems to be a well coordinated Union effort to beat down anyone protesting Obamie's health care fiasco...

Lets agree to disagree but lets do agree on one thing...

Both sides has our fair share of blind followers, and they are capable of doing extremely stupid shit in the name of their cause they know oh so little about. :doh:

J Dogg
08-11-2009, 12:41 PM
Lets agree to disagree but lets do agree on one thing...

Both sides has our fair share of blind followers, and they are capable of doing extremely stupid shit in the name of their cause they know oh so little about. :doh:

Irony

revefsreleets
08-11-2009, 01:07 PM
I can see middle ground here...but I DO think there is quite a difference between a tea party and organized Union thuggery.

But I do concur that there are some right-wing crazies...those abortion haters that shoot doctors and stuff make my blood boil...

Vincent
08-11-2009, 05:19 PM
But I do concur that there are some right-wing crazies...those abortion haters that shoot doctors and stuff make my blood boil...

Rev, seriously. The statistical likelihood of a baby surviving a visit to the abortion mill is significantly lower than that of a baby murderer leaving one. :chuckle: Just sayin'.

How many baby killers have been capped? 2 or 3?

cubanstogie
08-11-2009, 06:17 PM
Rev, seriously. The statistical likelihood of a baby surviving a visit to the abortion mill is significantly lower than that of a baby murderer leaving one. :chuckle: Just sayin'.

How many baby killers have been capped? 2 or 3?

I have zero compassion for Tiller the baby killer or any Doc making millions off abortions, especially late term abortions. IMO it is far worse than what Vick has done, yet people seem to be very anti Vick. Like you stated, how many baby killers have been wacked.

Preacher
08-11-2009, 06:23 PM
Rev, seriously. The statistical likelihood of a baby surviving a visit to the abortion mill is significantly lower than that of a baby murderer leaving one. :chuckle: Just sayin'.

How many baby killers have been capped? 2 or 3?

Actually, quite a bit more than that.

revefsreleets
08-12-2009, 07:20 AM
Justifying their murders, eh?

Can't follow you guys there...one wrong act does not equal out another, and all these crazies do is create martyrs amongst the pro-choicers...

revefsreleets
08-26-2009, 09:20 AM
Back to back posts that debunk the myths originally advanced in this thread:

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/54920727.html

Myths about infant mortality

By Steve Chapman
Chicago Tribune

Published on Wednesday, Aug 26, 2009

CHICAGO: The American medical system has the latest technology, the greatest variety of new drugs and unparalleled resources. But anyone who thinks we're getting something great for our dollars inevitably encounters a two-word rebuke: infant mortality.

The United States is the richest nation on Earth, but it comes in 29th in the world in survival rates among babies. This mediocre ranking is supposed to make an irrefutable case for health-care reform. If we cared enough to insure everyone, we are told, we would soon rise to the health standards of other modern nations. It's just a matter of getting over our weird resistance to a bigger government role in medical care.

But not every health issue is a health-care issue. The reason boxers are unusually prone to concussions is not that they lack medical insurance. Doctors may treat head injuries, but it's a lot easier to prevent them. Absent prevention, we shouldn't blame the medical industry for punch-drunk fighters.

Like life expectancy, infant mortality is a function of many factors. The more you look at the problem, the less it seems to be correctable by a big new federal role in medical insurance — and, in fact, the less it seems to be mainly a medical issue at all.

No one denies the problem. Our infant mortality rate is double that of Japan or Sweden. But we live different lives, on average, than people in those places. We suffer more obesity (about 10 times as much as the Japanese), and we have more births to teenagers (seven times more than the Swedes). Nearly 40 percent of American babies are born to unwed mothers.

Factors like these are linked to low birth weight in babies, which is a dangerous thing. In a 2007 study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, economists June O'Neill and Dave O'Neill noted that ''a multitude of behaviors unrelated to the health-care system such as substance abuse, smoking and obesity'' are connected ''to the low birth weight and preterm births that underlie the infant death syndrome.''

Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, also attributes the gap largely to conduct. Comparing white Americans to Norwegians in his 1995 book, The Tyranny of Numbers, Eberstadt concluded that ''white America's higher rates of infant mortality are explained not by poverty (as conventionally construed) or by medical care but rather by the habits, actions and indeed lifestyles of a critical portion of its parents.'' Whites are not unique in those types of behavior.

African-American babies are far more likely to die than white ones, which is often taken as evidence that poverty and lack of health insurance are to blame. That's entirely plausible until you notice another racial/ethnic gap: Hispanics of Mexican or Central or South American ancestry not only do consistently better than blacks on infant mortality, they do better than whites. Social disadvantage doesn't explain very much.

Nor does access to prenatal care, as the health-care critique implies. It used to be assumed that if you assured that pregnant low-income women could see a physician, their infants would do much better. Not necessarily.

When New York expanded access to prenatal care under Medicaid, the effort reduced the rate of low birth weight infants by just 1 percent. In Tennessee, after a similar effort, researchers found ''no concomitant improvements in use of early prenatal care, birth weight or neonatal mortality.''

So why does our infant mortality rate exceed that of, say, Canada, where health care is free at the point of service? One reason is that we have a lot more tiny newborns. But underweight babies don't fare worse here than in Canada — quite the contrary.

The NBER paper points out that among the smallest infants, survival rates are better on this side of the border. What that suggests is that if we lived under the Canadian health-care system, we would not have a lower rate of infant mortality. We would have a higher one.

A lot of things could be done to keep babies from dying in this country. But the health-care ''reform'' being pushed in Washington is not one of them.
Chapman is a Chicago Tribune columnist. He blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman.

revefsreleets
08-26-2009, 09:23 AM
Posting this again here because it addresses WHY The US healthcare system appears to rank low...and I'm only poasting part of it...

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/53646807.html

It's true that the United States spends more on health care than anyone else, and it's true that we rank below a lot of other advanced countries in life expectancy. The juxtaposition of the two facts, however, doesn't prove we are wasting our money or doing the wrong things.

It only proves that lots of things affect mortality besides medical treatment. Heath Ledger didn't die at age 28 because the American health-care system failed him.

One big reason our life expectancy lags is that Americans have an unusual tendency to perish in homicides or accidents. We are 12 times more likely than the Japanese to be murdered and nearly twice as likely to be killed in auto wrecks.

In their 2006 book, The Business of Health, economists Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider set out to determine where the U.S. would rank in life span among developed nations if homicides and accidents are factored out. Their answer? First place.

That discovery indicates our health-care system is doing a poor job of preventing shootouts and drunken driving but a good job of healing the sick. All those universal-care systems in Canada and Europe may sound like Health Heaven, but they fall short of our model when it comes to combating life-threatening diseases.

Some of those foreign systems are great, as long as you don't get sick. Samuel Preston and Jessica Ho of the Population Studies Center at the University of Pennsylvania examined survival rates for lung, breast, prostate, colon and rectum cancers in 18 countries and found that Americans fared best.

The U.S. also excelled on other measures, such as surviving heart attacks for more than a year. Why? Because our doctors and patients don't take no for an answer. The researchers attribute the results to ''wider screening and more aggressive treatment.'' Another factor is that we get quicker access to new cancer drugs than anyone else.

Critics say all those great medicines and therapies are cold comfort to Americans who lack insurance — which by any standard is our greatest shortcoming. People without coverage are more likely to do without needed treatment or preventive care and more likely to die from disease or accidents.

But they have it better than you might think. Some 62 percent of uninsured Americans are satisfied with their medical care. That is probably because they get a lot of uncompensated treatment from the most advanced, ambitious and capable medical system in the world.

In Britain, by contrast, having guaranteed access to care doesn't mean you'll actually get it. Twenty percent of British cancer patients who might be cured become incurable while awaiting the treatment they need.

The challenge in this country is to extend coverage to the uninsured without degrading quality for everyone. With a little caution and humility, the president and Congress can find ways to achieve that goal. But first, they need to put down the hammer.
Chapman is Chicago Tribune columnist. He blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve—chapman.

Dino 6 Rings
08-26-2009, 11:49 AM
Nothing like using Kennedy's Death for POLITICAL GAIN.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0809/Byrd_Rename_health_care_bill_for_Kennedy.html

Byrd: Rename health care bill for Kennedy

Ailing Senator Robert Byrd, one of only two to have served longer than Kennedy, suggests in an emotional statement renaming the pending health care legislation for the late Massachusetts Senator:

In his honor and as a tribute to his commitment to his ideals, let us stop the shouting and name calling and have a civilized debate on health care reform which I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name for his commitment to insuring the health of every American.

Who is Byrd anyway...Oh Right...the Former KKK member.

7SteelGal43
08-26-2009, 12:05 PM
But I do concur that there are some right-wing crazies...those abortion haters that shoot doctors and stuff make my blood boil...

I do not condone killing abortion doctors or blowing up abortion clinics and I won't try to justify anything. But I am curious, rev, does your blood also boil when you think of all the babies that are brutally murdered each day ? And for no other reason than convenience ?

revefsreleets
08-26-2009, 03:20 PM
I do not condone killing abortion doctors or blowing up abortion clinics and I won't try to justify anything. But I am curious, rev, does your blood also boil when you think of all the babies that are brutally murdered each day ? And for no other reason than convenience ?

I believe abortion should be legal, but rare.

I also recognize the difference between a fully developed, aware, cognizant sentient being with fully developed memories and a life of experience versus an unborn fetus...so, to answer your question in the way you are trying to set me up for, no, I do not consider an unborn baby being murdered equal to killing a human being who is outside the uterus.

They are both wrong, but there are also degrees of wrongness.

If you want this question answered on an apples-to-apples basis, then I would say if one fetus went and slaughtered another fetus in cold blood in some kind of zygote attack, then my blood might boil over that...but probably not for the same reasons stated above.

I also don't think children should be held to the same level of accountability as adults for the same crimes...see where I'm heading here? You simply will NOT be able to trap me in these cookie cutter arguments the right spouts off...I'm no more susceptible to that than the cookie cutter garbage the left spews out here...

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
08-26-2009, 03:37 PM
I believe abortion should be legal, but rare.



How do you define rare, and under what circumstances?

From 1973-2005 there were 45 million legal abortions in the U.S. Is that rare enough?

All I will say is that in the U.S., abortion is used as a form of birth control which is despicable considering the availability of contraception for little or no cost.

When there are women that have had 7 or more abortions, there is an issue. ( I realize the story is from the UK, but still valid)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1035053/I-blanked-emotions-SEVEN-abortions.html

revefsreleets
08-26-2009, 04:11 PM
How do you define rare, and under what circumstances?

From 1973-2005 there were 45 million legal abortions in the U.S. Is that rare enough?

All I will say is that in the U.S., abortion is used as a form of birth control which is despicable considering the availability of contraception for little or no cost.

When there are women that have had 7 or more abortions, there is an issue. ( I realize the story is from the UK, but still valid)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1035053/I-blanked-emotions-SEVEN-abortions.html

No, that is not rare enough...I mean RARE. Like last resort. And using abortion as birth control makes my stomach turn.

I will never be right enough for the staunch conservatives who toe the party line...and I'll never buy into the Democrats zany platform of nonsense which defies common sense. So I'll just happily drift along drawing my own conclusions based on my own research and reading and stuff, being a well-informed "free agent" so to speak...

SteelTalons
08-26-2009, 04:41 PM
Sounds like we need to be making it easier for people to get birth control pills, condoms, and that high dose Plan B just in case.

Instead of trying to make it damn near impossible for women to be able to protect themselves(or religion getting in the way, ah-la Catholics)... I mean sure a guy can put on a rubber but that don't always work so well. Of course that don't excuse a man to just say whatever, because he thinks his girlfriend or whatever is on the pill when she might not be. Guys have to step up for sure, but the ladies have to watch their own back some too. Trojan don't always get out of Troy intact you know...

As far as... Abortions go... You know. In the case of rape, incest, baby has some crippling illness or wont live long(harlequin fetus anyone?), or the life of the mother is in danger... Then okay. I can understand it, but just to use it as a way to toss away perfectly good babies... No. I don't like that, it doesn't need to be a form of birth control.

I know a black guy, his ex-girlfriend's mom found out that she had slept with my friend and that was her first time. And she got all upset and crying because she didn't want her doing that sorta thing not married. And the main reason was her mom had her when she was 15, but had already had. Get this... 9 abortions before that! Before she just finally had a child.

So you know thats enough to turn my stomach, but its up to a woman. Its not my body so I'll just give the ladies the option, some cases I can understand I guess others I look at rather funny.

Vincent
08-26-2009, 07:06 PM
I believe abortion should be legal, but rare.

I believe liberals should be legal, but rare.

Preacher
08-26-2009, 07:19 PM
the funniest thing is... Everyone says we need healthcare reform. It is HOW it is reformed that is debated.

tony hipchest
08-26-2009, 07:33 PM
revs has this abortion argument pretty much under control. i just wanted to add...

....babies that are brutally murdered each day ? And for no other reason than convenience ?

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/crockofshit.jpg



From 1973-2005 there were 45 million legal abortions in the U.S. Is that rare enough? not to be crass and insensitive, but how would you feel about your taxes going up to provide the health and welfare for a good portion of these 45 million souls that were lost?

Preacher
08-26-2009, 07:36 PM
revs has this abortion argument pretty much under control. i just wanted to add...



http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/crockofshit.jpg

not to be crass and insensitive, but how would you feel about your taxes going up to provide the health and welfare for a good portion of these 45 million souls that were lost?

About the same way I feel about a race of people that were shipped over here as slaves, and someplace along the line, we realized that they too were human. Either innocent human life is worth protecting, or it is not. Putting a dollar amount on it is as sick as putting a person in slavery... and then a dollar amount on said slave... and morally equivalent.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
08-26-2009, 11:36 PM
About the same way I feel about a race of people that were shipped over here as slaves, and someplace along the line, we realized that they too were human. Either innocent human life is worth protecting, or it is not. Putting a dollar amount on it is as sick as putting a person in slavery... and then a dollar amount on said slave... and morally equivalent.

I agree with what Preach said Tony. You can't put a dollar amount on an innocent human life. With that argument we should either sterilize or exterminate anyone in poverty because we are supporting them and their children already. Same for anyone on disability. If the welfare system was reformed so that only legal citizens could receive it and had to pass a drug screening or something along those lines, then there would be plenty of money to go to those who actually need it. These systems are in place for a reason, but they are being abused.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
08-26-2009, 11:40 PM
Sounds like we need to be making it easier for people to get birth control pills, condoms, and that high dose Plan B just in case.

Instead of trying to make it damn near impossible for women to be able to protect themselves

This is turning into an abortion debate, which really isn't on topic, but I feel the need to comment on this.

I can't say for Plan B, but both condoms and birth control pills are available free of charge from the Health Department.

Saying it is "damn near impossible for women to be able to protect themselves" is down right naive.

tony hipchest
08-27-2009, 12:05 AM
About the same way I feel about a race of people that were shipped over here as slaves, and someplace along the line, we realized that they too were human. Either innocent human life is worth protecting, or it is not. Putting a dollar amount on it is as sick as putting a person in slavery... and then a dollar amount on said slave... and morally equivalent.

I agree with what Preach said Tony. You can't put a dollar amount on an innocent human life. .

so then you 2 agree with paying for healthcare for illegal aliens?

Preacher
08-27-2009, 12:15 AM
so then you 2 agree with paying for healthcare for illegal aliens?

:rofl:

Nice try at equating the unequatable.

One makes no choice to be born. The other makes a choice to violate a nations laws and thus, become a criminal.

Its the same argument as the death penalty.

There is a major difference between putting yourself in a situation because of a choice... and being innocent in a situation.

MasterOfPuppets
08-27-2009, 12:30 AM
:rofl:

Nice try at equating the unequatable.

One makes no choice to be born. The other makes a choice to violate a nations laws and thus, become a criminal.

Its the same argument as the death penalty.

There is a major difference between putting yourself in a situation because of a choice... and being innocent in a situation. how about the children of the illegal immigrants ? are they innocent, or are they criminals by association ? :noidea:

Preacher
08-27-2009, 01:26 AM
how about the children of the illegal immigrants ? are they innocent, or are they criminals by association ? :noidea:


You take care of the immediate needs of the child. Then bundle up child (when the child is medically safe to travel) with parents and send them all back to their homeland...

MACH1
08-27-2009, 09:04 AM
You take care of the immediate needs of the child. Then bundle up child (when the child is medically safe to travel) with parents and send them all back to their homeland...

BINGO

Send them back where they came from.

Vincent
08-27-2009, 11:00 AM
not to be crass and insensitive, but how would you feel about your taxes going up to provide the health and welfare for a good portion of these 45 million souls that were lost?

Not to be logical, but why do you assume that the lost 45 million souls would be have a "good portion" of unproductive, and therefor be a net liability? Is it because they were deemed "unwanted". Does that "unwanted" status determine their potential as people?

Purely as a selfish indulgence, I often wonder what was lost with all those little ones. The earliest ones would now be well into their productive years. And of course, the "unproductive" ones would displace the need for illegals to do the things "productive" people don't want to do. What might they all have done for this society? What a waste.

Back to the unselfish. What a stain. What an unspeakable tragedy.

The dolt in the White House goes about the world apologizing for America. The wholesale slaughter of our "unwanted" children commands the only relevant apology.

KeiselPower99
09-09-2009, 08:41 AM
I read last night that if you dont take the government plan you will be fined 3500 dollars. What a way to make sure your in control of people.

X-Terminator
09-09-2009, 09:15 AM
I read last night that if you dont take the government plan you will be fined 3500 dollars. What a way to make sure your in control of people.

I read that there was a penalty should you choose not to take the public option (I forget the exact percentage for individuals, but it's 8% for employers), but I hadn't heard about $3500. Could you post a link? I'd like to read this for myself.

TackleMeBen
09-09-2009, 09:19 AM
i heard that too, but i thought it was aimed at companies that didnt offer the gov. plan as an option.

X-Terminator
09-09-2009, 09:23 AM
i heard that too, but i thought it was aimed at companies that didnt offer the gov. plan as an option.

I kinda figured that. I can't support the government basically forcing employers to offer their plan. Besides, $3500 is a pittance to a large company or corporation - they'd just write it off as a loss if they didn't want to offer it for any reason. Even 8% is nothing to them. It would hurt small businesses, however, which is another reason why I think it's bogus. Most companies will offer it anyway, if it costs them significantly less than a group insurance plan, but if they choose not to, they should be able to do so without penalty.

The bottom line is that all of this talk about a public "option" is BS. It is not an "option" - they want total control, and they'll go through whatever means they have to get it.

revefsreleets
09-09-2009, 09:30 AM
Here's a good one for you? Why are private companies in the business of offering insurance in the first place? You don't buy your car insurance through work. You don't buy home insurance through work.

I think putting the choices back in the hands of the consumer, ala buying your home/life/car etc, etc insurance would be a nice first step in the right direction...knock down the state barriers, open up health insurance to anyone, anywhere (and while they're at it, no reason not to make purchasing home/car insurance the same way) and watch the competition fire up and rates drop like a rock. Provide significant tax breaks to individuals against their premiums, and get private business out of the business of insurance altogether. All the newly unemployed HR weenies can go to work for the insurance companies themselves, as they will need to staff up on the administrative side to handle all the new point-to-point contact with the individually insured.

X-Terminator
09-09-2009, 09:46 AM
Here's a good one for you? Why are private companies in the business of offering insurance in the first place? You don't buy your car insurance through work. You don't buy home insurance through work.

I think putting the choices back in the hands of the consumer, ala buying your home/life/car etc, etc insurance would be a nice first step in the right direction...knock down the state barriers, open up health insurance to anyone, anywhere (and while they're at it, no reason not to make purchasing home/car insurance the same way) and watch the competition fire up and rates drop like a rock. Provide significant tax breaks to individuals against their premiums, and get private business out of the business of insurance altogether. All the newly unemployed HR weenies can go to work for the insurance companies themselves, as they will need to staff up on the administrative side to handle all the new point-to-point contact with the individually insured.

I like this idea. Kills 2 birds with one stone - keeps the government out of it except for regulation, and takes the power away from the bean counters in the insurance companies. In today's high-speed communication age, there really is no reason why this couldn't be implemented. I'm sure Californians would love to be able to buy insurance in, say, Iowa, where I'm sure the cost of a premium is much, much less. I'd also add that all insurance companies must hire nurses, doctors - people with backgrounds in medicine - to be in charge of all health care decisions. No more glorified paper pushers with social work degrees and no background in the medical field.

HometownGal
09-09-2009, 09:57 AM
I read last night that if you dont take the government plan you will be fined 3500 dollars. What a way to make sure your in control of people.

Being in total control is the Liberal way, sadly. Time for all of us to get to Walmart and buy K-Y by the case. :horror:

7SteelGal43
09-09-2009, 11:55 AM
Being in total control is the Liberal way, sadly. Time for all of us to get to Walmart and buy K-Y by the case. :horror:

Wonder if it comes in 30 gallon drums ? :scratchchin:

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
09-09-2009, 12:05 PM
Greates country in the world... With one of the worse health cares? Doesnt make sense. This issue needs to stop being a democratic vs. republican debate and needs to be fixed immediately...
Its just stupid that people would not want healcare reform. Stupid...Too many listen to talk radio and extremist on both the left and the right.

Hammer67
09-09-2009, 12:20 PM
Here's a good one for you? Why are private companies in the business of offering insurance in the first place? You don't buy your car insurance through work. You don't buy home insurance through work.

I think putting the choices back in the hands of the consumer, ala buying your home/life/car etc, etc insurance would be a nice first step in the right direction...knock down the state barriers, open up health insurance to anyone, anywhere (and while they're at it, no reason not to make purchasing home/car insurance the same way) and watch the competition fire up and rates drop like a rock. Provide significant tax breaks to individuals against their premiums, and get private business out of the business of insurance altogether. All the newly unemployed HR weenies can go to work for the insurance companies themselves, as they will need to staff up on the administrative side to handle all the new point-to-point contact with the individually insured.

An excellent idea but companies tout insurance plans (Health and life) as part of their compensation packages. I know my insurance coverage costs the company $7000+ yearly. SO, they would save there...

7SteelGal43
09-09-2009, 12:38 PM
Greates country in the world... With one of the worse health cares? Doesnt make sense. This issue needs to stop being a democratic vs. republican debate and needs to be fixed immediately...
Its just stupid that people would not want healcare reform. Stupid...Too many listen to talk radio and extremist on both the left and the right.

yeah um, nobody is denying we need "reform"....kthanksbai :thumbsup:

SCSTILLER
09-09-2009, 12:47 PM
Greates country in the world... With one of the worse health cares? Doesnt make sense. This issue needs to stop being a democratic vs. republican debate and needs to be fixed immediately...
Its just stupid that people would not want healcare reform. Stupid...Too many listen to talk radio and extremist on both the left and the right.

I don't think that anyone is against health care reform, I think it is about the government being in charge of health care. I for one want health care reform, cheaper health care, and easier access, but I DO NOT want the government anywhere near my health care except to make sure regulations are followed. I just have this bad image of me going to the doctor/hospital/ER and having the same experience as the DMV. Also, look at the Post Office and Amtrak, losing money fast and government run. I think that where the left-right thing really gets played is that it is a lefty controlled government and therefore any voice of dissent is considered coming from the right, but i know quite a few people who voted for Obama and the lefties and want nothing to do with govt. run health care.

Now, am I a health care expert? Nope! So I cannot really comment on how a system would be run better. I do like Rev's idea, and I also like the idea of letting health insurance companies cross state lines and also clients cross state lines also, but after that the only thing I know is that I don't want a government run option because all that is going to lead to is a government take over (government does not need to make money vs. health insurance companies do need to make money). Also think that lawsuits need to be capped, and illegals must show proof of citizenship (even though they will probably forge it) before they can get health care.

Hopefully some good comes out of all the bickering, starting with the government staying the hell out of health insurance!

KeiselPower99
09-09-2009, 02:19 PM
I read that there was a penalty should you choose not to take the public option (I forget the exact percentage for individuals, but it's 8% for employers), but I hadn't heard about $3500. Could you post a link? I'd like to read this for myself.

My wife found the article. As soon as she gets home Ill post it.

MACH1
09-09-2009, 04:27 PM
I read that there was a penalty should you choose not to take the public option (I forget the exact percentage for individuals, but it's 8% for employers), but I hadn't heard about $3500. Could you post a link? I'd like to read this for myself.

I think I heard the 8% is a payroll tax straight across the board for all business. And the fine is like $1200 per person if they do not cover themselves with obamacare.

EDIT

In the paper it says $950 a year for individuals and $3800 a year for families.

Way to punish the people that can't afford it in the first place.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6LJj4p8MoKs/SUAscHmpuPI/AAAAAAAAAGM/YjmbY13cjgM/S220/Obama+kool+aid.jpg

7SteelGal43
09-09-2009, 05:49 PM
I think I heard the 8% is a payroll tax straight across the board for all business. And the fine is like $1200 per person if they do not cover themselves with obamacare.

EDIT

In the paper it says $950 a year for individuals and $3800 a year for families.

Way to punish the people that can't afford it in the first place.



:doh:

X-Terminator
09-09-2009, 06:06 PM
Greates country in the world... With one of the worse health cares? Doesnt make sense. This issue needs to stop being a democratic vs. republican debate and needs to be fixed immediately...
Its just stupid that people would not want healcare reform. Stupid...Too many listen to talk radio and extremist on both the left and the right.

Find me one person who disagrees with Obama's plan who doesn't want or doesn't think the country needs health care reform.

You tell people to quit listening to talk radio...how about you quit listening to Keith Olbermann and Nancy Pelosi.

I think I heard the 8% is a payroll tax straight across the board for all business. And the fine is like $1200 per person if they do not cover themselves with obamacare.

EDIT

In the paper it says $950 a year for individuals and $3800 a year for families.

Way to punish the people that can't afford it in the first place.

Unbelievable. Why the hell should I be punished just because I don't want the public option? That's why I say it really isn't an option - a TRUE option does not penalize people for choosing something different and better. They are after total control, plain and simple.

revefsreleets
09-09-2009, 06:09 PM
Find me one person who disagrees with Obama's plan who doesn't want or doesn't think the country needs health care reform.

You tell people to quit listening to talk radio...how about you quit listening to Keith Olbermann and Nancy Pelosi.

This guy has ZERO cred in this particular argument...the myth that the US does NOT have the best healthcare in the World has been systematically taken apart piece by piece by MANY people here...

cubanstogie
09-09-2009, 07:28 PM
It took a whole 10 seconds for Hussein to blame the Bush administration. We are still cleaning up the crisis' he said. Thats all I could watch. I thought I could last at least 15 minutes but didn't even last 15 seconds.

KeiselPower99
09-09-2009, 08:22 PM
Thank god I didnt watch that garbage.

SCSTILLER
09-10-2009, 09:35 AM
It took a whole 10 seconds for Hussein to blame the Bush administration. We are still cleaning up the crisis' he said. Thats all I could watch. I thought I could last at least 15 minutes but didn't even last 15 seconds.


And he is on TV AGAIN talking about health care! We get it, you want and support and beg for health care reform

MACH1
09-10-2009, 09:40 AM
Another load of horse shit.

SCSTILLER
09-10-2009, 09:42 AM
Another load of horse shit.

Agreed!

MACH1
09-10-2009, 09:45 AM
http://neoavatara.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ocare17.jpg

revefsreleets
09-10-2009, 10:21 AM
I WOULD have laughed if Obama had come out and said "Bu-bu-bu-Bush!"

Then I would have cried...

Godfather
09-10-2009, 10:37 AM
I WOULD have laughed if Obama had come out and said "Bu-bu-bu-Bush!"

Then I would have cried...

Well, this time he's doubling down on a failed Romney policy instead of a failed Bush policy.

Obama logic is apparently "The insurance companies are screwing their customers. We can solve that problem by forcing everyone to buy insurance"

revefsreleets
09-10-2009, 10:57 AM
Last night was supposed to clear things up, and, I have to be honest, I'm less certain as to what his plan is now than I was before...it's so convoluted as to almost seem like it's going to do the LEAST amount of good for the MOST amount of people, and I'm also completely confused as to how he's NOT going to sign a 900 billion dollar bill that there is no money to pay for UNLESS it doesn't cost a cent.

Huh?

RunWillieRun
09-10-2009, 11:28 AM
Last night was supposed to clear things up, and, I have to be honest, I'm less certain as to what his plan is now than I was before...it's so convoluted as to almost seem like it's going to do the LEAST amount of good for the MOST amount of people, and I'm also completely confused as to how he's NOT going to sign a 900 billion dollar bill that there is no money to pay for UNLESS it doesn't cost a cent.

Huh?



Come'on rev. It makes perfect sense, he'll cut hundreds of billions of dollars of waste from the government programs medicaid and medicare (why hasn't this already been done?) to pay for MORE government insurance programs that magically will be free of waste and fraud.

That should clear it up.


I think.



Maybe not.








Screw it, just soak the rich.

MACH1
09-10-2009, 11:38 AM
Last night was supposed to clear things up, and, I have to be honest, I'm less certain as to what his plan is now than I was before...it's so convoluted as to almost seem like it's going to do the LEAST amount of good for the MOST amount of people, and I'm also completely confused as to how he's NOT going to sign a 900 billion dollar bill that there is no money to pay for UNLESS it doesn't cost a cent.

Huh?

You do know the more you spend the more you get yourself out of the hole. Right?

As far as his plan goes, I don't think he really has one. Other than to break the constitution and the country.

revefsreleets
09-10-2009, 12:21 PM
That IS the question...if there is all this rampant fraud and inefficiency, WHY hasn't it already been addressed?

It's like taking your car into the shop, and them telling you "Well, you have a huge hole in your gas tank and you're leaking gas BAD....we'd love to fix it, but we can't because your battery is weak and will need changed this winter and your tires are flat, and we need to fix the air conditioning....just keep driving it like it is until we can fix it all".

Um...okay, Obamie...what the eff ever...

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
09-10-2009, 06:48 PM
I don't think that anyone is against health care reform, I think it is about the government being in charge of health care.

Hopefully some good comes out of all the bickering, starting with the government staying the hell out of health insurance!

Everyone on medicare LOVES medicare and thats government run?

43Hitman
09-10-2009, 07:00 PM
Everyone on medicare LOVES medicare and thats government run?

:doh:

HometownGal
09-10-2009, 07:15 PM
:doh:

Double. :doh::doh:

revefsreleets
09-10-2009, 07:18 PM
Everyone on medicare LOVES medicare and thats government run?

Medicare has a ton of waste...in fact that deficit calculator someone else posted had a specific counter dedicated to JUST that. I believe it was up to 40 billion in medicare fraud, and that's just through Q3 of '09.

But that brings up and interesting "what if". Why don't we just expand Medicare to pick up the people that aren't covered if it's such a great program?

This is a lot like the earlier thing about all the waste in the current system...why don't we do this simpler thing before we tackle the larger problem?

cubanstogie
09-10-2009, 07:19 PM
Everyone on medicare LOVES medicare and thats government run?

can you really say that with a straight face. Absurd comment.

X-Terminator
09-11-2009, 12:38 AM
Everyone on medicare LOVES medicare and thats government run?

Dude, please tell me you didn't just type that...oops, I guess you did.

I can give you a nice, LONG list of problems with Medicare, such as the 2-year waiting period before you can even get on it. So if you don't happen to have insurance during that period and you get sick, well I guess you're just SOL. And let's not even get into the rampant fraud and abuse within the program. Multiply that by 10,000, and you get the fraud and abuse that would exist if everyone were covered, costing you and me billions of dollars a year.

Thanks, but no thanks.

MACH1
09-11-2009, 12:47 AM
Double. :doh::doh:

Triple :doh::doh::doh:

Hines0wnz
09-11-2009, 04:33 PM
Allow Insurance companies to compete from state to state and TORT REFORM will cause Premiums to go down all Dropping the cost of Health Care. But the Fcking Lawyers in Washington don't want any kind of Tort Reform. Nope...they suck the system dry with their lawsuits upon lawsuits while we pay $500 bucks for an asperin in the Emergency Room.



This.

hindes204
09-11-2009, 04:48 PM
Unfortunately, the democrats are so in bed with the trial lawyers that tort reform will never pass while the dems are in charge

Hines0wnz
09-11-2009, 05:08 PM
Unfortunately, the democrats are so in bed with the trial lawyers that tort reform will never pass while the dems are in charge

I'm not Dem but the Repubs had plenty of time to reform it as well. No change will come about until we can add a Constitutional amendment that limits the terms of Congress to be in line with the President. 2 terms and you're outta here scumbag! And a viable 3rd/4th party would help as well. This 2 party system has failed us.

Steelerama
09-13-2009, 05:01 PM
http://www.americanprogress.org/cartoons/2009/08/img/081109.jpg

X-Terminator
09-13-2009, 06:25 PM
You know, that's a cute pic and all, but Medicare "didn't get it for her." They only pay 80%. The other 20% YOU are responsible for, unless the scooter company offers some kind of program for people who can't afford the 20%. I know this because my Mom has had 2 chairs in the past 6 years. If you don't qualify for the program, well then you're SOL and you have to come up with the rest if you don't have insurance, which can be anywhere from $800 to $1500 or more, depending on the model.

Besides, the argument is not about whether or not everyone should be covered, or that the program shouldn't be fixed. Most people who are against Obama's plan understand and support the need to reform the system. The argument is about control, specifically PEOPLE being allowed to keep control of their own health care rather than turn it over to the government. As much as Obama and the rest of the supporters cry "option," it's a myth. It is NOT an option. It can't be when there are penalties for choosing not to go with the government's plan. On top of that, the cost of this program will end up being outrageous, and if you really believe that the government won't ration care in order to control costs, then you're both naive AND blind. As I've said before, my mother has serious medical problems, and in fact is currently in the hospital. Those problems require immediate and constant care. Rationing or having to wait for procedures or even to have regular checkups will adversely affect her health, and literally puts her life at risk. I'm sorry, but I am NOT willing to even risk that happening, as much as I hate what the insurance companies have become.

Steelerama
09-13-2009, 06:51 PM
so she got 80% paid for chairs twice. That's a lot more than people without any insurance get

X-Terminator
09-13-2009, 07:15 PM
so she got 80% paid for chairs twice. That's a lot more than people without any insurance get

Well duh! So let's find a way to get those people insured without turning it all over to the government, and allowing them to keep their freedom of choice. Allowing more competition among the insurance companies would be a good start. Let them be able to offer premiums to anyone, anywhere, rather than only being able to offer plans within their states or regions. So if someone in CA wants to buy a plan from a company in MS because it's hundreds of dollars cheaper, they should be allowed to. Then the company in CA would either have to lower rates or be put out of business. That's how it SHOULD work. And I'd still allow for a TRUE public option for people who couldn't even afford that. I think this is WAY better than just letting the government pay for everything and be subject to their whims when they decide that costs need to be cut.

Steelerama
09-13-2009, 07:27 PM
exactly how cheap do you think the insurance companies are willing to go? Your idea has some merit, but the companies will work together to keep ripping us off and get their money

MACH1
09-13-2009, 07:33 PM
exactly how cheap do you think the insurance companies are willing to go? Your idea has some merit, but the companies will work together to keep ripping us off and get their money

Typical odumba logic there.

Its called competition. If they want to stay in business then they'll lower rates to attract business or risk losing clients to companies that have the lower rate or more incentives to go with them.

Steelerama
09-13-2009, 09:09 PM
Typical odumba logic there.

Its called competition. If they want to stay in business then they'll lower rates to attract business or risk losing clients to companies that have the lower rate or more incentives to go with them.

Typical faux news sheep logic. Like the rates really went down with the phone company, with auto insurance, with anything, the companies are all in bed together and will make sure it doesnt go down to a certain level, and make sure the prices will start climbing up again as soon as possible.

X-Terminator
09-13-2009, 11:39 PM
Typical faux news sheep logic. Like the rates really went down with the phone company, with auto insurance, with anything, the companies are all in bed together and will make sure it doesnt go down to a certain level, and make sure the prices will start climbing up again as soon as possible.

Do you have to go with your local phone company? No. You can get your phone service through your cable company or over the Internet via VoIP, both of which are cheaper than local phone company, with many more options that you have to pay extra for with said local phone company. And here in PA, we have allowed outside phone companies to come in and compete for landline service. Cavalier Telephone, a Virginia-based company, is one example. You also have the option of using your cell phone as your main line. My mom does it, my boss does it, HTG does it...millions of people do it.

Do you have to go with one of the big national auto insurance companies? No. There are literally hundreds of other options for auto insurance, and a good many of them are cheaper than Geico, Progressive, State Farm, etc., AND offer just as many benefits as those companies do.

And speaking of cable companies, you no longer have to go with the one cable company that serves your area. You can get DirecTV or DISH Network, and, if available, FiOS TV through Verizon, AT&T U-Verse or any other phone company that offers FTTH (Fiber To The Home) service. DirecTV and DISH are cheaper than Comcast, and FiOS TV is as well.

Sorry, but your examples are not very good. In all of them, competition has most certainly made cheaper alternatives available. The same can be done with health insurance.

Contrary to the beliefs of many on the left, not every company is an evil blood-sucker, and competition really does work.

HometownGal
09-14-2009, 07:53 AM
Do you have to go with your local phone company? No. You can get your phone service through your cable company or over the Internet via VoIP, both of which are cheaper than local phone company, with many more options that you have to pay extra for with said local phone company. And here in PA, we have allowed outside phone companies to come in and compete for landline service. Cavalier Telephone, a Virginia-based company, is one example. You also have the option of using your cell phone as your main line. My mom does it, my boss does it, HTG does it...millions of people do it.

Do you have to go with one of the big national auto insurance companies? No. There are literally hundreds of other options for auto insurance, and a good many of them are cheaper than Geico, Progressive, State Farm, etc., AND offer just as many benefits as those companies do.

And speaking of cable companies, you no longer have to go with the one cable company that serves your area. You can get DirecTV or DISH Network, and, if available, FiOS TV through Verizon, AT&T U-Verse or any other phone company that offers FTTH (Fiber To The Home) service. DirecTV and DISH are cheaper than Comcast, and FiOS TV is as well.

Sorry, but your examples are not very good. In all of them, competition has most certainly made cheaper alternatives available. The same can be done with health insurance.

Contrary to the beliefs of many on the left, not every company is an evil blood-sucker, and competition really does work.

You're wasting your time and font trying to get these sheeple to think rationally. They're so drunk on the Kool Aid that they have totally lost their rational thought process.

Change We Can Believe In. :jerkit:

stillers4me
09-14-2009, 07:59 AM
Do you have to go with your local phone company? No. You can get your phone service through your cable company or over the Internet via VoIP, both of which are cheaper than local phone company, with many more options that you have to pay extra for with said local phone company. And here in PA, we have allowed outside phone companies to come in and compete for landline service. Cavalier Telephone, a Virginia-based company, is one example. You also have the option of using your cell phone as your main line. My mom does it, my boss does it, HTG does it...millions of people do it.

Do you have to go with one of the big national auto insurance companies? No. There are literally hundreds of other options for auto insurance, and a good many of them are cheaper than Geico, Progressive, State Farm, etc., AND offer just as many benefits as those companies do.

And speaking of cable companies, you no longer have to go with the one cable company that serves your area. You can get DirecTV or DISH Network, and, if available, FiOS TV through Verizon, AT&T U-Verse or any other phone company that offers FTTH (Fiber To The Home) service. DirecTV and DISH are cheaper than Comcast, and FiOS TV is as well.

Sorry, but your examples are not very good. In all of them, competition has most certainly made cheaper alternatives available. The same can be done with health insurance.

Contrary to the beliefs of many on the left, not every company is an evil blood-sucker, and competition really does work.

:bowdown:

revefsreleets
09-14-2009, 08:42 AM
Speaking of Medicare, I wanted to clarify something about them before this debate flies away into something else.

Medicare UNDER reimburses hospitals...they don't pay the entire cost of what most procedures are, so, in order to make up the difference, doctors and hospitals perform a bunch of extra procedures so they can bill enough to Medicare in QUANTITY to make up the slack.


Notice there was nothing in that paragraph about insurance companies? They are NOT the only villains in this system. Medicare is flawed. The doctors and hospitals commit fraud to make up the slack. They are culpable, too...

There are many things broke in this system. Not irreparably, but we don't need a whole new piece of sweeping legislation to fix the aforementioned problem, just some tweaks. Why can't we start there?

revefsreleets
09-14-2009, 08:44 AM
Whoops....dupe post...

Steelerama
09-14-2009, 11:11 AM
deluded neocons...what else is new?

revefsreleets
09-14-2009, 11:14 AM
deluded neocons...what else is new?

How deep and insightful...it's really enthralling to be in the presence of a true member of the liberal intelligentsia...:rofl:

What's next, a yo mama joke?

Godfather
09-14-2009, 11:27 AM
Well duh! So let's find a way to get those people insured without turning it all over to the government, and allowing them to keep their freedom of choice. Allowing more competition among the insurance companies would be a good start. Let them be able to offer premiums to anyone, anywhere, rather than only being able to offer plans within their states or regions. So if someone in CA wants to buy a plan from a company in MS because it's hundreds of dollars cheaper, they should be allowed to. Then the company in CA would either have to lower rates or be put out of business. That's how it SHOULD work. And I'd still allow for a TRUE public option for people who couldn't even afford that. I think this is WAY better than just letting the government pay for everything and be subject to their whims when they decide that costs need to be cut.

Insurance isn't the solution to the problem. Insurance IS the problem. There are only two ways to increase their profits: higher premiums and lower payouts. So they have a vested interest in denying you care. They also cause massive waste and bureaucracy. Healthcare providers have to hire staff just to fight with Big Insurance over legitimate claims. The red tape and bureaucracy are putting primary care physicians out of business (look at Romneycare as an example). Which means you have to get your healthcare from corporations instead of doctors, and that's more expensive. Fewer providers=less competition, and that's more expensive.

It would be nice to buy across state lines but there are practical barriers that wouldn't go away even if there were no legal barriers. Different states have different requirements. Not just mandates, but different consumer protection mechanisms. That makes it more practical for insurers to have a different subsidiary company in each state.

Mississippi is cheaper because we have one of the most competitive markets (someone posted a map on FARK showing what percentage of each state the largest insurer had--see the thread on the want ad for the claims denial specialist.) It's possible that letting someone in California buy from one of those companies would help but California doctors might be "out of network" so they would have to come here for treatment. Hard to say if that would be worth it.

Godfather
09-14-2009, 11:32 AM
The one thing I still don't get is why the whole debate is about providing insurance.

50 years ago there was no such thing as an HMO. Yet we somehow had far fewer medical bankruptcies and far fewer people dying because they couldn't afford medical care.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-14-2009, 11:54 AM
The one thing I still don't get is why the whole debate is about providing insurance.

50 years ago there was no such thing as an HMO. Yet we somehow had far fewer medical bankruptcies and far fewer people dying because they couldn't afford medical care.

Godfather...I appreciate your thoughts on this debate and have to say that you have done your homework and have provided interesting facts.

I know that the idea of "portability" was thrown around for awhile as a means to keep people from losing or downgrading their insurance if they switch jobs. What are youre thoughts on that?

Also safe drivers are afforded lower insurance premiums, why cant those of us who dont smoke, dont drink, and who stay relatively healthy and in shape...be afforded a lower premium than those who work beside us and live a sedentary lifestyle?

A friend of mine has invested in a workout system that actually monitors "effort". It will be used primarily for rehabilitation but one of the side uses that they are considering is for the system to be used hand in hand with insurance companies. The system will moniter workouts, keep records of how often you are working out, how long you worked out, how hard you worked out and vitals like heart rate, weight, and height. Insurance companies would theoretically give "discounts" based on the records.

thoughts?

X-Terminator
09-14-2009, 12:03 PM
deluded neocons...what else is new?

So, do you have an intelligent response to my post, or any of the other intelligent posts, or will you keep being your typical liberal and scream "NEOCON!" every time someone refutes your point? This response basically means you have no answer to what I posted, because you know I'm right but don't want to admit it.

And before you even say it, I am not a "NEOCON!" I am a Blue Dog Democrat.

Insurance isn't the solution to the problem. Insurance IS the problem. There are only two ways to increase their profits: higher premiums and lower payouts. So they have a vested interest in denying you care. They also cause massive waste and bureaucracy. Healthcare providers have to hire staff just to fight with Big Insurance over legitimate claims. The red tape and bureaucracy are putting primary care physicians out of business (look at Romneycare as an example). Which means you have to get your healthcare from corporations instead of doctors, and that's more expensive. Fewer providers=less competition, and that's more expensive.

It would be nice to buy across state lines but there are practical barriers that wouldn't go away even if there were no legal barriers. Different states have different requirements. Not just mandates, but different consumer protection mechanisms. That makes it more practical for insurers to have a different subsidiary company in each state.

Mississippi is cheaper because we have one of the most competitive markets (someone posted a map on FARK showing what percentage of each state the largest insurer had--see the thread on the want ad for the claims denial specialist.) It's possible that letting someone in California buy from one of those companies would help but California doctors might be "out of network" so they would have to come here for treatment. Hard to say if that would be worth it.

LLT already mentioned it, but that problem could be solved by making the insurance plan fully portable and that the doctors in the state/region you live are considered in-network providers regardless of the state you purchased your plan from.

Hammer67
09-14-2009, 12:59 PM
OH,
By the Way

HUMANA is run by the government (related to Medicare)
Bet you didn't know that

Do you think they might be biased?

No they don't...my mother works for Humana.

http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=11107815

Hammer67
09-14-2009, 01:01 PM
Typical faux news sheep logic. Like the rates really went down with the phone company, with auto insurance, with anything, the companies are all in bed together and will make sure it doesnt go down to a certain level, and make sure the prices will start climbing up again as soon as possible.


Are you kidding here? Have you even followed the telephony market since the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed? Wow....just, wow. I can't even comment here. :doh:

Hammer67
09-14-2009, 01:03 PM
Do you have to go with your local phone company? No. You can get your phone service through your cable company or over the Internet via VoIP, both of which are cheaper than local phone company, with many more options that you have to pay extra for with said local phone company. And here in PA, we have allowed outside phone companies to come in and compete for landline service. Cavalier Telephone, a Virginia-based company, is one example. You also have the option of using your cell phone as your main line. My mom does it, my boss does it, HTG does it...millions of people do it.

Do you have to go with one of the big national auto insurance companies? No. There are literally hundreds of other options for auto insurance, and a good many of them are cheaper than Geico, Progressive, State Farm, etc., AND offer just as many benefits as those companies do.

And speaking of cable companies, you no longer have to go with the one cable company that serves your area. You can get DirecTV or DISH Network, and, if available, FiOS TV through Verizon, AT&T U-Verse or any other phone company that offers FTTH (Fiber To The Home) service. DirecTV and DISH are cheaper than Comcast, and FiOS TV is as well.

Sorry, but your examples are not very good. In all of them, competition has most certainly made cheaper alternatives available. The same can be done with health insurance.

Contrary to the beliefs of many on the left, not every company is an evil blood-sucker, and competition really does work.

From someone with a Telecommunications degree and that worked in said industry....amen, brother. Couldn't have said it any better. :drink:

Godfather
09-14-2009, 01:29 PM
Godfather...I appreciate your thoughts on this debate and have to say that you have done your homework and have provided interesting facts.

I know that the idea of "portability" was thrown around for awhile as a means to keep people from losing or downgrading their insurance if they switch jobs. What are youre thoughts on that?

Also safe drivers are afforded lower insurance premiums, why cant those of us who dont smoke, dont drink, and who stay relatively healthy and in shape...be afforded a lower premium than those who work beside us and live a sedentary lifestyle?

A friend of mine has invested in a workout system that actually monitors "effort". It will be used primarily for rehabilitation but one of the side uses that they are considering is for the system to be used hand in hand with insurance companies. The system will moniter workouts, keep records of how often you are working out, how long you worked out, how hard you worked out and vitals like heart rate, weight, and height. Insurance companies would theoretically give "discounts" based on the records.

thoughts?

Portability sounds good, but it would be even better to shift to HSAs and mutual aid societies being the primary means of paying for health care. No middleman, you pay what you can and if it's a major expense the other members of your mutual aid society will help. One advantage is that if you go through a period of financial difficulties, your HSA is still yours whereas if you have to drop your insurance all that money is gone forever.

I agree on setting premiums based on individual risk. I can see the argument for not letting insurers go by family history or genetic profiles, but smokers and lardasses should always pay more. The Senate disagrees (look at page 8 of their proposal).

I don't know about going as detailed as your workout schedule. Keeping tabs on that seems to be more trouble than it's worth. Better to just go by your height/weight, cholesterol level, etc. You might get people benefiting from natural advantages but everyone will be better off with proper diet and exercise than they are eating cheeseburgers and sitting on the couch.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-14-2009, 01:43 PM
I agree on setting premiums based on individual risk. I can see the argument for not letting insurers go by family history or genetic profiles, but smokers and lardasses should always pay more. The Senate disagrees (look at page 8 of their proposal).

.
Couldnt agree more...

I would love to see the faces of the entitlement crowd if they were told..."Sure, we will give you healthcare...IF you lose weight and quit the smokes"

revefsreleets
09-14-2009, 01:59 PM
I had to take a physical for one insurance plan I was on, and I KNOW I had a physical before opened a life insurance plan...

If you weigh 400 lbs, and you're NOT one of the .000001% who TRULY have some kind of thyroid problem (although like 99% of obese people make this false claim), you should be in a different group of insured than someone who takes care of themselves. IF you are fat, and smoke, and drink, and eat McD's YOU should go to back of the Emergency Room line, fattie...because you effed yourself...

But that's STILL only one facet of this huge problem...

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-14-2009, 02:05 PM
I had to take a physical for one insurance plan I was on, and I KNOW I had a physical before opened a life insurance plan...

If you weigh 400 lbs, and you're NOT one of the .000001% who TRULY have some kind of thyroid problem (although like 99% of obese people make this false claim), you should be in a different group of insured than someone who takes care of themselves. IF you are fat, and smoke, and drink, and eat McD's YOU should go to back of the Emergency Room line, fattie...because you effed yourself...

But that's STILL only one facet of this huge problem...

The main point being...that anyone who thinks its the Governments responsibility to provide healthcare should be mandated into personal responsibility or face higher premiums...PERIOD!

revefsreleets
09-14-2009, 02:16 PM
The main point being...that anyone who thinks its the Governments responsibility to provide healthcare should be mandated into personal responsibility or face higher premiums...PERIOD!

Never happen...welfare recipients don't take piss tests for anything, but I have to for everything...why? I could go on and on, but, again, why?

Everything is upside down...we live in Bizarro world where the needs of the "needy", regardless of how they got that way (or if they are, in fact, even really needy), trump the needs of the hard working middle class...

Godfather
09-16-2009, 02:37 PM
Baucus released his bill today. It's a huge steaming turd and must be stopped.

Doing nothing would literally be better.

revefsreleets
09-16-2009, 03:12 PM
Baucus released his bill today. It's a huge steaming turd and must be stopped.

Doing nothing would literally be better.

It did one thing, though...Olympia Snowe is probably on-board, and depending on what happens with Kennedy's seat, that ONE GOP vote may just be enough...

This was her statement released today...she's being coy, but I think she'd probably vote for this if it was today...

Snowe Remains Committed to Developing Bipartisan Solution to Health Reform



September 16, 2009


Washington, D.C. - In response to Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus introducing his health reform legislation today, senior Finance Committee member U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe said the following:
“This is a first step in the process and those of us as members of the bipartisan Group of 6 fully intend to keep meeting, moving forward and continuing to work with the Chairman during the committee process toward crafting a bill that I, and hopefully other Republican members of the Finance Committee, can support. I believe the Chairman’s legislation moves in the right direction away from a government-run system contained in bills that have passed other Congressional committees, but a number of issues still need to be addressed -- including cost assumptions and ultimate affordability to both consumers and the government as well as ensuring appropriate competition in the health insurance exchange.
“Moreover, I have repeatedly insisted that Committee Members are given sufficient time to read the legislation – and for the Congressional Budget Office to provide its cost projections – given the monumental complexity of this issue. As one of three Republicans in the Group of 6, I have appreciated the Chairman’s leadership of the only bipartisan effort in any committee in either the House or Senate, which has laid real and substantial groundwork for bipartisan cooperation during this ongoing process – and I will continue to work toward that goal as the committee continues its deliberations.”