Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[gmsisko1]

Canada's ObamaCare Precedent
Governments always ration care by making you wait. That can be deadly.

By DAVID GRATZER
Congressional Democrats will soon put forward their legislative proposals for reforming health care. Should they succeed, tens of millions of Americans will potentially be joining a new public insurance program and the federal government will increasingly be involved in treatment decisions.

Not long ago, I would have applauded this type of government expansion. Born and raised in Canada, I once believed that government health care is compassionate and equitable. It is neither.

My views changed in medical school. Yes, everyone in Canada is covered by a "single payer" -- the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system.



Martin Kozlowski
The problems were brought home when a relative had difficulty walking. He was in chronic pain. His doctor suggested a referral to a neurologist; an MRI would need to be done, then possibly a referral to another specialist. The wait would have stretched to roughly a year. If surgery was needed, the wait would be months more. Not wanting to stay confined to his house, he had the surgery done in the U.S., at the Mayo Clinic, and paid for it himself.

Such stories are common. For example, Sylvia de Vries, an Ontario woman, had a 40-pound fluid-filled tumor removed from her abdomen by an American surgeon in 2006. Her Michigan doctor estimated that she was within weeks of dying, but she was still on a wait list for a Canadian specialist.

Indeed, Canada's provincial governments themselves rely on American medicine. Between 2006 and 2008, Ontario sent more than 160 patients to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery -- described by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain."

Only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards, according to a government study. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with the winners gaining access to the local doc.

Overall, according to a study published in Lancet Oncology last year, five-year cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. than those in Canada. Based on data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health (done by Statistics Canada and the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics), Americans have greater access to preventive screening tests and have higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses. No wonder: To limit the growth in health spending, governments restrict the supply of health care by rationing it through waiting. The same survey data show, as June and Paul O'Neill note in a paper published in 2007 in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy, that the poor under socialized medicine seem to be less healthy relative to the nonpoor than their American counterparts.

Ironically, as the U.S. is on the verge of rushing toward government health care, Canada is reforming its system in the opposite direction. In 2005, Canada's supreme court struck down key laws in Quebec that established a government monopoly of health services. Claude Castonguay, who headed the Quebec government commission that recommended the creation of its public health-care system in the 1960s, also has second thoughts. Last year, after completing another review, he declared the system in "crisis" and suggested a massive expansion of private services -- even advocating that public hospitals rent facilities to physicians in off-hours.

And the medical establishment? Dr. Brian Day, an orthopedic surgeon, grew increasingly frustrated by government cutbacks that reduced his access to an operating room and increased the number of patients on his hospital waiting list. He built a private hospital in Vancouver in the 1990s. Last year, he completed a term as the president of the Canadian Medical Association and was succeeded by a Quebec radiologist who owns several private clinics.

In Canada, private-sector health care is growing. Dr. Day estimates that 50,000 people are seen at private clinics every year in British Columbia. According to the New York Times, a private clinic opens at a rate of about one a week across the country. Public-private partnerships, once a taboo topic, are embraced by provincial governments.

In the United Kingdom, where socialized medicine was established after World War II through the National Health Service, the present Labour government has introduced a choice in surgeries by allowing patients to choose among facilities, often including private ones. Even in Sweden, the government has turned over services to the private sector.

Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?

Dr. Gratzer, a physician, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.html)

[docvinh]

So you prefer the current system where some people get no care at all? I'm not saying that government controlled care is great, but surely you don't like the current system.

[gmsisko1]

So you prefer the current system where some people get no care at all? I'm not saying that government controlled care is great, but surely you don't like the current system.

Really? Who gets no care at all? Anyone who needs medical attention can get it. No one is denied medical attention.

Too many people spend alot of money on beer every week, but go without health care. There is no such thing as a perfect system. Life is not fair.
The government is not always the answer.

If you want health insurance, work for a company that provides it, or buy a policy. We already have a failing medi care, and medi cade program. No country in the world has done it right. Why will we be better?

[docvinh]

Really? Who gets no care at all? Anyone who needs medical attention can get it. No one is denied medical attention.

Too many people spend alot of money on beer every week, but go without health care. There is no such thing as a perfect system. Life is not fair.
The government is not always the answer.

If you want health insurance, work for a company that provides it, or buy a policy. We already have a failing medi care, and medi cade program. No country in the world has done it right. Why will we be better?

Well, what do you propose to fix it then? Just leave it the way it is? The only thing you can say is life isn't fair? I mean, we're dumping money into a war, so it's not like money is an issue.

[Koggit]

uhh okay what does canada have to do with anything?

has obama ever once said he wants to nationalize healthcare?

i wish he would, but no, he hasn't. his talk has been more about modifications to medicare/caid and offering a federal (self-sufficient) insurance plan to force the corrupt HMOs to start providing health care instead of running 80% margins and spending a fifth on lobbying... the only applicable 'precedent' is the fact that the threat alone has caused HMOs to tighten their game a bit.

wsj has been shit for about 5 yrs now

[sonicfreak5]

So you prefer the current system where some people get no care at all? I'm not saying that government controlled care is great, but surely you don't like the current system.

i know this sounds ignorant. im gonna go to college get a fucking job and get healthcare. this issue is just pissing me off i can't take it anymore. Current System>Universal Healthcare. Alright so let's screw all of the nations people, rather then the one's who don't work. Our nation can't handle universal care. We are to big.

[Msut77]

Really? Who gets no care at all? Anyone who needs medical attention can get it. No one is denied medical attention.

People can get seen in an emergency room in many cases which happens to be nowhere near the same thing.

Too many people spend alot of money on beer every week, but go without health care. There is no such thing as a perfect system. Life is not fair.
The government is not always the answer.

Are all your posts going to be like the above stream of consciousness drivel?

If you want health insurance, work for a company that provides it, or buy a policy. We already have a failing medi care, and medi cade program. No country in the world has done it right. Why will we be better?

Lot of countries have done it "better" defined here as "providing coverage for all while spending a fuckton less". Even if that was not the case this is America and despite the last few years I still have faith in it.

[docvinh]

i know this sounds ignorant. im gonna go to college get a fucking job and get healthcare. this issue is just pissing me off i can't take it anymore. Current System>Universal Healthcare. Alright so let's screw all of the nations people, rather then the one's who don't work. Our nation can't handle universal care. We are to big.

Well, I don't disagree that a full on socialized healthcare system probably won't work, but I think the public/private mix might be the answer though. I mean, I know people don't want the government to make the decision for you, but if your under an HMO, someone still has to approve you to get certain things done anyway. This guy's paycheck is probably reliant on if you get the operation or not, so would you rather have that instead?

[Koggit]

there are two problems with "just buy it or get it through your employer"

(1) HMOs are ripping your employer off if they aren't ripping you off. their profit margins are absolutely ridiculous, and the little that they aren't giving their CEOs are going to (a) lobbying efforts to keep their cartel legal & protected and (b) to the executives that are best able to deny healthcare to their policy holders (read: keep their profit margins astronomical)

(2) preexisting conditions and accidents. the need for healthcare reform isn't about getting allergy pills or treated for the flu or whatever, it's about falling off your roof or getting cancer. peoples lives, not only the sick but their family as well, get completely ruined due to uninsured accidents or conditions that were diagnosed when uninsured. you're talking millions of dollars in some situations, and of course you can't get insurance for it after-the-fact, so you're talking about spending the rest of your life in debt and dying with debt to give to your children and grandchildren.


though i'm a bit biased since i have extensive experience with issue #2... most people will never really know how dire reform really is. luckily, we'll get it soon regardless.

[Ikohn4ever]

i have a pre-existing condition and in the state of Pa they don't have to cover it ever, so even though I have insurance I am still SOL. There needs to be a better system then what we have now, I know he can't make it any worse.

[Jimbo Slice]

i know this sounds ignorant. im gonna go to college get a fucking job and get healthcare. this issue is just pissing me off i can't take it anymore. Current System>Universal Healthcare. Alright so let's screw all of the nations people, rather then the one's who don't work. Our nation can't handle universal care. We are to big.

You're right, that does sound ignorant. I just graduated college, but I'm unable to get a job because I have to finish my student teaching to be licensed as a teacher in the state of Pennsylvania.

The job market is also absolute shit, I'm having trouble finding work at even something like a summer camp. I'm a cumme laude student with good professional references and a ton of experience in classrooms and the field. As I have stated though, I do not yet have my license.

Unfortunately, my back hurts all the time, my teeth could definitely used to be checked and a need a stronger prescription of my glasses. Where am I suppsoed to get the money for this? My mom does the best she can doing nursing and helping me out, and I am eternally grateful for her whenever she can afford to help me. However, in this instance it is just WAY too expensive to get all of these things checked out. The only time I've been to the doctor in the last 3-4 years is to get a physical and get shots that are required in order to enroll in college and obtain state clearances.

I'm chomping at the bit for non-private healthcare. I could really, really use it.

Really? Who gets no care at all? Anyone who needs medical attention can get it. No one is denied medical attention.

Have you ever seen how expensive this can get? Unfortunately, free clinics are often unable to provide the care patients are looking for.

[perdition(troy]

i'm all for some kind of government healthcare. As long as that healthcare is paid for by the individual receiving it, and not me giving even more of my paycheck to the bottom feeders of society.

[HowStern]

i know this sounds ignorant. im gonna go to college get a fucking job and get healthcare. this issue is just pissing me off i can't take it anymore. Current System>Universal Healthcare. Alright so let's screw all of the nations people, rather then the one's who don't work. Our nation can't handle universal care. We are to big.

It sounds ignorant because it is. You never know when you will be out of work or why. Elderly people living on fixed incomes who can't afford care. Come off it. I love how people refer to people who can't afford healthcare as bottom feeders.

England gets along just fine and their ratio of doctors to people is much lower than ours AND their health care is publicly funded. While allowing people to private doctors if they so wish to pay.

[fullmetalfan720]

I got an idea. How about we lower people who can't afford health care's taxes so they can actually afford it, if they want it? If we have nationalized health care, everyone will just have to wait to get treatments, and there will be health care rationing.

[homeland]

i'm all for some kind of government healthcare. As long as that healthcare is paid for by the individual receiving it, and not me giving even more of my paycheck to the bottom feeders of society.


We live in a capitalistic country. There will always be bottom feeders. Not everyone can be the CEO. There's only so many managers, so many dept heads.

[perdition(troy]

I got an idea. How about we lower people who can't afford health care's taxes so they can actually afford it, if they want it? If we have nationalized health care, everyone will just have to wait to get treatments, and there will be health care rationing.

The lowest 38% of Americans don't pay income taxes as it is.

[fullmetalfan720]

The lowest 38% of Americans don't pay income taxes as it is.

Maybe they don't after all the tax rebates, but money is still taken out of their check every month for taxes. I would like to see the idea that Capitalizt came up with in one of the threads a while back implemented. No taxes on the first $20,000 you make and a flat 20% tax on everything over that.

[JolietJake]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is it that makes Canadians have to wait so long? I'm guessing funding has a lot to with that, but who knows. We're in a good position though, we can examine the programs of other countries and learn why they have problems, then make sure we do what we can to avoid those problems.

[Ruined]

Bottom line is that the government rarely does anything right/well. If they play a larger role in healthcare, my educated guess is that healthcare for most will go down the toilet.

Either get a job and get premium healthcare, or prove that you are disabled & cannot work and get Medicaid/Medicare. Problem solved, and while the current system has problems its much better than universal healthcare.

[perdition(troy]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is it that makes Canadians have to wait so long? I'm guessing funding has a lot to with that, but who knows. We're in a good position though, we can examine the programs of other countries and learn why they have problems, then make sure we do what we can to avoid those problems.

crappy doctor to patient ratio (which we already are facing in the US without government provided healthcare. the wait times we face in the US would sky rocket with every person deciding to go to the doctor for any little thing they can think of because its free.)

[HowStern]

crappy doctor to patient ratio (which we already are facing in the US without government provided healthcare. the wait times we face in the US would sky rocket with every person deciding to go to the doctor for any little thing they can think of because its free.)

This is BS. Have you had to go to the ER anytime recently? The wait times are insane. Know why? Because that's where everyone who doesn't have insurance goes for every teency tiny little thing because it's free. If these people had insurance it would clear wait times up for the real emergencies.
We don't have a crappy doctor to patient ratio. We have one of the best in the world. (http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/185-the-doctorspatients-map-of-the-world/)
Know who has better than us? Cuba. Want to go there for treatment? Because I don't.

[perdition(troy]

This is BS. Have you had to go to the ER anytime recently? The wait times are insane. Know why? Because that's where everyone who doesn't have insurance goes for every teency tiny little thing because it's free. If these people had insurance it would clear wait times up for the real emergencies.
We don't have a crappy doctor to patient ratio. We have one of the best in the world. (http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/185-the-doctorspatients-map-of-the-world/)
Know who has better than us? Cuba. Want to go there for treatment? Because I don't.

Ya, I have gone to the ER recently. Considering it is located about 500 feet away from where I work.

[Koggit]

how does that even make sense

[evanft]

Ya, I have gone to the ER recently. Considering it is located about 500 feet away from where I work.

Good job actually trying to answer his points.

[Koggit]

but seriously how does working near an ER mean you've been there recently

[perdition(troy]

when you work in a hospital, you tend to float around a lot.

Good job actually trying to answer his points.

The amount of patient to doctor ratio doesn't matter much to this argument right now, considering my post said that the number would rise. So the numbers he posted would be completely changed, because that study wasn't the amount of people to doctor ratio, it was the amount of patient to doctor ratio. The number of "patients to doctor" ratio would rise significantly with the increase of 45~50 million new "patients".

[JolietJake]

You're wonderful at avoiding actually answering a question perdition.

There was a discussion on the last episode of Real Time about health care. It was mentioned that in many other countries, doctors were less motivated by money than in the US. I don't know how true that is, but from my own experiences, it does seem that some doctors are more interested in money than actually caring for their patients.

[perdition(troy]

What do you want me to say to answer his question? That I personally believe our healthcare system is in better shape then Britain's and base it on a study that is biased in America's favor in relation to the fact it only considers the patient to doctor ratio rather than the doctor to population ratio?

[Msut77]

but seriously how does working near an ER mean you've been there recently

He was there recently, mopping the floors but still...

[HowStern]

Also, National Geographic had an article recently about how the doctor supply in the U.S. is growing (and declining in other nations) because doctors from all over usually end up deciding to come here to practice. Hence the increase in foreign doctors.
Not to mention hospitals have been cutting staff due to being ripped off by Insurance Co.'s and not being to able support payroll.
With healthcare reform there is a chance the tax funded dollars would increase money to support more staffing. Increasing doctor to pop. ratio even more.
Obama has also made it clear no one will force you to use this healthcare. You can stay private.

[paddlefoot]

there are two problems with "just buy it or get it through your employer"

(1) HMOs are ripping your employer off if they aren't ripping you off. their profit margins are absolutely ridiculous, and the little that they aren't giving their CEOs are going to (a) lobbying efforts to keep their cartel legal & protected and (b) to the executives that are best able to deny healthcare to their policy holders (read: keep their profit margins astronomical)

(2) preexisting conditions and accidents. the need for healthcare reform isn't about getting allergy pills or treated for the flu or whatever, it's about falling off your roof or getting cancer. peoples lives, not only the sick but their family as well, get completely ruined due to uninsured accidents or conditions that were diagnosed when uninsured. you're talking millions of dollars in some situations, and of course you can't get insurance for it after-the-fact, so you're talking about spending the rest of your life in debt and dying with debt to give to your children and grandchildren.


though i'm a bit biased since i have extensive experience with issue #2... most people will never really know how dire reform really is. luckily, we'll get it soon regardless.

I realize this is a huge issue with your sister's condition.

Koggit, do you mind if I ask why your parents don't have jobs that provide healthcare? Is it just something they took for granted until it was too late?

[paddlefoot]

Also, National Geographic had an article recently about how the doctor supply in the U.S. is growing (and declining in other nations) because doctors from all over usually end up deciding to come here to practice. Hence the increase in foreign doctors.
Not to mention hospitals have been cutting staff due to being ripped off by Insurance Co.'s and not being to able support payroll.
With healthcare reform there is a chance the tax funded dollars would increase money to support more staffing. Increasing doctor to pop. ratio even more.
Obama has also made it clear no one will force you to use this healthcare. You can stay private.


Does anyone know how much we would save if malpractice insurance wasn't so high? Malpractice insurance costs are fucking insane!!!!

Would also help if drug companies didn't spend billions of dollars on advertising.

[HowStern]

I'm not going to answer for Koggit because I obviously have no clue but just in general 1) It's pretty tough to find a job right now of any kind. 2)It's always been pretty tough to find a job that offers a reasonably priced insurance 3)A lot of the jobs available right now aren't the type to offer insurance at all.

Not to mention, you asked about his parents, a good thing to think about is what about when the time comes when it's up to his sister to pay her own insurance because their parents have passed on. What is she supposed to do then without the reform we need?

[paddlefoot]

I'm not going to answer for Koggit because I obviously have no clue but just in general 1) It's pretty tough to find a job right now of any kind. 2)It's always been pretty tough to find a job that offers a reasonably priced insurance 3)A lot of the jobs available right now aren't the type to offer insurance at all.

Not to mention, you asked about his parents, a good thing to think about is what about when the time comes when it's up to his sister to pay her own insurance because their parents have passed on. What is she supposed to do then without the reform we need?

That's why the question was directed at Koggit. He has spoken about the illness before, I meant no disrespect.

[mykevermin]

Bottom line is that the government rarely does anything right/well. If they play a larger role in healthcare, my educated guess is that healthcare for most will go down the toilet.

That's not a "bottom line," that's a thoughtless, vapid, uninformed talking point you've had beaten into your brain so much that you think it's the unquestionable truth.

Let's privatize it all, shall we? After all, look at these following bastions of market integrity!
AIG
Lehman Brothers
The entire fucking airline industry for this decade
Citibank
Bank of American
Every other bank ever except Chase Manhattan
General Motors
Chrysler
Ford

YES! YES! YES! LET THE FREE MARKET REIGN SUPREME! KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT!

Put money back in people's hands! Let them keep their money and invest it in the stock market in a "medical savings account!" It's a brand new, novel idea!

Imagine how much I'd have to help pay for a medical emergency today if I had invested $5000.00 in the market! I'd have almost $2600! Fucking incredible. VIVA LA CAPITALISM!

Either get a job and get premium healthcare, or prove that you are disabled & cannot work and get Medicaid/Medicare. Problem solved, and while the current system has problems its much better than universal healthcare.

The devil that you know is more desirable than the devil that you have a built-in bias against, no?

[mykevermin]

In before princess pissy-pants gets mad because i said a mean thing about him.

[Jimbo Slice]

That's not a "bottom line," that's a thoughtless, vapid, uninformed talking point you've had beaten into your brain so much that you think it's the unquestionable truth.

Let's privatize it all, shall we? After all, look at these following bastions of market integrity!
AIG
Lehman Brothers
The entire fucking airline industry for this decade
Citibank
Bank of American
Every other bank ever except Chase Manhattan
General Motors
Chrysler
Ford

YES! YES! YES! LET THE FREE MARKET REIGN SUPREME! KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT!

Put money back in people's hands! Let them keep their money and invest it in the stock market in a "medical savings account!" It's a brand new, novel idea!

Imagine how much I'd have to help pay for a medical emergency today if I had invested $5000.00 in the market! I'd have almost $2600! Fucking incredible. VIVA LA CAPITALISM!



The devil that you know is more desirable than the devil that you have a built-in bias against, no?

Excellent post. Exactly how I feel.

[Koggit]

I realize this is a huge issue with your sister's condition.

Koggit, do you mind if I ask why your parents don't have jobs that provide healthcare? Is it just something they took for granted until it was too late?

we had healthcare when my sister was diagnosed, but my stepdad was laid off and has been unable to go back to work for a couple different reasons. my sister's on disability and gets a little federal help as it is, but it's not enough.

[JolietJake]

What do you want me to say to answer his question? That I personally believe our healthcare system is in better shape then Britain's and base it on a study that is biased in America's favor in relation to the fact it only considers the patient to doctor ratio rather than the doctor to population ratio?
Ugh, gotta stop feeding the trolls...:roll:

[JolietJake]

As someone without any sort of insurance, i'd welcome any sort of plan which provided me some sort of coverage, no matter how good or bad it may be.

One thing i do wonder about though. If we had a federal free health care program, how many companies would still provide coverage as a company benefit?

[paddlefoot]

we had healthcare when my sister was diagnosed, but my stepdad was laid off and has been unable to go back to work for a couple different reasons. my sister's on disability and gets a little federal help as it is, but it's not enough.

Ah, didn't know about the lay off part of the story. It is bullshit when someone gets laid off while their healthcare is covering a serious medical condition, especially when a child is receiving care.

[Paco]

I love the healthcare industry. It's so fucking fantastic. Once when I broke my arm, I didn't go to the doctor for nearly a week and I did this because I knew my parents didn't have money to pay for it. They eventually took me because I was having trouble walking with how much my arm hurt, I was unable to move without pain and everything just plain blew. When I went to the doctor, they asked how the hell was I able to ignore it for almost a week. They gave me painkillers and instructed me not to move the arm much if I could help it.

Delicious.

[VioletArrows]

Can't even begin to froth at how much I hate American healthcare. Shitty rudimentary cancer care's what killed my mother in 6 months, and since PCOS isn't immediately fatal, no one gives a shit about my condition or even knows what it is. All doctors know is to prescribe drugs that cause cancer to prevent cancer and tell me to starve myself, and all insurance companies know is that it's genetic so I can go piss off.

So whatever the fuck systems we have now are already deadly OP, take that shit-stirring FUD headline somewhere else.

[tivo]

Can we also get universal water, electricity, heating, and food?

Its my right as an American to get coverage of some of these things.

[perdition(troy]

My neighbor has a Cadillac, I want my Cadillac.

[Msut77]

The OP mysteriously vanished and those in agreement with him have done nothing but make a bunch of non responses since they are incapable of arguing anything.

Just another day...

[perdition(troy]

Yes, it is a very big mystery how he vanished. He should be living on CAG.

[tivo]

We've talked about the pros and cons of universal health care numerous times. Another issue like the one in the OP doesn't sway anybody because people place greater value into the opinions of those with like-minded views.

[mykevermin]

The issue with "discussing the pros and cons" is that it's uninformed on one end.

Recognizing that one system, that we live under, has substantial and significant flaws and problems, and refusing to even attempt *movement* towards another system, is absurd.

"I'm standing on hot coals, but I don't wanna move because I heard that the coals are even hotter over there in that place where I can't see and have never placed my feet."

It's not that a more universal system is better, it's that what we have is fucked, and we ought to at least consider something better.

And, if you think it *is* "universal coverage," and/or your "Obama the socialist" radar goes off here, you're just a reactionary fuckwit. Really. Wasn't more than 12 months ago where Obama and Clinton fought over one of the very, very, very few issues they disagreed on - health coverage. Obama's plan and proposal is much more centrist and, to my own disgust, is something that doesn't assassinate the private health insurance industry in the process.

Obama makes private industry take pause, but you're simply not using your fucking noggin if you think it's "universal coverage." A two-piece bathing suit covers more than Obama's plan.

[depascal22]

One fix to the system could be to make HMO's run as non-profits. Many claims are denied so the bottom line can be maintained. I understand that pharmaceutical and medical device companies use profits to research new products that will "help" more people but what do HMO's use their profits for? Other than paying statisticians to make new formulas that deny more people for pre-existing conditions or what not.

EDIT -- I know it's awfully socialist of me to question an individual corporation's motives and business practices but really what do they do with the money?

[docvinh]

Just an interesting little story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/opinion/11kristof.html?th&emc=th

Now back to everyone yelling at each other.:)

[depascal22]

Infant mortality rate is 40% higher in the US compared to Canada.....

There should be another study about the toll that's created by the humongous medical bills on this side of the border. How many families have been broken up because of money issues caused by medical bills? How many bankrupticies? All this is the name of free market capitalism?

[tivo]

The issue with "discussing the pros and cons" is that it's uninformed on one end.

I agree, Michael Moore doesn't know shit- especially about good health. On the other hand there are doctors and specialized surgeons who have been practicing medicine for 40 yrs and have been to Canada and England with first hand knowledge/experience who oppose the transition of 300+million Americans into more of a state run operation.

Recognizing that one system, that we live under, has substantial and significant flaws and problems, and refusing to even attempt *movement* towards another system, is absurd.

It's not that a more universal system is better, it's that what we have is fucked, and we ought to at least consider something better.


Public schools, US mail, VA hospitals, etc. are all run by the gov. and look at their quality- not nearly as good as private. This is because when the businessman "intends only his own gain" that he contributes- via the process of competition- to promote the social good "more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

Sorry myke, but "The peace and order of society is of more importance than even the relief of the miserable."

[Jimbo Slice]

I just don't understand how people, as American citizens, are okay with the fact that there are people suffering because they don't have healthcare.

I'm sick of the damn "get a job" line too, because do you understand how hard that is in this economy right now?

[docvinh]

I agree, Michael Moore doesn't know shit- especially about good health. On the other hand there are doctors and specialized surgeons who have been practicing medicine for 40 yrs and have been to Canada and England with first hand knowledge/experience who oppose the transition of 300+million Americans into more of a state run operation.



Public schools, US mail, VA hospitals, etc. are all run by the gov. and look at their quality- not nearly as good as private. This is because when the businessman "intends only his own gain" that he contributes- via the process of competition- to promote the social good "more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

Sorry myke, but "The peace and order of society is of more importance than even the relief of the miserable."

Of course they don't want it, more then likely their salaries will dramatically decrease. I dunno, I don't think basic healthcare is something that can be run as a "for profit" type of operation, and yes, I agree that for the most part private schools are better, but that's probably because more affluent people can afford it. I'm sure you'll paint that as the traditional "survival of the fittest" argument.

[Snake2715]

So you prefer the current system where some people get no care at all? I'm not saying that government controlled care is great, but surely you don't like the current system.

Wrong not happening. Medicaid is great, If its an ER no hospital can turn you down.

This is hogwash.

[Snake2715]

Well, I don't disagree that a full on socialized healthcare system probably won't work, but I think the public/private mix might be the answer though. I mean, I know people don't want the government to make the decision for you, but if your under an HMO, someone still has to approve you to get certain things done anyway. This guy's paycheck is probably reliant on if you get the operation or not, so would you rather have that instead?


HMO 's are not the primary option any longer, its mostly PPO's now.

Yes regional HMO's do exist, but they are not the primary option any longer.

[Snake2715]

(2) preexisting conditions and accidents. the need for healthcare reform isn't about getting allergy pills or treated for the flu or whatever, it's about falling off your roof or getting cancer. peoples lives, not only the sick but their family as well, get completely ruined due to uninsured accidents or conditions that were diagnosed when uninsured. you're talking millions of dollars in some situations, and of course you can't get insurance for it after-the-fact, so you're talking about spending the rest of your life in debt and dying with debt to give to your children and grandchildren.


though i'm a bit biased since i have extensive experience with issue #2... most people will never really know how dire reform really is. luckily, we'll get it soon regardless.

What state are you in? PRE X is not always an issue regardless if you had coverage or not. it has to be longer than 62 days without coverage, and then depending on where you are there are still options to get pre x waived... did you contact any local insurance agents, or just carriers direct?

[Snake2715]

This is BS. Have you had to go to the ER anytime recently? The wait times are insane. Know why? Because that's where everyone who doesn't have insurance goes for every teency tiny little thing because it's free. If these people had insurance it would clear wait times up for the real emergencies.
We don't have a crappy doctor to patient ratio. We have one of the best in the world. (http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/185-the-doctorspatients-map-of-the-world/)
Know who has better than us? Cuba. Want to go there for treatment? Because I don't.

Do you know how insurance networks get their contracts with doctors and insurance carriers, and finally insured people?

The have preset negotiated rates for certain services, and the doctor "writes off" the difference... Do you like Walmart? They are the largest retailer in the world and they demand lower prices of anyone wanting to sell products in their outlets.... what will happen when the government controls the pay for these things. As it sits now doctors can decide on their own if they accept the write offs, in order to fill their chairs with the insureds on network X or Network Y, or both. They can also choose not to join any network and then just balance bill, etc.

If the goverment controls the write offs will the doctors continue to practice here? Will we have cutting edge science and training going on for a field that has a potentially capped salary? No it will slowly reverse and doctors, pharmacy companies, etc will all not push as hard since they do not get paid more regardless.

You make absolutely no sense in your logic.

[Msut77]

Quadruple post and all of it piss poor.

[perdition(troy]

that would be a triple post, and another crappy post by msut.

lulz at me missing that first post. the lack of sig on the next three messed me up :D

edit: good read here

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html

AMA opposes the healthcare bill.

[MSI Magus]

I seriously wish there were more Canadians weighing in here. Pretty much any people I ever talk to from "socialist" nations like Canada love their health care and say that its only stupid American right wingers portraying them as waiting months for care or all these other misconceptions. Most recent was a chick me and my fiancee were talking to online and thinking of meeting up with in person. After a month or so of talking to her off and on I asked about healthcare and she said that even with having not 1 but 2 freaking autistic children she had never had a problem and thanks God she isnt in the US where she would be saddled with debt and little to no help for her two sons.

Also I love how double sided people are here. Conservatives say the government can run anything well...but yet if a liberal says the military has done anything wrong they go off the deep end. People like Tivo and the topic creator would rather twist the truth and quote what they have heard from Sean Hannity vs actually getting out there and talking to people or reading something worthwhile.

Again if you want to hear what some of the great minds have to say from US residents to people from other nations, from those on the right to those on the left check out foreign affairs journal.

[Msut77]

that would be a triple post, and another crappy post by msut.

Learn to count.

[Snake2715]

As someone without any sort of insurance, i'd welcome any sort of plan which provided me some sort of coverage, no matter how good or bad it may be.

One thing i do wonder about though. If we had a federal free health care program, how many companies would still provide coverage as a company benefit?


None, why when you can get it free from the government?

Thus reducing the spread of risk the private carriers have, and increasing their prices more.

You all sit here like these companies are ripping everyone off.

There are RX for RA, and Crohns out there athat are $10,000 a pop and they are prescribed quarterly. So $40,000 in 4 treatments. No realistically the person getting those treatments has many other medical expenses, but you can bet your ass they are not paying $40,000 a year on medical insurance are they.

But somehow the insurance carrier that has to meet certain surplus funds, and liquid assets to liability ratios is the evil overcharging HMO. Its a spread of risk, some people pay in and get nothing or verylittle back, others get much more then they pay in.... its the entire concept of insurance.

[docvinh]

that would be a triple post, and another crappy post by msut.

edit: good read here

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html

AMA opposes the healthcare bill.

I read that article too, an interesting little blurb in the middle:

"The A.M.A., an umbrella group for 180 medical societies, does not speak for all doctors. One group, Physicians for a National Health Program, supports a single-payer system of insurance, in which a single public agency would pay for health services, but most care would still be delivered by private doctors and hospitals. In recent years, some doctors have become so fed up with the administrative hassles of private insurance that they are looking for alternatives."

[Snake2715]

Can't even begin to froth at how much I hate American healthcare. Shitty rudimentary cancer care's what killed my mother in 6 months, and since PCOS isn't immediately fatal, no one gives a shit about my condition or even knows what it is. All doctors know is to prescribe drugs that cause cancer to prevent cancer and tell me to starve myself, and all insurance companies know is that it's genetic so I can go piss off.

So whatever the fuck systems we have now are already deadly OP, take that shit-stirring FUD headline somewhere else.

So PCOS is fatal now? Poli cystic Ovarian syndrome (spelling may be wrong) correct? My wife has that. Yes the drugs can cause cancer, but from the information I have read its got a low fatality rate.

Are you trying to have kids or something? Plenty of people know what it is, maybe you need to get to an OB that cares if you feel they don't.

Take RA, Crohns, MS, etc... they cant prevent these either. You know what they say, here we know that RA/Crohns, is an overactive immune system issue, so instead of fixing it (cause we cant figure that out yet), lets beat the shit out of your immune system so you have less inflamation... so on top of feeling tired, and shitty, you run the risk of picking up many other diseases, and day to day sicknesses, with a compromised immune system.

There are a ton of these issues going on, with all sorts of diseases. Half of these diseases are most likely caused by all the shitty ass chemicals everyone,(including myself) put into our bodies on a daily basis.

Why by going to national health care do you think there will be some maricle cure for your issue? What will then be driving those companies to look for a solution, if they dont when they are all private? Its going to pay a lot less when the government tells them what they can sell the solution for.....

[Snake2715]

One fix to the system could be to make HMO's run as non-profits. Many claims are denied so the bottom line can be maintained. I understand that pharmaceutical and medical device companies use profits to research new products that will "help" more people but what do HMO's use their profits for? Other than paying statisticians to make new formulas that deny more people for pre-existing conditions or what not.

EDIT -- I know it's awfully socialist of me to question an individual corporation's motives and business practices but really what do they do with the money?

I can't speak on the states I dont write insurance on, as Blue Cross is actually broken up by state, but they all share networks...

BCBS of Michigan is "non profit"... let me tell you what that gets them.. They can manipulate the system to really drive out competing carriers with Small Group reform laws that they themselves wrote and then pushed through congress.

They can funnel money to their other owned susbidaries (Accident Fund, a Michigan Workers Compensation insurance carrier) and then use the funneled money to build new buildings, buy land, become more competitive, pay higher salaries, etc.

They get out of a lot of taxes as now they are "non profit" so they do not pay certian property or income taxes... all the while being one of the most expensive carriers in the state of Michigan.

Gotta love the non profit status and all the great things that come from that.

[MSI Magus]

BTW just want to add in before as per usual I duck out to prevent wasting my time arguing that its absoultly disgusting that the line we are hearing from every conservative too is not just the ignorant crap about Canada but more importantly that THEY dont want to be responsible for taking care of the sick or "why should it come out of my pocket". Due to my living off disabilty and being a "leach on the system" me and my fiancee only make about $40,000 a year combined. Id gladly cut that in half to $20,000 a year losing the other half to taxes if it meant that I could go to bed every night knowing that every man woman and child is feed, has water, we are moving towards a greener cleaner society and they have proper health care.

Sorry that I actually care about my fellow man enough to give out of my own pocket. Sorry I realize that we dont all need an HDTV in every room and a car for not just every adult in the household but every teenager. Sorry that I recognize its better for me to live in a smaller apartment and buy a few games less a year but help others.

Society should and will be judged by how we took care of our poor and sick. I can only hope that when that day of judgment comes people fighting to keep every last penny even if it means others dying meet a horrid end their self(yep im liberal but a cold hard one ;)

[Snake2715]

Quadruple post and all of it piss poor.

Care to tell me why?

[depascal22]

I can speak on the states I dont write insurance on, as Blue Cross is actually broken up by state, but they all share networks...

BCBS of Michigan is "non profit"... let me tell you what that gets them.. They can manipulate the system to really drive out competing carriers with Small Group reform laws that they themselves wrote and then pushed through congress.

They can funnel money to their other owned susbidaries (Accident Fund, a Michigan Workers Compensation insurance carrier) and then use the funneled money to build new buildings, buy land, become more competitive, pay higher salaries, etc.

They get out of a lot of taxes as now they are "non profit" so they do not pay certian property or income taxes... all the while being one of the most expensive carriers in the state of Michigan.

Gotta love the non profit status and all the great things that come from that.

I would work to eliminate all those loopholes but you make very valid points. So how would you fix healthcare since you seem to have first hand knowledge?

[Msut77]

Care to tell me why?

I don't know why your posts are so piss poor, if I had to guess it seems that why you are certainly more energetic than the other posters you are equally dim. Now I can start on how your posts are so piss poor starting off with how you seem to believe that being able to get seen in an ER is a substitute for a working medical system.

[perdition(troy]

Msut is one of those people you know has no life.

[depascal22]

Msut is one of those people you know has no life.

We're talking politics on a cheap gaming site. NONE of us have a life.

[Msut77]

Msut is one of those people you know has no life.

At least I can count, one would think that would be vital to your bed-pan changing career but then here we are.

Are you going to turn into a bitter kvetcher because you get shown to be a moron with every post? Because ramstoria might get mad you are infringing on his turf.

[RAMSTORIA]

We're talking politics on a cheap gaming site. NONE of us have a life.

hey! im at work.

[perdition(troy]

hey! im at work.

ditto

[depascal22]

So you're at work and talking politics on a gaming website. I'm sorry. Please go ahead with your "work".

[mykevermin]

et trois.

[Snake2715]

I don't know why your posts are so piss poor, if I had to guess it seems that why you are certainly more energetic than the other posters you are equally dim. Now I can start on how your posts are so piss poor starting off with how you seem to believe that being able to get seen in an ER is a substitute for a working medical system.

So you started, didn't back it up with examples of these * working health care systems, and you never finished with anything at all... and my posts are piss poor?

*edited

I find it hard to believe that any one system works for everyone.


depascal22,

I don't have an answer as how to fix the system. I see where people are suffering and then again where companies (small business) that could offer insurance, now cant afford to. I see on a daily basis peoples lives it effects, and have been through both ends of this personally.

My brother was in a car accident and almost died, had to have brain surgery and literally half of his face is paralyzed to this day (nerve damage). He had no health insurance at the time.... actually he had been paying for health insurance for 45 days, but his union was 6 days away from starting his medical insurance when the accident happened, so he had no coverage....

On the other end of the spectrum I see people that are married and have 5-6 kids get on Blue Cross plans for $400 a month and get $10,000's of coverage each year for a measly 4,980 in annual payments. I see people that have food stamps and get Medicaid coverage pull up to pay their auto insurance in their escelades, and pay from a rubber banded wad of cash.

There is not going to ever be a perfect system. There never is. I think there needs to be something put into place, but I don't have the complete answer. In the example above my Brother owed more than $200,000 in medical bills, yet he was making too much for Medicaid help (barely). So its following him around, and he cant pay that back. There is a huge trickle effect to that accident and the bills. His credit is effected, which effects what he can buy. He could have had better treatment had he had medical coverage, and his nerve damage may have been reduced. He may not have lost his job due to the physical thereapy he had to go through had the accident have never happened.

There will always be people that feel strongly either way, and have personal experience to back it up. Its the same for anything else from brands of cars, to paying with paypal, to selling on ebay vs amazon vs craigslist, etc. To shopping for US produced goods over imports.

What I guess I get stirred up about is that people on both sides are blind to the opposite argument. There are Federal laws in place, and then each state has mandated their own set of laws. I don't write insurance in PA, but as Koggit (I think) mentioned apparently they don't allow coverage for Pre X conditions ever... That seems crazy as I believe the Fedearal mandate is 18 months max, for Pre existing condition exclusion. Some carriers in the 5 states I write in have 6 months self imposed, and some dont exclude conditions at all.

The problem with the government stepping in is there are going to be huge impacts on both sides of the table. I have this feeling that its going to sweep through and no one is going to look into the details of the plan. This just happened with the bail outs and rescues, etc.

Actually it even happened with COBRA benefits. There was a sweeping reform put through and small businesses have to pay 65% subsidy to those employees that were laid off from September forward. They are to pay 65% of the COBRA premiums on behalf of those employees for up to 9 months. This was to help the growing number of people that got laid off and could not afford COBRA, yet needed the coverage.

Want to know that it was messed up for quite a few months, and there are still COBRA administrators that are being cautious at how to handle it... why you may ask...

With COBRA there is a 2% admin fee that is to be collected on top of the 100% medical insurance premium. This goes to the administrator of the COBRA plan, whether that is the small business or a TPA. When the reform passed it overlooked this fee and didn't clarify if the 65% paid by the employer included that 2% fee. Sounds simple, but think of the consequences of that oversight. Its still causing confusion because 65% of 100% is different than 65% of 102%.

I have no confidence in the Government being able to pass anything that works in short order. I really don't.

[Msut77]

So you started, didnt back it up with examples of these mythical working healthcare systems, and you never finished with anything at all... and my posts are piss poor?

Mythical?

[depascal22]

How do you get facts and examples from a myth?

[Snake2715]

How do you get facts and examples from a myth?

Mythical?


First it was an expression. There were no examples or facts from you. Do I need to go back and edit that word, is it really going to hold up a response from you Msut? Perfect, is that a better choice, or great, exceptional, balanced, fair....?


It seems you chose the word "working" for your response. I have edited my post as to get some real response from you.

The current system "works", maybe not for everyone, but its "working". I think your choice of word allows you to just duck around on the internet. I could care less if you or I win any piss contest on the internet. Hell it seems for the past decade the government has been "working" on a solution....

You come on and start your response by calling me dim. I have not insulted you, nor do I really need to. I guess this is not the place to have a discussion on the subject. But I am still willing to listen to anyone I can on it. It effects me personally on many levels, as it does a lot of people.

I am by no means an expert in this field. I have worked for 10 years in Health insurance, previous to that I worked for 4 years in a nursing home. I read about the subject with more regularity than I ever had before. I have many, many personal experiences between myself, family, friends, insureds, etc.




to depascal22,

I answered your question in my post on page 4, post # 79. I just revised it so you may have missed it once Msut answered and the thread went to page 5.

[Msut77]

First it was an expression.

An expression of ignorance? Stupidity?

There were no examples or facts.

Of non-mythical working healthcare systems in other countries? Really?

You want me to hold your hand or tie your shoes for you as well?

Perfect, is that a better choice, or great, exceptional, balanced, fair....

No one has argued that other systems are "perfect", better yes but if you want to argue a strawman go somewhere else.

The current system "works", maybe not for everyone, but its "working"

There is no way in hell I am going to spot you millions of Americans in order for you to pretend you have an argument.

You come on and start your response by calling me dim.

You are taking the George W. Bush position on ER as healthcare.

[Snake2715]

Msut77,

Yup, I am both ingorant and stupid. Thank you.

We will disagree then, thanks for your reasoning to that. Sorry if I missed it in another thread, or another news article you read some time during your life.

Since there seems to be an answer out there, I am surprised you have not been more proactive in getting this news to the government. I suspect there is this working system that we should copy exactly, no?

Better... thats your choice of word now? See how this thread gets jacked up with pissing contests. I rarely post in the politics threads for this very reason.

Let me ask one question.
Your argument for better had better be pretty damn good, because all sides of this "reform" have people just like you giving example, after example, as to why they are right. To say something is better with no possible downsides seems a little silly to me.

Can our system get better, sure. Will a government run health system be better, thats open to discussion. I thought this thread was for that exact reason. I was wrong.

Maybe you should go back and prove how dim I am as I probably misspelled quite a bit. I know I used punctuation incorrectly. If my single Mother would have had more money to put me into a good college this would probably not be a problem... but then she was working and trying to pay medical insurance so we had a choice of being dead/sick or going to a good college. I see now how your side of the argument will positively effect everyone involved for the best. I will concede. Thanks for sharing.

[docvinh]

Msut77,

Yup, I am both ingorant and stupid. Thank you.

We will disagree then, thanks for your reasoning to that. Sorry if I missed it in another thread, or another news article you read some time during your life.

Since there seems to be an answer out there, I am surprised you have not been more proactive in getting this news to the government. I suspect there is this working system that we should copy exactly, no?

Better... thats your choice of word now? See how this thread gets jacked up with pissing contests. I rarely post in the politics threads for this very reason.

Let me ask one question.
Your argument for better had better be pretty damn good, because all sides of this "reform" have people just like you giving example, after example, as to why they are right. To say something is better with no possible downsides seems a little silly to me.

Can our system get better, sure. Will a government run health system be better, thats open to discussion. I thought this thread was for that exact reason. I was wrong.

Maybe you should go back and prove how dim I am as I probably misspelled quite a bit. I know I used punctuation incorrectly. If my single Mother would have had more money to put me into a good college this would probably not be a problem... but then she was working and trying to pay medical insurance so we had a choice of being dead/sick or going to a good college. I see now how your side of the argument will positively effect everyone involved for the best. I will concede. Thanks for sharing.

Haha, it does get pretty lively in here, that's just the way it is.:) But anyway, I'll concede to you that the system is working, but if you want to use that argument, it technically works in Canada too, just not perfectly like the U.S. system. All I'm saying is that we should look at it, because it definitely could work better. How about free basic/preventative healthcare, and maybe an option to purchase better healthcare for more serious problems? I know there's a lot of problems with inequality there, but I'm just throwing it out there to see what people think.

[Snake2715]

Haha, it does get pretty lively in here, that's just the way it is.:) But anyway, I'll concede to you that the system is working, but if you want to use that argument, it technically works in Canada too,

Thats the issue, none of them I have read about, or discussed seem to really work throughout. Someone is getting shorted.


If I were to say we need one change no matter what (and for the record we need more than that). I think we need to get away from individual state mandates. Lets make it a clean Federal mandate on healthcare to start. That I think is going to be the hardest thing for the government to tackle, is looking at each state and how they are going to effect its rules and regulations.

For instance in regards to group coverage, Florida recently mandated that healthcare can only be increased by 15% for "underwritten carriers". They saw this as a solution for stopping the evil healthcare carriers from raising rates to those with bad experience, or types of business (SIC), age/demographics, etc.

Now that that has been in place a few things happened. Some carriers flat out left, leaving less competition. The other carriers that stayed came back with revised plans (and a higher price for these new plans), grandfathered their old planholders in, but are cutting coverages.

The most recent thing that has happened is the carriers that are now re entering the state are raising their base rates to compensate for the 15% maximum rate up. So those people that had good health are now not able to afford the coverage becuase the base rates are so high... now what is happening is those people with good health are choosing to not take coverage, leaving adverse selection, once again, for the health insurance carriers... Domino effect for the group health insurance in that state as its went through the roof.

[Koggit]

from the responses here i'm convinced <5% even know what it is the democrats are proposing.. it's not socialized, it's not nationalized, it's nothing like canada's.. seeing a whole lot of arguments here about "oh the government does things inefficiently so nationalized care would suck", which isn't applicable at all...

obama/dems want:
- forced healthcare, everyone has coverage, people without insurance are fined, like car insurance.

- subsidies for low-income families (up to some crazy-high income bracket, over 100k i think) to get insurance

- a self-sufficient federal insurance program as an option, to compete with private insurers

it's mostly geared toward lowering how much we spend on healthcare as a nation, and partially to getting basic care to the poor. it's amazing how many people will make up their mind about something and begin moaning without even knowing what's going on.

[Msut77]

I suspect there is this working system that we should copy exactly, no?

I am not very good at handling the level of butthurt you have displayed but anyhoo...

There is no particular system we have to copy "exactly", as koggit pointed out there are different ways of going about it they aren't all socialized at least to any worthwhile meaning of the word.

Technically even if we do copy another system there is no reason we would have to make the same if any mistake they happen to be making or made.

Let me ask one question.

Ok.

Your argument for better had better be pretty damn good, because all sides of this "reform" have people just like you giving example, after example, as to why they are right. To say something is better with no possible downsides seems a little silly to me.

That is not a question.

By "better" I am referring to the fact that many other countries manage to spend a whole lot less on healthcare than we do while covering everyone. Most of these countries provide better quality care on the whole than in America.

Also this isn't so much about the poor as some try to pretend it is, there are many solidly middle class people who are getting the short end.

When I say better I mean better any way a sane person would define it unlike the way you seem to be defining "working".

[JolietJake]

None, why when you can get it free from the government?

Thus reducing the spread of risk the private carriers have, and increasing their prices more.

You all sit here like these companies are ripping everyone off.

There are RX for RA, and Crohns out there athat are $10,000 a pop and they are prescribed quarterly. So $40,000 in 4 treatments. No realistically the person getting those treatments has many other medical expenses, but you can bet your ass they are not paying $40,000 a year on medical insurance are they.

But somehow the insurance carrier that has to meet certain surplus funds, and liquid assets to liability ratios is the evil overcharging HMO. Its a spread of risk, some people pay in and get nothing or verylittle back, others get much more then they pay in.... its the entire concept of insurance.
Well what do you suggest for someone like myself who can't get insured because of a pre existing condition then? I'm uninsurable because they won't make any money off of me. My health has been broken down to a matter of profit for a company.

Now before you paint me as some sort of anti corporate liberal, i was technically a business major in school, i've had business clases, i understand the company's responsibliities. However, that matters little to me when i'm sick and can't afford to see a doctor. You want your private insurance, then be my guest, but i'll take whatever the fuck i can get at this point.

edit- Wanted to add that my own general physician hates insurance companies himself, completely hates dealing with them. They dictate how he cares for his patients and he despises that. I'd imagine he'd love any system which allowed him to prescribe what he felt was the best medicine for the situation.

[The Crotch]

I seriously wish there were more Canadians weighing in here.
Kinda busy here. You know, repairing the nation's forests. Healing the Earth. Destroying my body so that you guys can wipe your asses.

Ungrateful pricks.

Pretty much any people I ever talk to from "socialist" nations like Canada love their health care and say that its only stupid American right wingers portraying them as waiting months for care or all these other misconceptions. Most recent was a chick me and my fiancee were talking to online and thinking of meeting up with in person. After a month or so of talking to her off and on I asked about healthcare and she said that even with having not 1 but 2 freaking autistic children she had never had a problem and thanks God she isnt in the US where she would be saddled with debt and little to no help for her two sons. Well, lesse. I come from a pretty poor-ish family. My older brother and I both had a decent pile of medical problems when we were younger, and were it not for Damned Socialism!, we would have been fucked eight ways from Sunday.

But hey, anecdotal shit is anecdotal. Still better'n nothing, and I'm a little pressed for time, yeah?

[mykevermin]

I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay...

[JolietJake]

I think crotch is kind of a reverse lumberjack.

[evanft]

I seriously wish there were more Canadians weighing in here. Pretty much any people I ever talk to from "socialist" nations like Canada love their health care and say that its only stupid American right wingers portraying them as waiting months for care or all these other misconceptions. Most recent was a chick me and my fiancee were talking to online and thinking of meeting up with in person. After a month or so of talking to her off and on I asked about healthcare and she said that even with having not 1 but 2 freaking autistic children she had never had a problem and thanks God she isnt in the US where she would be saddled with debt and little to no help for her two sons.

Swingers?

[slidecage]

SYstem now...


I sit in office for 30 mins waiting to be called

Nurse calls me to back room

I sit in back room waiting for doctor for 15mins

Doctor walks in

Doc : whats wrong
Me: My back hurts
DOC: here let me write something up for that

Total time 2 mins

Doc leaves and nurse hands me a bill for 150 bucks


GOT TO LOVE THE MEDICAL SYSTEM LOL

[UncleBob]

obama/dems want:
- forced healthcare, everyone has coverage, people without insurance are fined, like car insurance.
Icky.

[Snake2715]

Well what do you suggest for someone like myself who can't get insured because of a pre existing condition then? I'm uninsurable because they won't make any money off of me. My health has been broken down to a matter of profit for a company.

Now before you paint me as some sort of anti corporate liberal, i was technically a business major in school, i've had business clases, i understand the company's responsibliities. However, that matters little to me when i'm sick and can't afford to see a doctor. You want your private insurance, then be my guest, but i'll take whatever the fuck i can get at this point.

edit- Wanted to add that my own general physician hates insurance companies himself, completely hates dealing with them. They dictate how he cares for his patients and he despises that. I'd imagine he'd love any system which allowed him to prescribe what he felt was the best medicine for the situation.

If you have said it already excuse me what state are you in? Every carrier says you get no coverage from prex conditions correct?

Let me see what I can find out.

[Snake2715]

SYstem now...


I sit in office for 30 mins waiting to be called

Nurse calls me to back room

I sit in back room waiting for doctor for 15mins

Doctor walks in

Doc : whats wrong
Me: My back hurts
DOC: here let me write something up for that

Total time 2 mins

Doc leaves and nurse hands me a bill for 150 bucks


GOT TO LOVE THE MEDICAL SYSTEM LOL

Your forgetting the guy the doc was meeting with before he came to see you... you know the one that left all the fancy noteb=pads, and pens. The one that his pushing his new found medicine, so the doc can get his bonuses, and the RX companies can stay rich.

[Koggit]

If you have said it already excuse me what state are you in? Every carrier says you get no coverage from prex conditions correct?

Let me see what I can find out.
for my sis with chiari, they only cover pain meds (and give $500/mo disability).. they don't cover stuff like spinal decompression surgery ($300,000) or the repair of that hardware when it breaks ($65,000), both of which she's already needed and she's only 25..

[UncleBob]

If I get in a wreck, then go out the next day and buy automotive insurance, who would expect the insurance carrier to pay to replace my car?

[detectiveconan16]

- forced healthcare, everyone has coverage, people without insurance are fined, like car insurance.
Damn socialism! I'm being forced to pay for services I know I won't use! Why should I pay for somebody's use of a firefighter squad when it's not MY house that's burning down?

[Msut77]

If I get in a wreck, then go out the next day and buy automotive insurance, who would expect the insurance carrier to pay to replace my car?

So are you arguing for or against Universal Healthcare?

[MSI Magus]

from the responses here i'm convinced <5% even know what it is the democrats are proposing.. it's not socialized, it's not nationalized, it's nothing like canada's.. seeing a whole lot of arguments here about "oh the government does things inefficiently so nationalized care would suck", which isn't applicable at all...

obama/dems want:
- forced healthcare, everyone has coverage, people without insurance are fined, like car insurance.

- subsidies for low-income families (up to some crazy-high income bracket, over 100k i think) to get insurance

- a self-sufficient federal insurance program as an option, to compete with private insurers

it's mostly geared toward lowering how much we spend on healthcare as a nation, and partially to getting basic care to the poor. it's amazing how many people will make up their mind about something and begin moaning without even knowing what's going on.

*said this 2 or 3 pages ago*

Your just now realizing that whats left of the conservative party are ignorant people terrified to death that the goverment is coming to take their money and hand it to the poor?

[HowStern]

If I get in a wreck, then go out the next day and buy automotive insurance, who would expect the insurance carrier to pay to replace my car?

You have the absolute worst sense of hypothetical arguments I've ever seen.

You are trying to say that insurers shouldn't cover Pre-Ex conditions. I get it, despite you awful attempt at making an argument, I get it. Except the equivalency of a car being totaled would be the person being dead.

If a person is still breathing there is a chance for treatment. No one should be denied that treatment.

Did you know that Japan has the longest life span? (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffindarticles.com%2Fp%2Farticles%2 Fmi_m0FSL%2Fis_3_72%2Fai_65539094%2F&ei=ZrozStyfGZultged5bS8CQ&rct=j&q=japan+longest+life+expectancy&usg=AFQjCNEfFlkfxT7ish96Hu5zQaMrqE_a8w) Guess who runs their health care system? Did you also know it's mandatory to be enrolled in a health care system in Japan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Japan

This is basically what Obama wants for us. But thruogh fear tactics the GOP has scared every rube on the internet into believing it will kill us all.

[JolietJake]

If you have said it already excuse me what state are you in? Every carrier says you get no coverage from prex conditions correct?

Let me see what I can find out.
I'm in Tennessee, every carrier iv'e tried eventually denies me once the underwriters get hold of my application. I'm basically too much of a risk.

[JolietJake]

If I get in a wreck, then go out the next day and buy automotive insurance, who would expect the insurance carrier to pay to replace my car?
The difference being that i can just go out and get a new car, i'm kinda stuck with my body.

[XxFuRy2Xx]

You have the absolute worst sense of hypothetical arguments I've ever seen.

You are trying to say that insurers shouldn't cover Pre-Ex conditions. I get it, despite you awful attempt at making an argument, I get it. Except the equivalency of a car being totaled would be the person being dead.

If a person is still breathing there is a chance for treatment. No one should be denied that treatment.

Did you know that Japan has the longest life span? (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffindarticles.com%2Fp%2Farticles%2 Fmi_m0FSL%2Fis_3_72%2Fai_65539094%2F&ei=ZrozStyfGZultged5bS8CQ&rct=j&q=japan+longest+life+expectancy&usg=AFQjCNEfFlkfxT7ish96Hu5zQaMrqE_a8w) Guess who runs their health care system? Did you also know it's mandatory to be enrolled in a health care system in Japan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Japan

This is basically what Obama wants for us. But thruogh fear tactics the GOP has scared every rube on the internet into believing it will kill us all.Japan may not be the best example. Many people die in an ambulance because they can't find a hospital to place them. I can't remember how many times I've read about some pregnant lady dying because they couldn't find a hospital for her.

Also, in Japan, hospitals actually have a closing time! That's not a joke, they close like at 6pm or some crap like that. Not cool.

[HowStern]

^Eh, worse shit happens here all the time. Like that (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/health/main2923545.shtml)

and (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/health/main2923545.shtml)

this (http://www.northjersey.com/news/Hospital_staffers_security_ignore_dying_woman.html ) And Japan has a lot less doctors per patient there than we do.

[Msut77]

The difference being that i can just go out and get a new car, i'm kinda stuck with my body.

I think it was kogg's sister bob was referring to as a used car.

The fact that this is basically how America lets a fellow human being be viewed in that way would be (to me anyway) an argument for universal healthcare, but bob is just that big of an asswipe.

[UncleBob]

Take it as you will, but I'm simply pointing out that the purpose of insurance is to protect you for stuff that happens after you begin paying for coverage.

No one would expect auto, home or life insurance to work in such a way that you can wait for the bad stuff to happen, buy coverage, then expect to have the bad stuff covered.

If you want "Universal Health Care", then call it that. It's not insurance you're wanting and it's not insurance you're expecting everyone else to pay for.

[Msut77]

Take it as you will, but I'm simply pointing out that the purpose of insurance is to protect you for stuff that happens after you begin paying for coverage.

I don't think that was the case with kogg's sister or jolietjake (as if they were just letting ride or something) when they lost coverage or and it is not the case for millions of other Americans either.

No one would expect auto, home or life insurance to work in such a way that you can wait for the bad stuff to happen, buy coverage, then expect to have the bad stuff covered.

Kogg's sister and jolietjake are human beings not cars you clown.

If you want "Universal Health Care", then call it that. It's not insurance you're wanting and it's not insurance you're expecting everyone else to pay for.

Beats the Soylent Green option.

[rmb]

JolietJake- Are you unemployed? If not, I take it you are self-employed. Would that be correct? I am not gonna get tied up in this argument but... in Germany I believe their plan is run in a manner that what you pay is somewhat based on income. The solution to this mess is a combination of what we have already and what other countries do as well. Personally, I am sick of the attitude that so many have that they are entitled to things in this country. For those that truly aren't productive members of society I could care less if they die. Don't go fuckin mistaking this statement as it doesn't imply that if you have no job your not productive. For those making legitimate efforts at being productive member's of society I have no issue with assistance. As a country we need to stop wasting money helping all of these other countries around the world. Solve our own problems first.

Added: I do support providing care to people in situations such as Koggit's sister.

I also have a fiancee that is diabetic. She would not be covered if she left her job and wanted to be self-employed. Thus, she keeps a job where insurance is provided. Once married she can go on my plan. I also have 3 kids with autism. You think they don't have medical bills? Enormous, and there are lots of programs that ensure they get the necessary care.

[speedracer]

rmb, I'm just curious what your thoughts are on Pat Buchanan.

[XxFuRy2Xx]

^Eh, worse shit happens here all the time. Like that (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/health/main2923545.shtml)

and (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/health/main2923545.shtml)

this (http://www.northjersey.com/news/Hospital_staffers_security_ignore_dying_woman.html ) And Japan has a lot less doctors per patient there than we do.Negligence by a bunch of morons is a big difference when compared to not being able to find an open hospital.

[HowStern]

^Completely disagree. I'd rather die in the hands of people who tried than by the hands of idiots who ignored me.

I, mean, unless what you are talking about is a regular thing but it sounds like a freak incident that happens sometimes. You aren't giving me any links or anything to see what you're talking about.

But, also, like I said Japan ha sa lot less doctors than us. So, they are going to have a harder time treating people. Whereas the links I gave you show people just plain being ignored despite us having the resources.

[UncleBob]

I wonder why Japan has less doctors than the US....

[HowStern]

^Not less doctors. Less doctor:patient ratio. Their population is the reason if I had to guess. Here's a graph of their birth to death ratio. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan)

[UncleBob]

But, also, like I said Japan ha sa lot less doctors than us.

^Not less doctors. Less doctor:patient ratio.

How am I supposed to know what you mean with your crazy moon language? ;)

Let me rephrase my initial query: Why does Japan have a smaller percentage of the population that go into the medical field?

[JolietJake]

I think it was kogg's sister bob was referring to as a used car.

The fact that this is basically how America lets a fellow human being be viewed in that way would be (to me anyway) an argument for universal healthcare, but bob is just that big of an asswipe.
So? It applies to anyone with medical problems who can't get insured.

[JolietJake]

JolietJake- Are you unemployed? If not, I take it you are self-employed. Would that be correct? I am not gonna get tied up in this argument but... in Germany I believe their plan is run in a manner that what you pay is somewhat based on income. The solution to this mess is a combination of what we have already and what other countries do as well. Personally, I am sick of the attitude that so many have that they are entitled to things in this country. For those that truly aren't productive members of society I could care less if they die. Don't go fuckin mistaking this statement as it doesn't imply that if you have no job your not productive. For those making legitimate efforts at being productive member's of society I have no issue with assistance. As a country we need to stop wasting money helping all of these other countries around the world. Solve our own problems first.

Added: I do support providing care to people in situations such as Koggit's sister.

I also have a fiancee that is diabetic. She would not be covered if she left her job and wanted to be self-employed. Thus, she keeps a job where insurance is provided. Once married she can go on my plan. I also have 3 kids with autism. You think they don't have medical bills? Enormous, and there are lots of programs that ensure they get the necessary care.
No, i have a job, i'm just not provided medical insurance. I work at my college and am not allowed enough hours to get medical insurance.

[Msut77]

So? It applies to anyone with medical problems who can't get insured.

I know, it was just my way of emphasizing what a dick bag bob is.

[HowStern]

How am I supposed to know what you mean with your crazy moon language? ;)

Let me rephrase my initial query: Why does Japan have a smaller percentage of the population that go into the medical field?

I don't see anything to suggest they do have a smaller percentage who enter the medical field. One guess is they may have a higher population of children/minors than us who simply aren't able to do so. Since the minors are only eligible to be considered patients the patient:doctor ratio goes down. Or the opposite, since they have such a long life expectancy, there are too many elderly.

edit:

Also the dec 2008 issue of Nat. Geo. had a good article about doctor migration and I was actually able to find it on their website.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/12/community-doctors/follow-up-text

It also states the UK, which has the NHS, has the highest percentage of doctors with an increasing amount of doctors going there to practice from abroad.

[rmb]

No, i have a job, i'm just not provided medical insurance. I work at my college and am not allowed enough hours to get medical insurance.
Simple solution, move to Minnesota. Not really, but here in your situation you would most likely qualify for Mncare which you pay based on income.

[UncleBob]

I know, it was just my way of emphasizing what a dick bag bob is.

Is this how Msut always is? When he disagrees but cannot come up with any thing to say, he resorts to name calling?

And they say "right wing" talk radio is all about the hate speech.

I don't see anything to suggest they do have a smaller percentage who enter the medical field. One guess is they may have a higher population of children/minors than us who simply aren't able to do so. Since the minors are only eligible to be considered patients the patient:doctor ratio goes down. Or the opposite, since they have such a long life expectancy, there are too many elderly.


If they have a worse doctor to patient ratio, then that means fewer doctors per general population - meaning there are less people who are going out for that particular field of study (although, I guess just because they aren't becoming "doctors", it doesn't preclude them from looking into other fields of medical study).

More minors and elderly could be a good reason. I wonder what their percentages are compared to our percentages of age groups...

[Koggit]

i don't understand why a high doctor-to-patient ratio and high pay for those doctors is being discussed as desirable. the goal is to spend much less on care, which can be obtained three ways: fewer medical professionals, lower paid medical professionals, lower paid HMOs. none of which is inherently bad and cannot be used to hypothesize the effect on quality of care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Health_care_spend ing

[UncleBob]

i don't understand why a high doctor-to-patient ratio and high pay for those doctors is being discussed as desirable.

Who said anything about high pay for doctors? I wasn't aware that was ever mentioned.

High Doctor-to-patient ratio is a bad thing. That's what we were discussing as one of the flaws of the Japanese system. I'm wondering why Japan has a lower percentage of doctors vs population.

[Koggit]

High Doctor-to-patient ratio is a bad thing.

one of the flaws of the Japanese system . . . Japan has a lower percentage of doctors vs population.

you're contradicting yourself, i don't even know what you're trying to say now. proofread and fix it.

you chimed in with the ambiguous "I wonder why Japan has less doctors than the US...."

which i rationally assumed was your snide way of saying less pay results in fewer people wanting to be doctors, which you insinuated is a bad thing. either state your point or gtfo this isn't a topic for games.

[Msut77]

Is this how Msut always is?

I have never suffered fools lightly so yeah.

When he disagrees but cannot come up with any thing to say, he resorts to name calling?

Is that what you call it? I am not the one having trouble arguing my position, meanwhile the clown car keeps pouring out posters comparing healthcare to luxury items like a Cadillac or claiming we can't afford a system like other countries have even though we already spend more than they do.

[XxFuRy2Xx]

^Completely disagree. I'd rather die in the hands of people who tried than by the hands of idiots who ignored me.

I, mean, unless what you are talking about is a regular thing but it sounds like a freak incident that happens sometimes. You aren't giving me any links or anything to see what you're talking about.

But, also, like I said Japan ha sa lot less doctors than us. So, they are going to have a harder time treating people. Whereas the links I gave you show people just plain being ignored despite us having the resources.OK, I've got lots of links for you.

Link 1 (http://www.davidappleyard.com/japan/jp55.htm)
Link 2 (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/238224,death-of-pregnant-japanese-woman-sparks-controversy.html)
Link 3 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94EGVD80&show_article=1)
Link 4 (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/74501/Woman-dies-after-being-refused-admission-by-30-Japan-hospitals)
Link 5 (http://www.javno.com/en-world/man-dies-because-14-hospitals-refused-to-admit-him_231093)

The last one has this tidbit:

More than 14,000 patients were refused admittance by Japanese hospitals in 2007. One woman with respiratory problems was refused 49 times by hospitals.

[HowStern]

The first link is just a malpractice suit. We have that here all the time.
The rest of the links are definitely from a shortage of doctors though.

But I provided 2 links that were equally awful that happened here and found those in under a minute I'm sure another minute or two would drag up a few more.

But Japan definitely has a shortage of doctors, no doubt.

[Snake2715]

for my sis with chiari, they only cover pain meds (and give $500/mo disability).. they don't cover stuff like spinal decompression surgery ($300,000) or the repair of that hardware when it breaks ($65,000), both of which she's already needed and she's only 25..

The law says 18 months of pre x. What state are you in? I suspect there is a guaranteed issue carrier (Blue Cross) that you can get with and then in 18 months you will have pre x waived. Whether or not those carriers will pay the services you want or need is another story.

Again what state are you or her resident in?

[Koggit]

The law says 18 months of pre x. What state are you in? I suspect there is a guaranteed issue carrier (Blue Cross) that you can get with and then in 18 months you will have pre x waived. Whether or not those carriers will pay the services you want or need is another story.

Again what state are you or her resident in?
louisiana, and as i mentioned, we were insured when she was diagnosed

[UncleBob]

you're contradicting yourself, i don't even know what you're trying to say now. proofread and fix it.

you chimed in with the ambiguous "I wonder why Japan has less doctors than the US...."

which i rationally assumed was your snide way of saying less pay results in fewer people wanting to be doctors, which you insinuated is a bad thing. either state your point or gtfo this isn't a topic for games.

I do apologize, I obviously meant to say that less doctors for more people is a bad thing and I'm wondering why Japan does have less doctors per patients than the US. Any useful ideas?

[Msut77]

I do apologize, I obviously meant to say that less doctors for more people is a bad thing and I'm wondering why Japan does have less doctors per patients than the US. Any useful ideas?

teh googles, they do something.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/51/38979974.pdf

Japan has fewer physicians per capita than most other OECD countries. In 2006, Japan had 2.1 practicing physicians per 1 000 population, well below the OECD average of 3.1. The relatively low number of
doctors per capita in Japan is due at least partly to government policies fixing limits on the number of new
entrants in medical schools.

[UncleBob]

The relatively low number of doctors per capita in Japan is due at least partly to government policies fixing limits on the number of new entrants in medical schools.

Nice link - very interesting (something I want to comment on in a second) - but this is half the answer (well, less than half when you consider the "at least partly" phrase). Why is the government putting limits on the quantity of medical students? Seems weird.

The remarkable gains in longevity in Japan in recent decades have been driven notably by falling death rates from heart diseases, which are the lowest now of all OECD countries, for
both males and females.
[...]
Obesity rates have increased in recent decades in nearly all OECD countries, although there remain notable differences across countries. The prevalence of obesity among adults varies from a low of [...] 3.9% in Japan in 2005, to a high of 34.3% in the United States in 2006.

One of the things that gets thrown out about the Japanese health care system is that their citizens have a longer life expectancy. It would appear (according to this one article, at least) this is largely due in part to less deaths from heart disease. Obesity, one of the leading causes of heart disease is obviously a lot smaller of a problem in Japan than it is here.

Perhaps the key to longer life expectancy is less about a universal health solution than it is about less "us"?

[rmb]

Obesity, one of the leading causes of heart disease is obviously a lot smaller of a problem in Japan than it is here.

Perhaps the key to longer life expectancy is less about a universal health solution than it is about less "us"?:applause: Would have to agree with that observation!

[Trakan]

I understand this is the VS forum, but Msut, you can't be throwin' around insults like that.

[HowStern]

One of the things that gets thrown out about the Japanese health care system is that their citizens have a longer life expectancy. It would appear (according to this one article, at least) this is largely due in part to less deaths from heart disease. Obesity, one of the leading causes of heart disease is obviously a lot smaller of a problem in Japan than it is here.

Perhaps the key to longer life expectancy is less about a universal health solution than it is about less "us"?


check this out, though. Maybe if our healthcare system did something as simple as this lol.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html

[UncleBob]

check this out, though. Maybe if our healthcare system did something as simple as this lol.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html

Considering that here, patients file complaints when a doctor tells them that they are obese (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9063638/), I could see how well that type of program would go over. ;)

[HowStern]

^lol exactly. Which is precisely why our costs are through the roof and reform is needed.

[JolietJake]

Alright, i get what appears to be an adult and child, but why the hell si the dog involved?:lol:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/06/13/world/metabo.01.650.jpg

[UncleBob]

Agreed - but we ('we' in the generalized sense, as in "we Americans") are going to have to see a major reform in our lifestyles and attitudes before any kind of major health system reform will be effective.

[HowStern]

Agreed - but we ('we' in the generalized sense, as in "we Americans") are going to have to see a major reform in our lifestyles and attitudes before any kind of major health system reform will be effective.

I think the reverse is true and I'll explain why. Statistics show that obesity levels are highest for the poor. (see: Correlation between Obesity and Poverty (http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/correlation-between-obesity-and-poverty-health-people-2010-should-increase-attention-those-poverty-14046.html))
So, it's safe to say the majority of these people have no health insurance.

Perhaps if they did, and they had a doctor to "measure their waist" so to speak and tell them they need to lose weight or else, obesity levels would drop. Helping eliminate heart disease and other obesity related diseases and cut care costs.

[UncleBob]

I think the reverse is true and I'll explain why. Statistics show that obesity levels are highest for the poor. (see: Correlation between Obesity and Poverty (http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/correlation-between-obesity-and-poverty-health-people-2010-should-increase-attention-those-poverty-14046.html))
So, it's safe to say the majority of these people have no health insurance.

Perhaps if they did, and they had a doctor to "measure their waist" so to speak and tell them they need to lose weight or else, obesity levels would drop. Helping eliminate heart disease and other obesity related diseases and cut care costs.

No, because when the doctor measures someone's waist and tells them they need to lose weight, they get mad, file a complaint against the doctor, then go to McDonald's for a Big Mac and Large fries.

[perdition(troy]

No, because when the doctor measures someone's waist and tells them they need to lose weight, they get mad, file a complaint against the doctor, then go to McDonald's for a Big Mac and Large fries.

:lol::lol::lol:

That's about the same thing I was thinking. You've got to be pretty stupid if the only way you know you need to lose weight is if a doctor tells you to.

[HowStern]

Nah I think when they actually see a piece of paper with their cholesterol levels on it, and it sinks into their brain like the trans fat from their biggie fries that they are in trouble, there is a better chance they will lose weight. :)

I actually know a rather large woman who has always been large but recently the doctor told her her cholesterol was too high and she would die. She started eating healthy that day. I just thought of another one as I wrote that actually. The second one got a gym membership and goes every day but still isn't eating as well as she should.

[perdition(troy]

I actually know a rather large woman who has always been large but recently the doctor told her her cholesterol was too high and she would die. She started eating healthy that day. I just thought of another one as I wrote that actually. The second one got a gym membership and goes every day but still isn't eating as well as she should.

Seems to me that is where common sense should kick in. Being overweight and not eating healthy = your probably have bad cholesterol levels and a lot of stress added on to your heart. It shouldn't take a doctor going, "hey your cholesterol levels are high, you should probably start eating healthy and try losing a few pounds" to get someone to lose a few pounds.

[depascal22]

Seems to me that is where common sense should kick in. Being overweight and not eating healthy = your probably have bad cholesterol levels and a lot of stress added on to your heart. It shouldn't take a doctor going, "hey your cholesterol levels are high, you should probably start eating healthy and try losing a few pounds" to get someone to lose a few pounds.

How are those common sense issues? You inherently know exactly what you should be eating and how much you should exercise? How many people in the projects in the trailer park even know what cholesterol is and they're supposed to magically know that they have dangerously high levels of it?

How many other things are common sense? How about using CAG, Goozex, or GameTZ to trade games instead of Gamestop? You'd think that people would just know where they could get the most value and would seek it out. Do they use this magic common knowledge? No. Instead they just go to the store because it's the only place they know.

It's the same thing. The only restaurants anyone sees outside of downtown metropolitan areas are fast food joints and gas stations. If it's so bad, why is it the only food available to most people?

Common knowledge for the poor:

Fast food is cheap, easy to find, and tastes good.

[HowStern]

Like depescal said it isn't common knowledge for some people surpisingly.

http://mystateline.com/content/fulltext/?cid=75501

Take a look at that.

This is exactly why we need get these people insurance.

[RAMSTORIA]

thats a british study, so i guess thats one more reason we shouldnt have universal health care.

plus, i dont buy that not knowing what lungs look like is "a precursor to poorer health"

[HowStern]

But like the article says, just imagine how Americans would do on it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571445/World-rankings-for-reading-maths-and-science.html

Top 25 for reading science and math in the world. Guess who didn't make the list.

[perdition(troy]

seriously, do you guys really think people are so stupid they need to be told that being fat and overweight is bad for their health.

[HowStern]

Uhh, did your ead the link I posted where people couldn't identify the location of their hearts and lungs?

[mykevermin]

seriously, do you guys really think people are so stupid they need to be told that being fat and overweight is bad for their health.

Yes and no.

They know that being overweight is a health risk.

But they don't consider themselves overweight, or they think themselves an exception to the rule.

It's called the fundamental attribution error.

[speedracer]

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/06/healthcare-ceos-shoot-themselves-foot

Yesterday the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations decided to investigate the practice of recission. This is when you pay your premiums for years to a healthcare insurer, then get sick, and then have your insurance cancelled. The insurance industry executives at the hearing did not exactly cover themselves with glory:

A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.

The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him.

....Late in the hearing, [Bart] Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."

The answer from all three executives: "No."

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said that a public insurance plan should be a part of any overhaul because it would force private companies to treat consumers fairly or risk losing them. "This is precisely why we need a public option," Dingell said.

Even the Republicans on the committee couldn't defend the insurance company position. A few more hearings like this and getting a public option into healthcare reform is suddenly going to look like a real possibility. Nice going, guys.

How could anything be worse again?

[Paco]

I think the reverse is true and I'll explain why. Statistics show that obesity levels are highest for the poor. (see: Correlation between Obesity and Poverty (http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/correlation-between-obesity-and-poverty-health-people-2010-should-increase-attention-those-poverty-14046.html))
So, it's safe to say the majority of these people have no health insurance.

Perhaps if they did, and they had a doctor to "measure their waist" so to speak and tell them they need to lose weight or else, obesity levels would drop. Helping eliminate heart disease and other obesity related diseases and cut care costs.

BOOM. HEADSHOT.

But this is true. The more poor you are the fatter you tend to be since the cheapest foods are often the worst for you. But another thing that would help is if we stopped deep frying, refrying, ULTRA GRILLING and choking everything with preservatives. Everything has so much artificial shit in there that it's simply amazing. I'm fat and yes I know it's bad for me, but currently the cost of HEALTHY food is so fucking amazing that it's cheaper to just get the cheapest shit you can find.

Also of worthy note is that when people go to foreign countries they tend to lose weight if they stay there for a certain amount of time that's longer then a visit. Not shoving preservatives and additional shit tends to fix the body. I lost significant amounts of weight just going to Mexico for a while because the food was more natural and I wasn't eating SKUNCH

[JolietJake]

I'm sure the diarrhea helped too. :lol:

[ninju D]

The first and most serious problem with healthcare in this country is that it is a for-profit industry.

[Paco]

I'm sure the diarrhea helped too. :lol:

That's only crap we say to keep white people out so they don't ruin the women. I have the shits far more in America then in Mexico since I'm not getting refried preservatives up the bung hole.

[Allnatural]

I'm fat and yes I know it's bad for me, but currently the cost of HEALTHY food is so fucking amazing that it's cheaper to just get the cheapest shit you can find.
That's a crock of shit. Are you going to tell me that a bag of carrots is more expensive than a can of Pringles? If so, is it significantly more expensive? Is whole grain bread that much more than white? Is water that much more than soda!?


"Why you filing for bankruptcy man?"

"I ate too much fresh fruit."

:roll:

[depascal22]

Hey RAM. It's called a garden and it's pretty cheap.

Hell, you can even grow tomatos without a patch these days and you can do damn near anything with them. Put those with a 99 cent head of lettuce and you have something called a salad. Eat one of those before every meal and you won't have as much room for the processed crap that you might eat for the entree.

It's a bad conspiracy by the grocers of America. They push the junk food and soda because the profit margin is huge. They can leave the stuff on the shelves for days while the veggies go bad after a couple days. Also, if they pushed veggies and fruits, people might figure out they can grow the stuff on their own and just cut out the grocery store for everything but milk, break, and meat.

Another thing you can do to be healthier is to cut out soda completely. It's got absolutely zero nutritional value and a ton of processed sugar but I'm pretty sure that some CAGs would be willing to rip up the Bill of Rights before they gave up Mountain Dew.

But hey, this isn't a get healthier thread. This thread is all about how Obama is trying to kill all of us. It's about leaving the HMOs to do what they've been doing for decades now. Deny. Deny. Deny.

[tivo]

Who the hell is ninju D?

[depascal22]

Who the hell is ninju D?

A guy that doesn't refer to himself as SuburbanJesus.

[UncleBob]

obama/dems want:
- forced healthcare, everyone has coverage, people without insurance are fined, like car insurance.


Hey - I wasn't the first one to compare health insurance to auto insurance! How come no one attacked Koggit? :p

[depascal22]

Hey - I wasn't the first one to compare health insurance to auto insurance! How come no one attacked Koggit? :p

Because we like Koggit.

So conservatives would rather have people fall by the wayside because they can't get coverage.

What's the big deal about forced coverage? People without it drag not only themselves but their family down the tubes without it. Kids don't go to college, homes go into foreclosure, etc. Is this what conservatives really want for our country? Are you guys so selfish that you can't see that all Americans need to be able to financially survive serious health issues?

You guys act like the government is taking every single dollar out of your pocket. Why don't you look at Denmark or Sweden. Both countries have tax levels over 50%. Even with that high tax burden, the people are consistently rated at the top when it comes to happiness. Why? The people have little to no stress. You still have money to go out to eat, buy a bigger home, but there's no worry that a broken leg could end your life as you know it. You don't have to worry about getting cancer and getting your insurance cancelled. I guess, conservatives would rather have a small sliver of the rich be happy while the rest of us schlubs scrape along.

[UncleBob]

What's the big deal about the federal government forcing people to spend money on something they may not want or need? Really?

Why don't you look at Denmark or Sweden. Both countries have tax levels over 50%.
Has there ever been a study to actually show the true tax rate of various countries around the world? I'm looking for something that includes both Federal and State income taxes, State, County and Local sales taxes - and then adds in all the various corporate and payroll taxes that individuals end up paying (through the costs of higher goods and lower wages). I'd be interested in the results of that study.

Anywhoo, my interest isn't *just* about how much taxes I'm paying in. It's also about how much the Federal Government is spending that they SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE. PERIOD. It won't do a lick of good for our government to be providing a health care solution when the fit hits the shan and China starts calling in their chips are such.

I know living beyond one's means and spending more money than you make is the American way and all, but this needs to stop.

[depascal22]

You don't need health care? Really?

To make this more conservative friendly, businesses wouldn't have to provide health benefits and their profits would go up. They could use said money to hire more people and lower unemployment. That would mean less people sucking on the gov't tit.

But it's really just about you, isn't it?

[perdition(troy]

You guys act like the government is taking every single dollar out of your pocket. Why don't you look at Denmark or Sweden. Both countries have tax levels over 50%. Even with that high tax burden, the people are consistently rated at the top when it comes to happiness. Why? The people have little to no stress. You still have money to go out to eat, buy a bigger home, but there's no worry that a broken leg could end your life as you know it. You don't have to worry about getting cancer and getting your insurance cancelled. I guess, conservatives would rather have a small sliver of the rich be happy while the rest of us schlubs scrape along.

You can't honestly say you have gone through life worrying about losing everything because you broke your leg and had no health insurance. I went without health insurance for 7-8 years and that thought didn't cross my mind once.

[UncleBob]

You don't need health care? Really?

To make this more conservative friendly, businesses wouldn't have to provide health benefits and their profits would go up. They could use said money to hire more people and lower unemployment. That would mean less people sucking on the gov't tit.

But it's really just about you, isn't it?

What businesses have to provide health benefits now?

Now, take all the "newly created" jobs from your bubbly picture and stack that against the rise in corporate taxes that the federal government would put in place to "help cover" the costs of universal health coverage. Wonder how many jobs that'll cost...

And I'm not sure how this is "about me". I pay for my heath care, thank you very much. I'm not screaming to anyone that'll listen "Hey, gimme free health care. I need it. Who cares what it'll cost everyone else."

[RAMSTORIA]

To make this more conservative friendly, businesses wouldn't have to provide health benefits and their profits would go up. They could use said money to hire more people and lower unemployment. That would mean less people sucking on the gov't tit.




unless of course theres a "pay or play" mandate on employers, meaning employers would be forced to pay higher taxes if they didnt offer insurance to employees.

[willardhaven]

And I'm not sure how this is "about me". I pay for my heath care, thank you very much. I'm not screaming to anyone that'll listen "Hey, gimme free health care. I need it. Who cares what it'll cost everyone else."

It's supposed to lower gross cost for the country, so it wil cost less. just because you are healthy and can afford insurance doesn't mean everyone else can. A lot of sick people can't even get coverage within reason because of their existing medical problems. Do you even think about other people?

[Msut77]

Hey - I wasn't the first one to compare health insurance to auto insurance! How come no one attacked Koggit? :p

It wasn't so much that you compared health insurance to car insurance it is that you compared people like koggs sister to a wrecked car.

I recently posted a link which pointed out that insurance companies target people with expensive illnesses and then using any semi legal excuse to force them out, the heads of these companies flat out refuse to stop these practices.

What's the big deal about the federal government forcing people to spend money on something they may not want or need? Really?

Again, using the comparison to auto insurance has two different dimensions. There are people who have never been in an accident who buy insurance and that is a much different comparison than saying a loved one is like a wrecked 1988 Toyota Celica.

Now as for something I have pointed out before, saying "we can't afford a different system" say a system where everyone is covered is hogwash. We already pay more for what we have now than anyone a new system would bring costs down and even a not insignificant portion of the deficit.

[tivo]

^^ how much (time and money) would it take to transfer our current system to the one you envision?

[Msut77]

^^ how much (time and money) would it take to transfer our current system to the one you envision?

I will probably sincerely regret this but I am going to go ahead and take your question (even though it is more of a subject for pages and pages of white paper) as one in good faith.

Probably less time than you would think, one possible way to do it would be to simply expand medicare, the costs assuming that you do not see a restriction on bargaining (a blatant ripoff imho) the way there was in plan d would end up being less. Something I have said before is that the status quo will probably remain until other big corporations realize they are getting screwed too with healthcare costs the way they are.

[RAMSTORIA]

Probably less time than you would think, one possible way to do it would be to simply expand medicare.

expanding a system that spent 32 billion in improper payments and is running on IOUs isnt a good plan.

[ToadallyAwesome]

Because we like Koggit.

So conservatives would rather have people fall by the wayside because they can't get coverage.

What's the big deal about forced coverage? People without it drag not only themselves but their family down the tubes without it. Kids don't go to college, homes go into foreclosure, etc. Is this what conservatives really want for our country? Are you guys so selfish that you can't see that all Americans need to be able to financially survive serious health issues?

You guys act like the government is taking every single dollar out of your pocket. Why don't you look at Denmark or Sweden. Both countries have tax levels over 50%. Even with that high tax burden, the people are consistently rated at the top when it comes to happiness. Why? The people have little to no stress. You still have money to go out to eat, buy a bigger home, but there's no worry that a broken leg could end your life as you know it. You don't have to worry about getting cancer and getting your insurance cancelled. I guess, conservatives would rather have a small sliver of the rich be happy while the rest of us schlubs scrape along.


Forced coverage is exactly how Massachusetts works. Living costs are pretty high here too. I am a decently healthy 20-something and given the choice I would probably not get insurance for a year so I can buy a car (to get to work no less) or finish paying off a loan. It would be really nice if there was a cheap public option where you just have enough to get by on until you make more money (finish paying school loans, etc.) and can pay for private insurance.

I think forced insurance can save money in the long-run. If you have and pay for it you are going to use it so various conditions can be fixed before they compound or worsen (which then really costs a lot) but it is hard to pay sometimes when you are trying to make rent and school tuition. It is especially useless when you end up with an expensive condition and they give you the boot.

I have mixed feelings on it but I think a cheap public option would work nicely. I have no idea where to begin on thinking about the issue with people that have pre-existing conditions. The better we get an extending people's lives the more very difficult moral/cost dilemmas we are going to face.

[speedracer]

You can't honestly say you have gone through life worrying about losing everything because you broke your leg and had no health insurance. I went without health insurance for 7-8 years and that thought didn't cross my mind once.
Ignoring risk doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you're foolish.

[UncleBob]

Ignoring risk doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you're foolish.

Meteors could rocket in from space and kill all life on Earth.

[Koggit]

Blah blah blah can we please stop treating this like some sort of political issue? It's for debate sure but it's an issue of governance wholly separate from politics... please please please don't politicize health care.

I think the car insurance analogy is almost apt in terms of liability, but not quite in terms of greater good

Mandating health insurance solves three problems, I'll save the one that's a proper auto insurance analogue for last: (i) With mandatory coverage, people who fall into the 'preexisting condition' pit do not become society's burden, (ii) With everyone having coverage people don't have reason to put off care they should get, which ultimately reduces how much we as a nation spend on total care, (iii) It prevents people from needing treatment they cannot possibly afford, which ultimately has a negative impact on all of America.

To elaborate on (iii) -- when a person cannot afford the required care they either don't get it and become a burden on society or they get it and don't pay for it, in which case they hurt our economy by going bankrupt (medical bills is #1 cause of bankruptcy in America), this is similar to the rationale of requiring liability auto insurance, it's so that when you need to pay (health care or to fix stuff you rammed into) you don't harm others by not being able to afford it (harming both taxpayers and the directly associated industry).



Again, as a disclaimer, I don't necessarily support the Obama/Dem proposal because the problem is still profit-driven HMOs...

[Ikohn4ever]

Meteors could rocket in from space and kill all life on Earth.
at least we would be done with your bad examples...

[UncleBob]

[...] do not become society's burden [...] a burden on society [...]

For better or worse, I don't see *any* way possible that every single American (or every single person currently living in America, depending on what passes) will be able to receive the health care they need without some of these individuals becoming a burden on society.

If you can guarantee a way for this not to happen, then I'll gladly vote for whatever plan you can come up with.

[UncleBob]

at least we would be done with your bad examples...

I guess you win the internet!

[Koggit]

For better or worse, I don't see *any* way possible that every single American (or every single person currently living in America, depending on what passes) will be able to receive the health care they need without some of these individuals becoming a burden on society.

If you can guarantee a way for this not to happen, then I'll gladly vote for whatever plan you can come up with.

did you read my whole post? do you somehow disagree that these people are already a burden on society? you can't avoid it. they're not gonna die when they need treatment they can't afford -- they're gonna get it then file bankruptcy, fucking up our economy, you still foot their medical bill (though not directly through taxes) and your financial situation sucks because (1) they filed bankruptcy (2) they're on welfare for the rest of their life because they can't get treatment that makes them able-bodied and work-ready.

uuhg.. my post before this one was good, reread it, i will not repeat myself :\

[UncleBob]

But you claimed that Mandating Health Insurance would solve the problem of individals being a burden on society due to their medical situations. I want to see your solution for that so I can vote for it.

[Koggit]

with all due respect: grow up. in any humane system sick people will get care they can't afford (as they do now and as they will in the dem proposal, as they do in every developed country in the world), and nothing is free. somebody must pay for it. fact of life, it's childish to expect any less. best we can do, which is absolutely not done in the current system, is minimize the negative effect of that unpleasant fact.

[UncleBob]

So your post above, about eliminating the "burdens on society", was bunk? Dang, and here I thought you had the perfect solution.

Yes, we'll have burdens on society with whatever plan we end up using (short of some kind of kill-all-the-sick-people plan, which I do oppose). You tried to make the current Democratic proposal out to be some kind of super-plan that would eliminate these "burdens on society". All I ask is you be fair and acknowledge that these individuals will still be there, we'll just be shifting the burdens around.

[Koggit]

no, we'll be drastically reducing the burden


i dont even know why i'm arguing with you, this is not fun and i don't really care whether their proposal passes or not

[UncleBob]

>"no, we'll be drastically reducing the burden"

That's one possibility. Another possibility is that we'll be creating a larger burden by putting everyone's (or, at the very least, a large part of Americans) health care costs onto our already crazily in-debt Federal Government.

[Msut77]

Another possibility is that we'll be creating a larger burden by putting everyone's (or, at the very least, a large part of Americans) health care costs onto our already crazily in-debt Federal Government.

The only way that could happen is if there were literally no cost restraints put into the plan, as it stands right now being for the status quo is for being for higher costs and a higher deficit.

[depascal22]

This all comes back to whether you'd rather pay a little extra so everyone can benefit. Like I said, Denmark and Sweden have very high tax rates but their people are happy because they don't have the stresses that we do.

That being said, I understand the other point of view. If taxes are raised for health care, where does it stop? It all comes from living in a humongous country at the tail end of it's golden age. We're stuck with the crappy proposition of paying super high taxes just to provide basic services and to pay off the interest on our sky high debt or fall into obscurity as a nation.

[HowStern]

I have a question for people who are opposed to this.

Do you get mad at a woman if she has to call the police because her husband is beating her? I mean she is using your tax dollars. Then the guy is going to have to go to court. That's going to cost some more of your tax dollars. Oh, he's in jail now..Guess who's paying for that?

You don't get mad? Then why would you get mad if your tax dollars paid for a woman to check and see if the lump in her breast is cancer or not?

[depascal22]

I have a question for people who are opposed to this.

Do you get mad at a woman if she has to call the police because her husband is beating her? I mean she is using your tax dollars. Then the guy is going to have to go to court. That's going to cost some more of your tax dollars. Oh, he's in jail now..Guess who's paying for that?

You don't get mad? Then why would you get mad if your tax dollars paid for a woman to check and see if the lump in her breast is cancer or not?

I'm for this but I think I can venture an answer. The rational answer is that conservatives don't trust the government to do anything. They would much rather have a private company take care of everything and people pay for their own health care. The rationale is that you can always go the hospital even if you can't afford it.

The liberal answer is that these guys are greedy fucks that don't care if people die for preventable diseases. It's their money and you can pry it from their cold dead hands.

The answer lies somewhere between but I lean toward the latter. Greed is good. Government programs that reward lazy (i.e. poor/minority) people for doing nothing will never work in their opinion. They'll point to the welfare mothers as yet another example of bad government in action.

[HowStern]

Yeah but not having health care has nothing to do with laziness. There are people who work 2 jobs but can not afford it (me..., luckily I live in MA where we have a healthcare system like the one Obama wants to implement nationally). Or maybe can afford some basic coverage but then get screwed by the slimy insurance co. in the way Msut's links described.

We are at a high when it comes to unemployment and it has zero to do with laziness.

Conservatives have no good argument for this one.

[perdition(troy]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.c7aaeb7940626693fa418a1eab2291f 6.81&show_article=1

lol. overweight people live longer then us in shape people

[ninju D]

Who the hell is ninju D?

I'm someone with an opinion. Is that ok?

[HowStern]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.c7aaeb7940626693fa418a1eab2291f 6.81&show_article=1

lol. overweight people live longer then us in shape people

You misread. Chubbier than should be people live longer than thinner than should be people, Not in-shape people.

Did you read the whole article? But Kuriyama warned he was not recommending people eat as much as they want.
"It's better that thin people try to gain normal weight, but we doubt it's good for people of normal physique to put on more fat," he said.
The study divided people into four weight classes at age 40 according to their body mass index, or BMI, calculated by dividing a person's weight in kilograms by their squared height in metres.
The normal range is 18.5 to 25, with thinness defined as under 18.5. A BMI of 25 to 30 was classed as slightly overweight and an index above 30 as obese.


This is elementary. When you are too skinny your body starts burning up important tissues for energy. Tissues from your heart, lungs, and other organs.

[Snake2715]

No, because when the doctor measures someone's waist and tells them they need to lose weight, they get mad, file a complaint against the doctor, then go to McDonald's for a Big Mac and Large fries.


Yeah i tried that at home with the wife and she grabbed an ice cream and told me to shut up... joking.

In reality though I think its partially that, but also the quality of food the people in poverty are eating. Its not filling, and its pure sugar infused junk. McDonald's is specifically targeting these individuals on a daily basis. The income to health issue is huge and cant be fixed alone with free health care... I think this is a very interesting side of this entire US obesity/health/death rate issue.

[Snake2715]

I have a question for people who are opposed to this.

Do you get mad at a woman if she has to call the police because her husband is beating her? I mean she is using your tax dollars. Then the guy is going to have to go to court. That's going to cost some more of your tax dollars. Oh, he's in jail now..Guess who's paying for that?

You don't get mad? Then why would you get mad if your tax dollars paid for a woman to check and see if the lump in her breast is cancer or not?

Of course nobody in their right mind would get mad. The issue from my argument is its not going to fix things for people. How many times have you heard of an argument turning to murder, or a house fire burning people to death, or someone drowning, all before the police, or fire department could get there? Or the 911 operators putting you on hold as the budget does not allow for more workers.... so people still go without the care.

This will happen with medical insurance if its set up by the government. It goes on, on a daily basis with every other government run entity. It even goes on in private run entities (i.e. hospitals too busy to accept, or large waits in the ER/waiting rooms).

People are still going without no matter what way you slice it.

To think that people are going to ditch McDonald and start eating right because they have free health care is not going to happen. I don't always eat right myself and I have health insurance. My cholesterol etc are all good, but c'mon.

I am not really against or for any one proposal at this point, its a confusing mess. Both sides are argued to death, but nothing clear and clean cut is going to happen one morning. This is not a light switch.

[Msut77]

Yeah but not having health care has nothing to do with laziness. There are people who work 2 jobs but can not afford it (me..., luckily I live in MA where we have a healthcare system like the one Obama wants to implement nationally). Or maybe can afford some basic coverage but then get screwed by the slimy insurance co. in the way Msut's links described.

We are at a high when it comes to unemployment and it has zero to do with laziness.

Conservatives have no good argument for this one.

They never really have arguments so much as they are marketing schemes.

Their arguments against reform (aside from blatant lies/ignorance) are that people might actually get healthcare.

We live in a country where 50% of bankruptcies are due to medical costs about 75% of those people were insured before their illness.

[UncleBob]

I'm for this but I think I can venture an answer. The rational answer is that conservatives don't trust the government to do anything. They would much rather have a private company take care of everything and people pay for their own health care.

Something like this.

See, when a private company screws up - I can take my money elsewhere. Clerk at Walmart was a jerk? Shop at Kmart. McDonald's made your burger wrong? Go to Burger King.

I don't have that choice with our Federal Government. I have virtually no redress to get back the thousands of dollars worth of taxes I've paid in that they've squandered away. Thus, I want to limit the power of the Federal Government as much as possible.

[tivo]

^^exactly. Whereas the liberals believe these elected officials have the best intentions and know what's best for society and therefore prefer to defer decisions/responsiblites upon them. The idea that They are more knowelegeable than a doctor, engineer, scientist, etc. (even in political/administative sector) is completely bunk.

[ninju D]

See, when a private company screws up - I can take my money elsewhere. Clerk at Walmart was a jerk? Shop at Kmart.

So what happens when Kmart says, "We see you've returned items in the past. Sorry, but your not profitable." That's what is happening right now to lots of people in the country. Shouldn't they have the right to choose too?

[Koggit]

i absolutely hate that ignorant morons have all but killed the public option in the dem proposal.. fucking morons.. we've now little help of a public option, which wasn't nearly far enough but at least it was a tiny step in the right direction, and it was killed by american ignorance. it's neither one party or the other, it's just ignorant morons of all shapes sizes and political allegiance.. morons morons morons i hate you all.

[Msut77]

It wasn't ignorance so much (reform is wildly popular in polls) as it is politicians are blatantly bought and paid off.

[Koggit]

lobbying efforts dont work when the people are unified, representatives dont risk their job for the sweet lobbyist butter, lobbying is most effective when the people are divided

voters want reform but the public option has been controversial.. or, rather, was, past tense, was controversial.. pretty much dead now because of dumbass reps painting it as socialism and dumbass dems buying into it.. very easy for a representative to be bought off when his people are split

[fullmetalfan720]

lobbying efforts dont work when the people are unified, representatives dont risk their job for the sweet lobbyist butter, lobbying is most effective when the people are divided

voters want reform but the public option has been controversial.. or, rather, was, past tense, was controversial.. pretty much dead now because of dumbass reps painting it as socialism and dumbass dems buying into it.. very easy for a representative to be bought off when his people are split
Representatives are always bought off. Do you think many people actually supported the bailouts?

[Koggit]

i think a large number of people did, including top economists, yes.

legislation has consistently been passed against the wishes of the most powerful lobbies (tobacco, alcohol, energy, pharma, and insurance).. but it's only when the people overwhelmingly support it. if the people are divided, the lobbyists win.

[UncleBob]

So what happens when Kmart says, "We see you've returned items in the past. Sorry, but your not profitable." That's what is happening right now to lots of people in the country. Shouldn't they have the right to choose too?

They should have the right to choose from those who wish to provide them service. Otherwise, it's like saying I should have the right to choose where I want to eat dinner at - even if my neighbor's don't want me over.

And if no one wants to feed me dinner, then I'm free to go fix my own dinner.

[Msut77]

They should have the right to choose from those who wish to provide them service. Otherwise, it's like saying I should have the right to choose where I want to eat dinner at - even if my neighbor's don't want me over.

And if no one wants to feed me dinner, then I'm free to go fix my own dinner.

People keep making these ridiculous comparisons to healthcare as food or just another consumer good. It isn't , there are states where the vast majority of health insurance is provided by one or two companies at a time when the price of premiums has risen several times wage increases.

Choices are few and far between and it is a fact the "market" has failed.

[UncleBob]

Msut: Do tell, why do you think so many areas have "one or two companies" that provide health insurance, yet my crappy little town of about 5,000 people has four different fast food restaurants?

[Koggit]

dude, everyone hates ominous game-players.. like.. just state your point. if this were a chat room i guess that'd be an alright sort of probing question to ask, but repeatedly resorting to that sort of thing on a forum is just a lame way of saying "i don't have a point, or am unable to articulate it"

but i'll bite: because noncompete market agreements are made, exactly like the telecom industry.. as a double whammy its cheaper for the HMOs to concentrate their efforts due to differing state statutes (similar to the challenge tech companies face when looking to expand internationally - every country has diff FCC-esque requirements)

that's actually part of why my sis lost her insurance -- she was on Cigna (group health) when diagnosed but Cigna doesn't offer personal coverage in Louisiana, they only offer group health.. if Cigna did offer personal coverage in Louisiana and not only group health (which is surely due to either to state-level healthcare regulation or a noncompete agreement with another HMO) then state statutes would've forced them to offer us single-family coverage..

[UncleBob]

Probing questions are better, as it gives you an idea of someone's understanding of the situation.

I don't think "non compete" agreements are as big of a deal as you think. Just because company one and two sign an agreement, nothing is stopping company three and four from coming in.

State regulations, however, probably play a much larger role in the limitation of health care offerings.

It's rather unfair to put all the blame on the free market when state regulations are preventing players from entering it.

[Koggit]

probing questions are what you do when you don't have an argument but dont wanna admit you're wrong.. you seem to use them all too often


your current argument is terrible, btw. deregulation is the problem. to call state regulations the problem is to imply the solution is either (a) regulation at the fed level, taking away state's rights to regulate health care or (b) deregulate health care by limiting state's rights without imposing fed regulation to replace it. (a) is obviously the more logical of the two, but the vast vast vast majority of free market capitalists support states' rights to govern interstate commerce, and if done it leaves quite a few problems... if you honestly think it'd open the competitive floodgates, fine, it's nothing but rhetoric but fine... still doesn't solve all the problems we get as a result of profit-driven health care, no amount of competition ever would. problems that have already been discussed in great detail so i won't revisit.

[UncleBob]

You, yourself, offer State Regulations as a reason for so little competition in the market. Then, you tell me I'm wrong for agreeing with you?

[Koggit]

i listed the primary reason as noncompetes

same reason i can't get verizon fios but the microsoft yuppies 5 miles away in Bellevue can

"you get this area, we get that area, and we both make way more money. deal."

[UncleBob]

A.) A Non-compete agreement is not a barrier to entry for a new company.
B.) How come it's so horribly wrong when I make comparisons between health insurance and other commodities, but it's perfectly okay for you to do so?
C.) Health Insurance requires some paper (to sign agreements) and some money (to pay for insurance/medical procedures). Internet service is limited by equipment and land requirements - and thus has more barriers to prevent market place entry. For example, in a world without government intervention, you could easily start up your own insurance company with some cash and some paper. To start an internet service provider, you'd need land to install equipment, and, in cases like FIOS, expensive installation of cables on public and private properties, etc., etc. This prevents smart guy with money from starting up a competitive internet provider on a whim. What prevents smart guy with money from starting a competitive health insurance provider?

[Koggit]

i -- i never objected to your analogies, i didn't even really read them, some other ppl objected, their objections may or may not be valid, i wasn't following all that closely. the current system is analogous to many other industries and that is a huge part of the problem (that is, being a middleman between doctor & patient is currently lucrative business, it shouldn't be and profit maximization causes both economic and health problems).

ii -- i tried googling for market info regarding HMOs but couldn't find anything recent, then thought, wait, wtf am i doing, i could not care less why there are just a few giant HMOs, you're still asking questions instead of making statements and your questions don't even seem to lead anywhere because . . .

iii -- even if there were more competition it wouldn't solve the most problematic aspects of profit-driven care (as i stated in post #212)

[Msut77]

why do you think so many areas have "one or two companies" that provide health insurance, yet my crappy little town of about 5,000 people has four different fast food restaurants?

How can I tell you are asking questions like that because you cannot face facts?

Probing questions are better, as it gives you an idea of someone's understanding of the situation.

My "understanding of the situation" is not in doubt. Your understanding? Yes.

B.) How come it's so horribly wrong when I make comparisons between health insurance and other commodities, but it's perfectly okay for you to do so?

Because your comparisons are invariably terrible.

Your assertion that "some" cash is all that is needed to start your own insurance company (especially medical insurance) is mind boggling.

[UncleBob]

My "understanding of the situation" is not in doubt. Your understanding? Yes.

If you are so convinced that your opinion of the situation is the only correct one, then I don't even understand why you're in this thread to begin with.

Because your comparisons are invariably terrible.
I can see how compairing health insurance to automobile insurance is a worse comparison than health insurance to internet service.

Your assertion that "some" cash is all that is needed to start your own insurance company (especially medical insurance) is mind boggling.
What? You think someone would need considerably more cash than "some" to start and maintain a health insurance company? Please, do elaborate.

[Msut77]

If you are so convinced that your opinion of the situation is the only correct one, then I don't even understand why you're in this thread to begin with.

While I am certain my position is the correct one that would still be quite different from saying I cannot be convinced otherwise. Notice I use the word position instead of "opinion" which is incredibly abused.

You think someone would need considerably more cash than "some" to start and maintain a health insurance company?

Well I would dare you to define "some" to start with.

I would also expect someone entertaining the idea (again with medical insurance) to have a lot of education and years of experience and even then how much clout do you think such a company would have?

[depascal22]

UncleBob is just leading this discussion farther and farther down the toilet. None of it has to do with healthcare and everything to do with him somehow "winning" this discussion. Remember, he only has to come up with BS probing questions in answer to questions and then ask you to elaborate when he doesn't get the answer.

[paddlefoot]

i absolutely hate that ignorant morons have all but killed the public option in the dem proposal.. fucking morons.. we've now little help of a public option, which wasn't nearly far enough but at least it was a tiny step in the right direction, and it was killed by american ignorance. it's neither one party or the other, it's just ignorant morons of all shapes sizes and political allegiance.. morons morons morons i hate you all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Democrats can pass anything without the help of a single Republican, right?

[depascal22]

I think he's saying that Republicans got the public stirred up against it. Many people have been writing their congressmen to kill this bill. It's the only way conservatives can win these days.

[Msut77]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Democrats can pass anything without the help of a single Republican, right?

In theory yes, but a few democrats are largely nom nom nominal the Blue Dogs for instance.

Even the ones who are supposed to be better on this issue have failed miserably.

[ninju D]

Its true that state regulations are a huge part of why insurance cos offer insurance in any given state. The problem is that (for the most part) they withdraw from states when that state passes a law to try to keep them honest. They figure its too much work to rewrite their contract wording and instead they just pack up and leave. I've seen it happen. I used to work for a nationwide health insurance company for many years.

[depascal22]

Any company that just gives up working in a state should be stripped in every other state. "Hey, state X just passed a law that makes us put everything in regular size print! Well, fuck that, we'll just work in state Y where they let us do whatever the hell we want." That kind of crap needs to be done away with.

[paddlefoot]

I think he's saying that Republicans got the public stirred up against it. Many people have been writing their congressmen to kill this bill. It's the only way conservatives can win these days.

5 years ago the GOP had the Presidency, House, and Senate.... The Dem's bitched and blamed the GOP for what was and wasn't being accomplished in Washington.

2 years ago the GOP had the Presidency and the Dem's had the House and Senate... The Dem's bitched and blamed the GOP for what was and wasn't being accomplished in Washington.

This week the Dem's have the Presidency, House, and Senate.... The Dem's are bitching and blaming the GOP for what is and isn't being accomplished in Washington.

[Koggit]

This week the Dem's have the Presidency, House, and Senate.... The Dem's are bitching and blaming the GOP for what is and isn't being accomplished in Washington.

wah wah wah



i went out of my way to say both parties are opposing the public option, i specifically said, i specified, both parties are to blame, both are opposing the public option, it's not a one-party problem, it's a people problem, yet you still QQ all butthurt over some imaginary GOP antogonization?

whatever man, blame the dems for it exclusively if you want even though the reps oppose it as well, whatever, doesnt make the slightest bit of difference in anything

[paddlefoot]

wah wah wah



i went out of my way to say both parties are opposing the public option, i specifically said, i specified, both parties are to blame, both are opposing the public option, it's not a one-party problem, it's a people problem, yet you still QQ all butthurt over some imaginary GOP antogonization?

whatever man, blame the dems for it exclusively if you want even though the reps oppose it as well, whatever, doesnt make the slightest bit of difference in anything

AAAHAHAHAHA, you're directing insults at me and calling me a crybaby? My post wasn't even directed at you. The post was made simply to show how the difference between the Democrats and GOP is not a chasm, but a crack in the sidewalk.

But if you want to mention it. You have gone out of your way to defend the Democrats over the last year due to your belief that some form of universal healthcare was in the forecast.

You already know beforehand that 90%+ of the GOP is against universal healthcare. Didn't matter this time. The Democrats had an opportunity to introduce some type of reform and with 3+ years (at least) the timeframe to prove it works.

[Koggit]

You already know beforehand that 90%+ of the GOP is against universal healthcare. Didn't matter this time. The Democrats had an opportunity to introduce some type of reform and with 3+ years (at least) the timeframe to prove it works.
okay cool except for the part where universal healthcare wasn't even proposed

You have gone out of your way to defend the Democrats over the last year due to your belief that some form of universal healthcare was in the forecast.
you're right that i believed obama would guide us to a single-payer system, wanted him to, and that i was disappointed when the plan was revealed to go no further than offering a public option. i expressed my disappointment in the dems at that point, i don't understand what this has to do with anything.

AAAHAHAHAHA, you're directing insults at me and calling me a crybaby? My post wasn't even directed at you.
rofl, right, you just quoted me but were talking to someone else..

by the way, paddlefoot, you better not respond to this post cause it's not directed to you, i'm talking to.. umm.. bob. yeah, this post is all in response to bob okay.

[MSI Magus]

My big problem with Republicans on this issue is the same as with most other recent issues. They are not offering up any kind of solution but instead just saying whats wrong with the Democratic plan and spreading stupid ass lies. Do I think the Democratic plan is a good idea or even ironed out as it should be? Nope, I have no clue but my guess is they will fuck it up somehow. However atleast they are offering up something where as on issue after issue after issue Republicans are just waiting for Democrats to lead and then getting on Fox News and calling it socialism and making shit up(for example outragous claims of how people will pay $1000s more or wait months like they do in Canada which isnt true).

If they came out and said we feel the Democrats are taking the wrong approach and here is what we plan to do id be a lot more interested and a lot more likely to want to see them stop the Dems. Instead as I said they just blast the Dems and their "plans" consist of a series of very minor changes that wont accomplish much.

Energy is another good example of this. Instead of saying we believe there should be 100 new Nuclear plants within 10 years, we should invest this amount in alternatives and this amount should go to clean coal and provide evidence to why this is the right thing to do they just came out and scoffed at wind, solar and every alternative and said drill baby drill and more nuclear.

I dont WANT to support Democrats, I truly don't....but Republicans are not really giving any sane/thinking person any kind of option. They are not even in the freaking debate be it health care, energy, how to create American wealth or stand as a world leader again. The pundits are correct in saying they have simply become the party of no

[ninju D]

Agreed. They have 2 speeds. Naysaying and fearmongering.

[fullmetalfan720]

Agreed. They have 2 speeds. Naysaying and fearmongering.

True. Also the Democrats are the party of bitching and broken promises.

[MSI Magus]

True. Also the Democrats are the party of bitching and broken promises.

But again atleast they are trying something. Ya in the end we get half what they promised and a lot of bitching.....but their attempting something. Look at the board and you see topic after topic after topic thats an argument about what Democrats are doing....now try to find some that are complaining about the plans Republicans are putting forth.....you cant because the last plan that Republicans put forth was for the war......

So ya again Democrats whine and they dont get everything they say they want to do accomplished(though Republicans have a lot to do with that part). And they have far too many egotistical know it ass douches like Pelosi and Reed right now.....but again at least their trying something.

[fullmetalfan720]

But again atleast they are trying something. Ya in the end we get half what they promised and a lot of bitching.....but their attempting something. Look at the board and you see topic after topic after topic thats an argument about what Democrats are doing....now try to find some that are complaining about the plans Republicans are putting forth.....you cant because the last plan that Republicans put forth was for the war......

So ya again Democrats whine and they dont get everything they say they want to do accomplished(though Republicans have a lot to do with that part). And they have far too many egotistical know it ass douches like Pelosi and Reed right now.....but again at least their trying something.

If the Democrats actually do anything, (which is like once every two years), they do it so half-assed it never works. Look at this health care bill. There's no way any Republican will vote for it. Plus they haven't even decided how to pay for it. The rest of the time its bitching and broken promises. When they aren't in power they bitch, bitch, bitch about the Republicans. Then, when they get in power they brake all the promises they made, and bitch about how the Republicans are destroying their proposals, instead of making a better one. I used to be a Democrat, until Obama got into office and did the exact opposite of the things he said he was going to do. I volunteered for him, to try to get him elected, and now what does he do? On FISA: He says he's against it, yet he votes for it, and so do enough Democrats to get it passed. On Iraq: The Democrats say, we get in office the troops come home. They've had 2 years now, and still the troops aren't home. Then finally, last year Obama said he's bring them home when he is elected. Oh, wait, no its 16 months. No, now its 23, and we're going to leave some there. On Lobbyists: Obama said there wouldn't be any in his administration. Opps, he lied, now his cabinet is filled with them. On NAFTA: Dems say we will renegotiate it. Then Obama is caught saying that is campaign rhetoric. On Gitmo and torture: Dems: Torture bad, Gitmo bad, stop both of them. Yet, with a Democrat controlled White House and Congress, Gitmo isn't closed, torture hasn't stopped. All these things and more that the Democrats have done have really showed me that neither party actually does anything they say they are going to do. They are both corporate controlled, and only care about their pocketbooks, and not the American people. Hell, if we had Jesse Ventura as president, I'm sure we could have a health care plan almost everyone likes. When he was governor of my state, my family actually had health insurance, through Minnesota Care, but then under the Republican (Pawlenty) the premiums went so high, and the coverage became so shitty, we decided not to keep it.

[UncleBob]

While I am certain my position is the correct one that would still be quite different from saying I cannot be convinced otherwise. Notice I use the word position instead of "opinion" which is incredibly abused.

It is your "opinion" that we need health care reform, yes?

Well I would dare you to define "some" to start with.
I'm going to ask another question. I'm sorry, but I just *have* to do it. I don't honestly expect an answer (as there is no *one* answer...) - I just want you to think carefully about where you're headed.

How much money does it take to start up a Health Insurance company?
How much tax payer money will the Federal Government have to spend to start up a nationwide health insurance service?

I keep hearing how it'll cost tax payers next to nothing... yet now you're saying it takes a lot of money just to start one up?

I would also expect someone entertaining the idea (again with medical insurance) to have a lot of education and years of experience and even then how much clout do you think such a company would have?
I wonder how much education and medical experience Obama and the politicians entertaining the idea of a Federal Health Insurance program have...

UncleBob is just leading this discussion farther and farther down the toilet. None of it has to do with healthcare and everything to do with him somehow "winning" this discussion.

Now see, it's funny, I keep getting accused of playing a game, yet depascal is the one concerned with who's "winning".

Any chance we can drop the personal attacks and stick on the subject at hand? That'd be swell. If you have nothing to contribute or don't want to discuss the topic, that's okay. You don't have to reply to every post.

I think he's saying that Republicans got the public stirred up against it. Many people have been writing their congressmen to kill this bill. It's the only way conservatives can win these days.

Oh, heavens no! How horrible that individuals are letting their representatives know what they want. Damn them! They should just set back and let the government take care of them. Government knows best.

Any company that just gives up working in a state should be stripped in every other state. "Hey, state X just passed a law that makes us put everything in regular size print! Well, fuck that, we'll just work in state Y where they let us do whatever the hell we want." That kind of crap needs to be done away with.

It seems to me, if a state is passing a law as simple as mandating that stuff be printed in regular size fonts and *that* is the reason a company backs out, I'd almost bet another company would jump right in.

Now, are we dealing with states that force Health Insurance providers to include coverage for things like illegal drug treatments, pregnancy, etc? Because that's where the meat and potatoes are with what some of the major problems are in the industry.

rofl, right, you just quoted me but were talking to someone else..

by the way, paddlefoot, you better not respond to this post cause it's not directed to you, i'm talking to.. umm.. bob. yeah, this post is all in response to bob okay.

Well, since it's in response to me, I guess I should point out that paddlefoot didn't quote you in his original post, he quoted depascal.

But again atleast they are trying something. Ya in the end we get half what they promised and a lot of bitching.....but their attempting something.

So, if the choices are crap on a stick and nothing, we should all jump for joy for the crap on a stick?

Personally, I say hang both parties and let whatever gods exist sort them out...

[quote]Look at the board and you see topic after topic after topic thats an argument about what Democrats are doing....now try to find some that are complaining about the plans Republicans are putting forth.....you cant because the last plan that Republicans put forth was for the war......
[quote]
After how badly that turned out, do you really want the Republicans trying to come up with more ideas?

[MSI Magus]

If the Democrats actually do anything, (which is like once every two years), they do it so half-assed it never works. Look at this health care bill. There's no way any Republican will vote for it. Plus they haven't even decided how to pay for it. The rest of the time its bitching and broken promises. When they aren't in power they bitch, bitch, bitch about the Republicans. Then, when they get in power they brake all the promises they made, and bitch about how the Republicans are destroying their proposals, instead of making a better one. I used to be a Democrat, until Obama got into office and did the exact opposite of the things he said he was going to do. I volunteered for him, to try to get him elected, and now what does he do? On FISA: He says he's against it, yet he votes for it, and so do enough Democrats to get it passed. On Iraq: The Democrats say, we get in office the troops come home. They've had 2 years now, and still the troops aren't home. Then finally, last year Obama said he's bring them home when he is elected. Oh, wait, no its 16 months. No, now its 23, and we're going to leave some there. On Lobbyists: Obama said there wouldn't be any in his administration. Opps, he lied, now his cabinet is filled with them. On NAFTA: Dems say we will renegotiate it. Then Obama is caught saying that is campaign rhetoric. On Gitmo and torture: Dems: Torture bad, Gitmo bad, stop both of them. Yet, with a Democrat controlled White House and Congress, Gitmo isn't closed, torture hasn't stopped. All these things and more that the Democrats have done have really showed me that neither party actually does anything they say they are going to do. They are both corporate controlled, and only care about their pocketbooks, and not the American people. Hell, if we had Jesse Ventura as president, I'm sure we could have a health care plan almost everyone likes. When he was governor of my state, my family actually had health insurance, through Minnesota Care, but then under the Republican (Pawlenty) the premiums went so high, and the coverage became so shitty, we decided not to keep it.

I like the way you say half assed when in reality its watered down as a compromise with Republicans. You yourself said "look at the health care bill there is no way any Republican will vote for it" which is exactly the problem. Democrats try too often to compromise because they dont have the balls to do what Republicans do and jam something down peoples throats regardless of if they will like it or not.

I completely agree with you that they break promise after promise after promise from the troops to FISA to taking on corporate control. Time after time they see Republicans wont vote for something and they see Republicans whipping up Joe six pack with a bunch of stupid lies and they roll over and either half ass a bill or just let it die. But again they are at least putting forth proposals, id rather back the pussy with a heart in the right place then the dick with no brains...again not that thats saying I have faith in Democrats because I dont, whole purpose of my original post and continuing ones is just pointing out that even if they fuck things up their at least putting forth a debate be it on health care, the environment or other matters which beats the whole just pissing on the oppositions plans and whipping up the idiotic masses with lies.

[MSI Magus]

So, if the choices are crap on a stick and nothing, we should all jump for joy for the crap on a stick?

Personally, I say hang both parties and let whatever gods exist sort them out...

[quote]Look at the board and you see topic after topic after topic thats an argument about what Democrats are doing....now try to find some that are complaining about the plans Republicans are putting forth.....you cant because the last plan that Republicans put forth was for the war......
[quote]
After how badly that turned out, do you really want the Republicans trying to come up with more ideas?

Im with you on just killing both parties and letting things get sorted out after. I would love to see both parties done away with. However again just saying I will take the guy that is atleast offering ideas to the guy that has none. And id say shit on a stick is an unfair comparison, I know your conservative but come on......the Dems have a lot of good ideas the problem is they either half ass it compromising with Republicans vs going balls to the wall or they are just corrupt and slip in shit to make them some money vs going with their original promises.

[UncleBob]

I prefer Libertarian over Conservative. ;)

I won't disagree that some Democratic members have some good ideas - and I like to believe most of them have good intentions. I just don't think this particular situation is one of those good ideas.

[MSI Magus]

I prefer Libertarian over Conservative. ;)

I won't disagree that some Democratic members have some good ideas - and I like to believe most of them have good intentions. I just don't think this particular situation is one of those good ideas.

Which is all fine and good. I mean a society where we can all have a debate is the society I want to live in, again the problem is Republicans arnt interested in a debate they just want to piss on other peoples plans and sling mud.

[UncleBob]

I don't want to go around defending the Republicans (I think there are plenty of folks on here who'll do that), but perhaps they aren't coming up with a plan because they're fine with the system we have now?

[Koggit]

actually i can't think of a single active poster who would defend republicans

we have a good share of conservatives, but the GOP is no longer the party for conservatives

[ninju D]

I won't disagree that some Democratic members have some good ideas - and I like to believe most of them have good intentions. I just don't think this particular situation is one of those good ideas.

You keep saying that people have the right to choose one provider of a service over another (be it burgers or discount shopping or what ever you come up with) but if you'd take the time to see what Obama and the Dems are trying to do it actually is all about choice.

[depascal22]

It's not about actually knowing what the hell is going on or having any sort of experience with health care. It's about churning out shitty example after example in some sort of attempt to show everyone that you can ask deep probing questions that will stimulate something.

The whole problem most of us have are as simple as the title for this thread. It's not anything that will provoke reasonable discussion. Look at it. Obama Care Could Be Deadly. This isn't about ironing out differences to get anyone healthcare. It's about trying to embarass a Democratic President in the name of conservatism. Oh no. Obama did this. Obama did that. Democratic Congress is going to "liberate" every single company in the country. It's fearmongering at it's best.

[UncleBob]

You keep saying that people have the right to choose one provider of a service over another (be it burgers or discount shopping or what ever you come up with) but if you'd take the time to see what Obama and the Dems are trying to do it actually is all about choice.

I do like choice, don't get me wrong - but the government isn't offering us a choice of where they're going to spend our money. It'd be like if you decided you wanted to shop at Walmart, but Walmart was still going to have money taken out of your pay check every week so they could sell stuff cheaper to the customers who choose to shop there. The government isn't offering me a choice if they're going to come to my house with guns and force me to pay for it.

Any chance we can drop the personal attacks and stick on the subject at hand? That'd be swell. If you have nothing to contribute or don't want to discuss the topic, that's okay. You don't have to reply to every post.

It's not about actually knowing what the hell is going on or having any sort of experience with health care. It's about churning out shitty example after example in some sort of attempt to show everyone that you can ask deep probing questions that will stimulate something.

You know, you could have just said "No."...

[MSI Magus]

It's not about actually knowing what the hell is going on or having any sort of experience with health care. It's about churning out shitty example after example in some sort of attempt to show everyone that you can ask deep probing questions that will stimulate something.

The whole problem most of us have are as simple as the title for this thread. It's not anything that will provoke reasonable discussion. Look at it. Obama Care Could Be Deadly. This isn't about ironing out differences to get anyone healthcare. It's about trying to embarass a Democratic President in the name of conservatism. Oh no. Obama did this. Obama did that. Democratic Congress is going to "liberate" every single company in the country. It's fearmongering at it's best.

Exactly my point, Republicans dont even try and debate anymore just piss off everyone or scare them if that aint working.

[depascal22]

Uncle Bob, You still don't understand that people will use money to buy hookers, cigarettes, beer, and everything else except for health care. Those same people will still show up to the ER and drive prices up for everyone. Either way, you're still paying more. Now would you rather pay a little more to a government that at least pretends to have your interests in mind or a HMO that only wants mo' money, mo' money, mo'?

[MSI Magus]

Uncle Bob, You still don't understand that people will use money to buy hookers, cigarettes, beer, and everything else except for health care. Those same people will still show up to the ER and drive prices up for everyone. Either way, you're still paying more. Now would you rather pay a little more to a government that at least pretends to have your interests in mind or a HMO that only wants mo' money, mo' money, mo'?

Again exactly on. My fiancee's cousin has like 200 of those stupid ass special phone rings and call waiting rings so when people call her/she calls them they get special songs......yet recently had a hospital visit that was uninsured and had the gall to whine about not being able to afford health care. My little brother is the same way, fucking moron bought a motorcycle then went out and wrecked it with his friends 3 times within a year each time going to the hospital uninsured.

People like this will run up a huge tab for the rest of us because they have limited income and chose to spend that income on stupid things vs health insurance.

[Msut77]

It is your "opinion" that we need health care reform, yes?

Yes, that would be my position. It differs from say my opinion on choosing chocolate over vanilla since it is based on a whole host of facts and the use of reason. This would be in contrast to your "opinion".

I'm going to ask another question. I'm sorry, but I just *have* to do it.

It might be faster for you to just admit you got nothing.

I don't honestly expect an answer

That would be because your "questions" are just semi-rhetorical wallpaper spread over the gaping holes in your arguments.

I just want you to think carefully about where you're headed.

Of course you do. You are honestly concerned instead of just setting up your next ad hoc "argument".

How much money does it take to start up a Health Insurance company?

More than "some".

How much tax payer money will the Federal Government have to spend to start up a nationwide health insurance service?

Depends.

I keep hearing how it'll cost tax payers next to nothing... yet now you're saying it takes a lot of money just to start one up?

No you don't keep hearing that. That would be a strawman you might have had a chance of tackling instead of what has been stated that basically every other industrialized country manages to cover all of their citizens and yet spend less than we do. There are a bunch of reasons for this, five minutes with google would educate you.

I wonder how much education and medical experience Obama and the politicians entertaining the idea of a Federal Health Insurance program have

Because Obama and crew are apparently banned now from appointing/hiring people with that expertise...

Now see, it's funny, I keep getting accused of playing a game, yet depascal is the one concerned with who's "winning".

It stopped being funny a while ago.

Now let me ask you a question, just to see if you will ever, ever answer one.

Can you name a single country with a universal healthcare system where anyone is agitating for a move to an American style system?

[Msut77]

actually i can't think of a single active poster who would defend republicans

we have a good share of conservatives, but the GOP is no longer the party for conservatives

I can think of several they just pretty much never would admit it.

In my experience 90 some odd percent of the libertarians you find online lean Republican/conservative but just do not want to have to defend anything.

[UncleBob]

I know this'll go over well, but perhaps the reform we need is for a hospital to reserve the right to refuse service. If hospitals could do this, my small town would still have a hospital - instead of it closing due to lack of funds and no one interested in reopening it.

I know, I know, I'm an evil bastard - but you two just gave examples of some of the exact reasons I don't care for this plan. My tax money shouldn't go for some idiot's ring tones or some drunken whore's beer. Providing them with dirt cheap health care at the expense of others isn't going to suddenly make them change their ways.