Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2014 Goal: $450.00 - To Date: $450.00 (100.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > Miscellaneous > Locker Room


Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Steelers Fever Presents...

Steelers Panthers

GAMEDAY
Sunday, September 21, 8:30 PM
NBC
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-21-2009, 10:53 AM   #1
Hammer Of The GODS
Starter
Supporter
 
Hammer Of The GODS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: I LIVE IN REALITY
Posts: 551
Gender: Male
Member Number: 8148
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thumbs down A look into government controlled health care

So, you want government controlled health care?

Just remember that you can't sue the government. So if you are unlucky enough to need surgery and the government is running the show you could be in the same boat as this poor guy!

http://www.foxnews.com:80/story/0,2933,534050,00.html

Quote:
A Texas Airman stationed at an Air Force Base near Sacramento, Calif. has lost both legs after surgeons reportedly botched a routine surgery to remove his gallbladder.

Colton Read, 20, underwent laproscopic surgery last week at David Grant Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base near Sacramento. Laproscopic surgery is a minimally invasive procedure that involves making a tiny incision to minimize pain and speed recovery time.

About an hour into the surgery, something went wrong. Read's wife Jessica told CBS11TV.com.

"A nurse runs out, 'we need blood now' and she rounds the corner and my gut feelings is 'oh my God, is that my husband?'" Jessica Read said. Read's wife said an Air Force general surgeon mistakenly cut her husband's aortic valve, which supplies blood to the heart, but waited hours to transport Colton Read to a state hospital with a vascular surgeon.

Read, who is still in intensive care, lost both legs as a result of the blood loss. Meanwhile, his gallbladder still has not been removed. Jessica Read said the doctor admitted his mistake, but under federal law the Reads cannot sue.

The future of Colton Read's career is now uncertain, FOX 40 in Sacramento reported.

Jessica Read told FOX 40 she is appalled that the Air Force is even considering medical retirement or medical discharge while Airman Read is incapable of making any type of decision. She said he is not 100 percent lucid and is still heavily medicated.

The Air Force is conducting a review of the case using outside experts.
It would be naive to think that if the government ran health care that they would NOT put the same policies in place that they have for the military.

I really feel sorry for this guy. 20 years old and his life will never be the same.



.

__________________

Last edited by Hammer Of The GODS; 07-21-2009 at 11:06 AM.
Hammer Of The GODS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2009, 11:10 AM   #2
SCSTILLER
Assistant Coach
 
SCSTILLER's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Charleston, SC via New Brighton, PA
Posts: 1,093
Gender: Male
Member Number: 4202
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: A look into government controlled health care

HOTG, military health care is a joke. My buddy broke his ankle over a year and a half ago and his ankle is still broke and will be for the rest of his life. The reason it never got fixed was 1. it took him nearly 2 weeks to get an appointment 2. his doctor wouldn't refer him to an ortho (finally went after his doctor got orders out) 3. and he fell through the cracks. In the military, your Primary Care Manager is non negotiable, if you don't have confidence in how they are treating, oh well. You have to wait till you move or they move.

It is a joke, and this is what some of our politicians want for the rest of America? Sorry, I cannot buy off on that.
__________________
"Good men drink good beer!" Hunter S. Thompson
SCSTILLER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2009, 11:20 AM   #3
stlrtruck
THE PRINCESS' Daddy
Supporter
 
stlrtruck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 8,783
Gender: Male
Member Number: 2398
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default Re: A look into government controlled health care

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCSTILLER View Post
It is a joke, and this is what some of our politicians want for the rest of America? Sorry, I cannot buy off on that.
Why not? It's not like politicians really give a rats arse about the common folk anymore. I mean really, if they did they would fix things like social security and medicaid - but why don't they? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY IN TO THEM!

Never leave to a politican what you want to work!
__________________

60 Minutes, 53 Men, 6 Trophies,1 NATION. . .STEELERS NATION!!!
Sig courtesy of STEELAX04
stlrtruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2009, 01:44 PM   #4
SCSTILLER
Assistant Coach
 
SCSTILLER's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Charleston, SC via New Brighton, PA
Posts: 1,093
Gender: Male
Member Number: 4202
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: A look into government controlled health care

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlrtruck View Post
Why not? It's not like politicians really give a rats arse about the common folk anymore. I mean really, if they did they would fix things like social security and medicaid - but why don't they? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY IN TO THEM!

Never leave to a politican what you want to work!
Very true!
__________________
"Good men drink good beer!" Hunter S. Thompson
SCSTILLER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2009, 02:09 PM   #5
I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
Assistant Coach
 
I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Alabaster, AL
Posts: 1,301
Gender: Male
Member Number: 10606
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: A look into government controlled health care

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]
__________________
I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2009, 02:36 PM   #6
Hammer Of The GODS
Starter
Supporter
 
Hammer Of The GODS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: I LIVE IN REALITY
Posts: 551
Gender: Male
Member Number: 8148
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: A look into government controlled health care

The only "CHANGE" in the new healthcare program will be exchanging your current wardrobe for orthopedic clothes!



.
__________________
Hammer Of The GODS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2009, 07:50 PM   #7
Godfather
Living Legend
Supporter
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,140
Member Number: 547
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: A look into government controlled health care

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlrtruck View Post
Why not? It's not like politicians really give a rats arse about the common folk anymore. I mean really, if they did they would fix things like social security and medicaid - but why don't they? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY IN TO THEM!

Never leave to a politican what you want to work!
That's a common myth. They do have to pay into the system.

They just don't need the benefits because most of them spend their career stealing everything that isn't nailed down.
Godfather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 02:29 PM   #8
lamberts-lost-tooth
Banned
 
lamberts-lost-tooth's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 10,829
Gender: Male
Member Number: 2363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: A look into government controlled health care

I'm sure by now that you have heard politicians saying that they want to pattern the Federal Helathcare program after the one implemented in Massachusetts.

They say that Government Healthcare should meet 5 criteria. Coverage should be...

1) universal,
2) not tied to a job,
3) affordable for individuals and families
4) affordable for society (amount we need to be taxed to sustain the program)
5) and it should provide access to high-quality care for everyone.

One problem with basing it on Massachusetts state's plan.....the Massachusetts flunks on all counts. It has been a failure.

The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.

Tthe reform never addressed the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individuals, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs. For employers, especially small businesses, health insurance is an expense they can ill afford.

Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families.... For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments..... Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.

Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.

Fifth, reform does not assure access to care.....High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses have resulted in many people not using their insurance when they are sick. Simply put...There is no Healthcare if you cannot afford it.

In one case...a divorced mother stopped treatment for her son because the father had changed insurance, leaving them with an unaffordable deductible....and at Cambridge Health Alliance, doctors and nurses have cared for patients who, unable to afford the new copayments, were forced to interrupt care for HIV and even cancers that could be treated with chemotherapy.

Access to care is also affected by the uneven distribution of healthcare dollars between primary and specialty care... and between community hospitals and tertiary care hospitals.

Partners HealthCare, which includes two major tertiary care hospitals in Boston, was able to negotiate a secret agreement with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts to be paid 30 percent more for their services than other providers in the state, contributing to an increase in healthcare costs for Massachusetts, which are already the highest per person in the world. Agreements that tilt spending toward tertiary care threaten the viability of community hospitals and health centers that provide a safety net for the uninsured and underinsured.

If Massachusetts healthcare reform fails on all five Institute of Medicine criteria. Congress should not make it a model for the nation

Last edited by lamberts-lost-tooth; 07-22-2009 at 03:47 PM.
lamberts-lost-tooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 03:19 PM   #9
revefsreleets
Living Legend
 
revefsreleets's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Akron, Ohio Home of LeBron James
Posts: 15,403
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5353
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: A look into government controlled health care

This plan is a POS. It has no provision to reward thrift, nothing to control costs, hit small business with ANOTHER tax (this time 8%) which may be the straw that breaks THAT camels back.

It's a joke. It's awful. There's not a single redeeming quality in this plan if you live in the same World that my grandparents worked (and fought) so hard to create.
__________________
Official Steelersfever Arians Nuthugger
revefsreleets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 09:27 AM   #10
revefsreleets
Living Legend
 
revefsreleets's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Akron, Ohio Home of LeBron James
Posts: 15,403
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5353
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: A look into government controlled health care

Here's another look. Leonhardt is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, and even he is beginning to question this POS.

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/51457877.html

Obama's test: Selling health-care reform

By David Leonhardt
New York Times

Published on Thursday, Jul 23, 2009

WASHINGTON: What's in it for me?

On the subject of health care reform, most Americans probably don't have a good answer to the question. And that, obviously, is a problem for the White House and for Democratic leaders in Congress.

Current bills would expand the number of insured — but 90 percent of voters already have insurance. Congressional leaders say the bills would cut costs. But experts are dubious. Instead, they point out that covering the uninsured would cost billions.

So the typical person watching from afar is left to wonder: What will this project mean for me, besides possibly higher taxes?

Barack Obama was able to rise from the Illinois State Senate to the presidency in large measure because of his ability to explain complex issues and then to make a persuasive argument. He now has a challenge worthy of his skills.

Our health care system is engineered, deliberately or not, to resist change. The people who pay for it — you and I — often don't realize that they're paying for it. Money comes out of our paychecks, in withheld taxes and insurance premiums, before we ever see it. It then flows to doctors, hospitals and drug makers without our realizing that it was our money to begin with.

The doctors, hospitals and drug makers use the money to treat us, and we of course do see those treatments. If anything, we want more of them. They are supposed to make us healthy, and they appear to be free. What's not to like?

The immediate task facing Obama to explain that the health care system doesn't really work the way it seems to. He won't be able to put it in such blunt terms. But he will need to explain how a typical household, one that has insurance and thinks it always will, is being harmed.

The United States now devotes one-sixth of its economy to medicine. Divvy that up, and health care will cost the typical household roughly $15,000 this year, including the often-invisible contributions by employers. That is almost twice as much as two decades ago (adjusting for inflation). It's about $6,500 more than in other rich countries, on average.

We may not be aware of this stealth $6,500 health care tax, but if you take a moment to think, it makes sense. Over the past 20 years, health costs have soared, and incomes have grown painfully slowly. The two trends are directly connected: Employers had to spend more money on benefits, leaving less for raises.

In exchange for the $6,500 tax, we receive many things. We get cutting-edge research and heroic surgeries. But we also get fabulous amounts of waste — bureaucratic and medical.

One thing we don't get is better health than other rich countries, whether it's Canada, France, Japan or many others. In some categories, like emergency room care, this country seems to do better. In others, like chronic-disease care, it seems to do worse. ''The fact that we spend all this money and don't have better outcomes than other countries is a sign of how poorly we're doing,'' says Dr. Alan Garber of Stanford University. ''We should be doing way better.''

So far, no one has grabbed the mantle as the defender of the typical household — the opponent of spending that creates profits for drug companies and hospitals at no benefit to people's health and at significant cost to their finances.

Republicans have actually come out against doing research into which procedures improve health. Blue Dog Democrats oppose wasteful spending but until recently have not been specific. Liberals rely on the wishful idea — yet to be supported by evidence — that more preventive care will reduce spending. The American Medical Association, not surprisingly, endorses this notion of doing more care in the name of less care.

Obama says many of the right things. Yet the White House has not yet shown that it's willing to fight the necessary fights. Remember: the $6,500 tax benefits someone. And that someone has a lobbyist. The lobbyist even has an argument about how he is acting in your interest.

These lobbyists, who include big names like like Dick Armey and Richard Gephardt, have succeeded in persuading Congress to write bills with a rather clever feature. They include some of the ideas that would cut costs — but defang them.

One proposal would pay doctors based on the quality of care, rather than quantity, but it's a pilot project. Doctors who already provide good care may well opt in; doctors providing wasteful but lucrative care surely will not. The bills would also finance research on which treatments are effective. But Medicare officials would not be prevented from continuing to spend taxpayer money on ineffective treatments.

In reaction, some people who should be natural supporters of reform have become critics. The Mayo Clinic — one of Obama's favorite models of care — says the legislation fails to ''help create higher-quality, more affordable health care.''

Today, Obama will visit another example he likes to cite, the Cleveland Clinic. Its successes capture what real reform would look like. Like Mayo, the Cleveland Clinic pays its doctors a salary, rather than piecemeal, and delivers excellent results for relatively little money.

''I came here 30-some years ago,'' Toby Cosgrove, a heart surgeon who is the clinic's chief executive, told me. ''And I have never received any additional pay for anything I did. It never made a difference if I did five heart operations or four — I got paid the same amount of money. So I had no incentive to do any extra tests or anything.''

This is the crux of the issue, economists say: The current fee-for-service system needs to be remade. The administration has made some progress, by proposing a powerful new Medicare overseer who could force the program to pay for good results and stop paying for bad ones.

But even a strong Medicare plan won't be enough. Reform will need to attack the piecemeal system in numerous ways. Among the most promising, which Obama has resisted, is a limit on tax subsidies for the costliest health insurance plans. This limit would give households and employers a reason to become smarter shoppers.

Above all, reform can't revolve around politely asking the rest of the medical system to become more like the Cleveland Clinic.

In recent weeks, polls have shown that a solid majority of Americans support the stated goals of health reform. Most want the uninsured to be covered and want the option of a government-run insurance plan. Yet the polls also show that people are worried about the package emerging from Congress.

Maybe they have a point.
Leonhardt is a New York Times business columnist. He can be e-mailed at Leonhardt@nytimes.com.
__________________
Official Steelersfever Arians Nuthugger
revefsreleets is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts