Healthcare...

[vittoria]

... and the older we get, I bet money that we would ALL appreciate a 'public option'... we dont have the money to put our Humpty Dumpty bodies back together again!! :(

Here's something I thought was rather amusing (if youre from the US--or Etats-Unis--or Etados Unidos one would definitely get a kick out of it):

Damn Public Option (http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/open-thread-13)

;)

[12voltman59]

Good stuff Vi!!!

That cartoon wraps up in a nutshell, many of the inconvenient truths about our incredible (eyes rolling) "free market" health care "system!"

[12voltman59]

I just heard an interview with one US Senator regarding his plan for healthcare reform---his plan would take a very successful and generous private health care plan for all Americans-- essentially the one available to US Senators and Congressmen-----according to this proposal some of the highlights include prohibting the insurance companies from exclusions such as "pre-existing conditioins" and the plan would actually encourage the insurance companies to be really competitive in that they compete against each other by offering more services for less bucks instead of them dictating terms of service, price, etc.

That is supposed to be the fundamental good side of 'the free market"--companies competing for business by providing good product for good value.

I am not really against "the free market system" per se---I just hate that those in some quarters give lip service to worshipping "the free market" yet what they really do is anything but allowing a truly free marketplace from operating----and they often rely upon "evil government" to sustain a monopolistic, cartel situation in many areas---not just health care.

I don't have a problem with someone making a profit----as long as we have a relatively "level playing field" that doesn't totally screw those that are served by those profit making concerns--but in far too many cases with those who control things and espouse their love of "the free market"----only give it lip service but don't really allow a truly free market to operate-- with such people---it is all about allowing corporations to make profit without concern for any other considerations.

[hudson9]

What about how Obama does not want to let older people who are geriatric have health care?

Except, that that's not true. Medicare ("Gov'ment healthcare" for seniors) remains exactly as it is... more efficient that private insurance with higher user satisfaction ratings.


...can't even run a simple Cash for clunkers program and keep pouring out TONS of money that we can't afford to spend and it's driving us deeper into debt.

Yea, that $1 billion is a major contributor to our national debt -- MUCH bigger problem than the $671 Billion spent on the war in Iraq...


Then there's the fact that National healthcare would not work in America.
It does not work in Canada or the UK and it's not going to work here.

Except, it DOES work in Canada & UK... AND France, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Italy, Denmark, Sweden...
ALL of the above countries have a longer life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rate than the U.S.
Yes, the U.K. does have a higher cancer death rate than the U.S. -- but they also have a much higher SMOKING rate than the U.S. -- any chance that could be a factor?


If people need healthcare that's why there is medicare and welfare and other services and most people in America do NOT NEED healthcare.

You heard it here, people! Welfare is a GOOD thing! We need it so that we don't have to have a national healthcare system!

Your employer doesn't provide health insurance? Don't worry -- quit and go on Welfare! Your insurance was cancelled? Don't worry -- quit and go on Welfare! That will cost us taxpayers MUCH less money, plus, you'll get to stay home and do nothing! I'm handing in my resignation right now!
:tongue:

[softfruit]

Quite. In Britain we like to despair of our NHS, it fits in with our national temperament, but whenever we look across the pond at the alternative we remember quite how damn wonderful what we have is.

[sunstruck]

most recent FACTS

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/21/health.care.faqs/index.html

[darkeyes]

Still amazes me how reluctant 'mericans r 2 hav a properly funded free at point a delivery National health Service.. its saved my bacon twice in me life an it didn bankrupt eitha me or 1st time round me parents.. an the numba a times Kate, me and the kids hav had 2 go c the Doctor or attend hospital ova the las few years is considerable.. Lou's delivery for instance wos jus parta the service, an we didn hav 2 break inta our savins, hav insurance or owt else for pre natal, delivery or post natal care... it has its probs a that ther is no doubt.. but wivout it the health a this country wud b much much worse than it currently is.. sure it hasta b paid for outa taxation in 1 way or totha but think of it as insurance gainst ya lifetime need for medical services. Thats all it is... don like govts that much but jeez.. how much less dus me trust an like private health care??

Gimme the gud ole NHS ne time...

[allbimyself]

The US spends nearly 16% of GDP on health care, much more than other industrial countries, while 15% of the population has no health coverage. That 15% number is dubious to me because many of those people do receive health care and simply do not pay, the rest of us pay for it in increased costs so there is already a bit of socialization happening.

At any rate, those numbers would indicate that SOMETHING needs to be done with health care in the US. The problem I see is that knowing that something needs to be done does not necessarily give the knowledge of WHAT should be done.

Those that point to government run health care that already exist as "successes" are either naive or dishonest. The costs of Medicare and Medicaid are under reported. These programs pay a set amount for services that are usually below cost. Providers have to make up the difference by charging other patients more. Until that amount is quantified the true costs of those programs are unknown. The horror stories that come from the VA system should make anyone stop and consider the wisdom of duplicating that on a large scale.

I don't claim to know what the proper solution is. I do, however, have grave doubts about whether or not a valid solution can be achieved in the political climate we have now and especially in a matter of months. Taiwan and Switzerland spent a long time studying the various health care models of other countries before implementing their systems. Some would say that the situation is too grave to delay a solution. I say it's too important to rush into a solution that most don't understand and that has already been riddled with loopholes by various lobbies and by "compromises." On the one hand we have politicians seeking to be seen doing something and on the other we have those seeking to prevent any change at all.

A proper solution needs to address many different things. There is no single cause to the current situation of skyrocketing costs and any solution needs to address all of them in a fair manner. If not, any "solution" will only shift the problem to other areas, and, as is often the case, create new problems.

[darkeyes]

The US spends nearly 16% of GDP on health care, much more than other industrial countries, while 15% of the population has no health coverage. That 15% number is dubious to me because many of those people do receive health care and simply do not pay, the rest of us pay for it in increased costs so there is already a bit of socialization happening.

At any rate, those numbers would indicate that SOMETHING needs to be done with health care in the US. The problem I see is that knowing that something needs to be done does not necessarily give the knowledge of WHAT should be done.

Those that point to government run health care that already exist as "successes" are either naive or dishonest. The costs of Medicare and Medicaid are under reported. These programs pay a set amount for services that are usually below cost. Providers have to make up the difference by charging other patients more. Until that amount is quantified the true costs of those programs are unknown. The horror stories that come from the VA system should make anyone stop and consider the wisdom of duplicating that on a large scale.

I don't claim to know what the proper solution is. I do, however, have grave doubts about whether or not a valid solution can be achieved in the political climate we have now and especially in a matter of months. Taiwan and Switzerland spent a long time studying the various health care models of other countries before implementing their systems. Some would say that the situation is too grave to delay a solution. I say it's too important to rush into a solution that most don't understand and that has already been riddled with loopholes by various lobbies and by "compromises." On the one hand we have politicians seeking to be seen doing something and on the other we have those seeking to prevent any change at all.

A proper solution needs to address many different things. There is no single cause to the current situation of skyrocketing costs and any solution needs to address all of them in a fair manner. If not, any "solution" will only shift the problem to other areas, and, as is often the case, create new problems.

Go on Allbi me luffly.. ya knos very well a state funded national health service is the way 2 go... bite the bullet... mite saveyas a whole lotta dollars in long run.. an who knows..mayb ya life an all....

..wot else is the state for but 2 protect its citizens from its enemnies..an wot bigga enemy is ther than sickness an ill health..o yea..an little matta a death...

[allbimyself]

Go on Allbi me luffly.. ya knos very well a state funded national health service is the way 2 go... bite the bullet... mite saveyas a whole lotta dollars in long run.. an who knows..mayb ya life an all....

..wot else is the state for but 2 protect its citizens from its enemnies..an wot bigga enemy is ther than sickness an ill health..o yea..an little matta a death...
Fran,

1) I never said it wasn't the way to go
2) If you think that's what the current monstrosity of legislation is going to provide you are sadly mistaken
3) When the state or anyone else, can protect us from death, let me know

[darkeyes]

Fran,

1) I never said it wasn't the way to go
2) If you think that's what the current monstrosity of legislation is going to provide you are sadly mistaken
3) When the state or anyone else, can protect us from death, let me know

Hun me knos wots proposed is poop..an nev sed it can stop death not in long run..but mite jus delay it a lil wivout it costin ya a bomb!!! Muah!!!!:tong:

[Karasel]

I am very into the health care debate. Every time there is a vote on a bill with public option in it, I'm watching it.

If this country does not get a public option by the time I become a doctor I am moving out of this country. I won't practice medicine in a country that turns away patients because a corporation refuses to cover the cost of a heart surgery because "oh, you are too young to be having heart problems," ... happens all the time here.

[tenni]

Actually, it might be best for you to contexualize your statement about health care being a "right" to the US. Most of the Western world see health care as a right. The UN has it listed as a human right. In Canada, heatlhcare is a right and even our neo con government would never dare attempt to remove this right. Tinker with it but never attempt to deny that it is a right of citizenship to have universal access to healthcare. The question is what aspects of healthcare are a right.

[allbimyself]

Actually, it might be best for you to contexualize your statement about health care being a "right" to the US. Most of the Western world see health care as a right. The UN has it listed as a human right. In Canada, heatlhcare is a right and even our neo con government would never dare attempt to remove this right. Tinker with it but never attempt to deny that it is a right of citizenship to have universal access to healthcare. The question is what aspects of healthcare are a right.Actually, it shouldn't need contextualization at all. The OP's topic (and hence the thread) was about proposed legislation in the US.

While I believe it is in the best interests of our society to improve the medical well being of all, I would stop short of calling health care a right. Rights are about protection from what is done TO you, not about what you feel should be done FOR you.

Education is also not a right, it is a privilege. As a society we have determined, rightly so, that all of us benefit from an educated populace and therefore have created a publicly funded education system. However, those that would disrupt the education of others must be dealt with and, in extreme cases, those individuals should and do lose the privilege of education.

"Your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose." Just as public education for all is something that benefits society, so does health care. However, to demand as a right to be provided with anything, even fundamental necessities, is a dangerous thing. Who are you demanding it from? The government? That's you, me, our families, our friends and our neighbors (at least that's what we are taught). The rich? "Anyone who has more than I think is necessary is rich and should be taxed to death to pay for what I want and need." When the rich aren't rich anymore who pays for it?

[tenni]

Allbimyself
Regardless of the context about US healthcare & education, it might be wise for people within your country to realize how backwards that your society is in many human rights. No country is perfect and mine is far from it. When a person begins to write about "rights" and the words go beyond their country's borders, it becomes for all to discuss.

[darkeyes]

Sigh.

You do not have the right to healthcare. It is not a right. Sorry.

You do not have the right to make me pay for your healthcare. Sorry.

You do not have the right to expect that doctors accept less than their standard price because you are on a government plan.

You do not have the right to do things that are unhealthy and make me pay for your long term care costs that are a direct result of this.

Doctors have a right to make a living. Given their number of years of education, they have a right to make a REALLY good living.

Medicine is a business. Always has been. Always will be.

Government is the least efficient, and most costly way to do anything.

These thoughts brought to you by common sense, and the letters F and U.

Pasadenacpl

Point 1..yes we do. everyone does..the argument is how it is supplied and paid for..

Point 2.. you want health care for free? we live in world we r told in a world where things have to be paid for. and whether by private health insurance or a publicly owned and supplied health service.. u will have to pay for it.. so u will be made to one way or tother..

Point 3.. Doctors in the UK working for the health service are very well paid indeed by the state health service for the jobs they do without us paying them at point of service provision.

Point 4.. you do not pay for others.. but like any insurance which the NHS in fact is, just not a private insurance, some get more benefit than others.. it is an insurance against falling ill, it is an insurance to help u have your children in a healthy environment and have them provided with health care from the cradle to the grave.. not to mention yourself indeed..an who knows.. maybe u when u are an old git suffering from alzheimers disease or some other chronic disease of old age. Some will hardly use it relatively speaking.. some will through no fault of their own require its services a great deal..

Point 5.. see point 3..

Pointg 5... yes medicine is a business.. your statement states the obvious and really is of no relevance...it is however also a public service and therefore all citizens should have equal and ready access to that service without it crippling them financially..

Point 6.. tell it to the many people of the many nations who have national publicly owned and run health services.. which cost the citizens of those countries much much less than the health services you have in the US..

Point 7, .. I do hate people who are vulgar, know not of what they speak, and when they do speak they open their mouths, let their bellies rumble with the common sense of an Aardvark..o sorry Aardvark me luffly.. didnt mean to insult you..

[allbimyself]

Allbimyself
Regardless of the context about US healthcare & education, it might be wise for people within your country to realize how backwards that your society is in many human rights. No country is perfect and mine is far from it. When a person begins to write about "rights" and the words go beyond their country's borders, it becomes for all to discuss.No one said you couldn't discuss it. However, taking him to task for not contextualizing when the thread itself provides the context isn't very helpful. And we can really discuss about being "backwards" in human rights if you wish. I don't think you'd care for some of the things I have to say about things that are criminal in Western Europe. Denying of fundamental rights (free speech for instance) is abused in almost every country in Western Europe. And I really don't care if you think of the US. I've never claimed we are perfect but, don't get your panties in a twist, neither is Canada or any other country you care to mention.

[tenni]

Dude
This thread is entitled "Healthcare".
When someone uses the words "rights", it is open season. Get it? Relax.

If you wish to discuss Western Europe go ahead and start a thread.

As far as freedom of speech..after Bush you have to be kidding about having freedom of speech in your country. It is a myth that you like to believe in. Your media was censored and most of you didn't even know it at the time. The rest of us in the West knew.

[darkeyes]

Dude
This thread is entitled "Healthcare".
When someone uses the words "rights", it is open season. Get it? Relax.

If you wish to discuss Western Europe go ahead and start a thread.

Allbihookey is rite Tenni hun.. am on 'is side 'ere wivout ne question..freedom a speech in western Europe aint wot it shud b.. an is eroded moren more every year woteva freedom luffin countries like the UK an France an wereva say.. am not so sure the US is so brill wen it cums 2 free speech...but they hold it dear an for now..will give 'em benefit a the doubt.. but threads on .com often take on a shape and mind a ther own..an get expanded..sumtimes outa recognition..sumtimes its regrettable..sumtimes its a gud thing.. every nation has its faults.. jus wish peeps wudn get so touchy wen peeps from otha places criticise ther place.. from outside cums the fresh view..from outside we gain a different perspective.. its not that we r bein nasty or 'orrible or jus scorin points (tho jus sumtimes hav been known 2 do jus those very same things.. *hangs head in shame*).. its cos we often c wot peeps who liv in otha places cant c..or believe we can.. an cos we care..

[tenni]

Well as we wander into a different topic.. ;)

To discuss "Freedom of Speech" in the US after the Bush era is rather delicate question about US mythology.

The US media was muzzled and there was no Freedom of Speech during that era in the USA. There was no questioning permitted of the Bush regime by US journalists. I have growing concerns about openness, transparency and freedom of speech in my own country under the neo con government that we have. They are using many of the same policy to control information. So far, I see the media challenging the attempt by our government to control but other's outside of the country may see it clearer.

I guess if we are all open to listening to other perspectives we may all gain new insights.

[thatcher29]

As a US citizen, I'm always embarrassed by some of the responses of our citizens. Ever since childhood, we've been told that the United States is a shining example of everything for the world to emulate. Unfortunately, that concept only holds water for people who don't travel to foreign countries or read a wide range of unbiased information. The US has some good things. It has some bad things. One of the bad things is a over-priced, inefficient healthcare delivery system. In a country that has lost most of its manufacturing, consumes more energy per capita than other countries, and still insists on trying to be the world's police force, the US still thinks it can spend an excessive amount of money on health care. So how long do you think that can go on?

[12voltman59]

I have to say I am not thrilled at all with the "health care" legislation that is coming out of our Congress----it has some good things in it but not much--with the bad things being so onerous, that as far as I am concerned--- they might as well scrap the thing--let it die and try again in a few years hence.

The worst thing about this bill--is the mandate that everyone has to buy insurance, but yet the legislation does not provide for a "free and open market" when it comes to the selection of health care insurance companies that provide the plans in any given geographic area. Depending upon where you live in America--- your selection of health care providers is limited to a choice of maybe three or four at most. In many places--you effectively only have one since they are the comany that has most area hospitals in "its system"--or at best you can chose between two major health care providers--- the specific health care insurance companies vary by the region of the nation with each area having different companies. Very often-----its still a monopoly---since in any particular region, the largest carrier is often part of a larger corporate entity that owns the dominant providers in other areas of the country.

You are pretty much free in most places to choose between dozens if not hundreds of insurance companies to get your car, home, business and life insurance in America--but apparently the much vaunted "FREE MARKET" does not work when it comes to buying health care insurance coverage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That does not change one whit if the plan gets passed as constituted now!!!

Another rotten aspect of this bill as it stands---- it prevents the reimportation of medicine so the consumer cannot shop around--doing things like being legally able to go to Canada to buy the same exact prescriptions with the same exact quality we get in the US is prohibited with serious sanctions if caught.

They could have at least given us the option to buy our prescriptions from Canada when we in the US pay far more than our Canadian neighbors do for drugs in percentages ranging from "as low as" 30% to as much well over 50% higher (in some cases I have seen it reported that some meds can cost as much as 80% higher if the drug is a new one or a recently "dramatically reformulated version of an older one!!!!)

I have to say--I am kind of disgusted with the way this has been handled by the Democratic members of Congress and especially President Obama---he seemed to take a "hands off" approach to this effort.

I expect that the Republicans as currently constituted are going to be obstructionist when it comes to pretty much anything that a "liberal president" like Obama would want to do.

Whiile a US president does not write legislation--that is the Constitutional role of Congress, (both the House and Senate), but using his initital "politcal capital" and the "bully pulpit" of the presidency----in my view--he should have at least had a basic set of goals in the form of an outline of what he considered to be the most important elements of the legislation he both sought and would not accept as part of it.

He should have also pushed that instead of actually going for legistation at that point----in some manner----with a strict deadline schedule of say 12 to 18 months out--some sort of "blue ribbon commission" would be formed made of all interested parties to do a survey of the ways other countries have approached health care in their nations----looking at all options with "nothing being on or off the table."

The commission would have representatives from the House and Senate, insurers, pharma, consumer protection organizations, etc. They would then come up with a set of recommendations to serve as a guideline for Congress to follow and then---based on that--with facts provided instead of so much just made up shit----the legislation could have ACTUALLY been discussed by our leaders and the CITIZENS of this nation.
(what a naive and idealist idea---Ehhhh????)

That all makes sense of course--something that we seem to have dumped today in favor of the wild rantings of the talking heads on both sides an issue, and all of those "tea party" rallies and townhall meetings.

Other nations have successfully reformed their health care coverage systems--- coming up with some pretty good (certainly not perfect) workable programs for their respective nations---I don't know why we could not done this and had it turn out favorably.

It really does bode very ill for the future viablity of the United States of America as being a nation that can actually be ruled effectively any longer.
So much about this "health care" reform shows that all that money the health care insurance companies shelled out in the form of campaign contributions to pols of both parties, "liberal" and "conservative" ones alike. They have basically bought and paid for our highest legislative bodies.

Damn good investment they made!!!!

What the governments in many of those nations have done is to serve as "the rules setter and middle man" with government doing things such as mandating that insurance coverage provide for elements like requiring the companies to preventative care, to focus on "primary care," coverage for not just the "regular parts of the body" as most American regular health insurance policies only cover, but also to include vision and dental coverage that are not seperate, but simply part of the overall coverage package--once again focusing strongly on the preventative aspect with things like free regular annual vision checks, dental cleanings and the like. In many places, the government also sets max limits on aspects like CEO compensation, sets limits on the percentages of premium payments received from customers goes towards profits and how much money is actually directed to providing health care services,

Part of the reform of health care would have to go beyond the issue of just providing and delivery of medical services---it would also have to address another aspect that would be a tough nut to crack----the way doctors and other medical professionals are trained.

One of the aspects that should be addressed is the ever higher cost of attending medical school---at least those that are publically funded ones----the cost of obtaining a medical degree these days even at state institutions has gone up into the stratosphere----with graduates coming out of medical school and internship owing high six figure student loans.

That causes those in medical school to go and specialize in areas they can make big time bucks like cardiology and oncolgy and other areas, eschewing going into general practice--the place that most of us actually use the medical system if we are lucky.

There are many studies that have been done finding that as America's population is aging---we are going to face a coming crtical shortage of medical students who go into general/primary care practices since those positions tend to pay far less than the specialities do.

It is something that being a doctor is now generally thought of as a ticket to become wealthy---but that was not always the case in America. At one time, most doctors of course did better than most "non-skilled workers" did--making basically the same as other "white collar professionals" but they didn't do it to "get rich."

If we could dramatically reduce the cost of a medical education----public education was started to allow those who were of modest means to get an education--it is basically becoming--to even attend a state medical university----you now have to be rich and conversely enough----many private institutions like Harvard Medical School have been so successful at increasing their financial endowments---they are now providing very low cost high level training like medical school to those who come from modest financial means, but of course meet all academic requirements----to recieve their degrees and training.

Many of the private schools have set up their programs that in return for having received an almost free education (as opposed to those who come out of many of the state med schools owing big time bucks)--such private school graduates agree to go work in underserved areas for a specified period of time in places like the blighted urban areas in our cities, remote rural areas and places like Appalachia, that have long been in need of decent medical care and have long had a severe shortage of practicing physicians. The program actually pays the newly minted doctors a supplemental amount of money to make up for their low pay working in such positions. They are doing the same thing sort of thing with law school grads too!!

None of this was even discussed at all in all the crap and scare tactics that certain elements brought up like the total fiction that the legislation called for "death panels." the fear of "Socialized medicine," "health care rationing," "government bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor (oh yeah--we don't have something like this now with private, for profit health care insurers!!!!!!) and all the other BS the forces of "NO" talked about---all we got from them was demagogery and such in this--no REAL, RATIONAL discussion regarding health care.

Barack Obama fracked up big time that he did not get out in front of this if he was really truly committed to real and meaningful health care reform that would really make a difference in people's lives, in better allocation of our financial resources to health care, the impact of all of this on our future economic competitiveness, etc.

I have a few more things I would like to cover on this topic--but I have gone on way too long already I know!!!

Suffice to say---as far as I am concerned--this health care legislation is nothing but a sop to the insurance companies----and it is not going to provide real, true and effective health care reform.

I am sure that unless things drastically change in this bill when the ink of its 7,000 or so pages dry--this thing is going to be a disaster for the American people!!

For those who stuck with me---thanks!!!!! Longwinded I know---but this is not one of those "soundbite topics" if it is to be discussed in the manner it deserves to be discussed--this issue deals with the bodily and financial health of each and every American!!

Too bad the "discussion" of health care in the media, by the public and in Congress got reduced too such BS!!!!

[tenni]

Oh my...you still don't know?....too bad. I can not recall the names of the documentaries that I saw on CBCnewsworld years ago now but one was called "The Power of Nightmares by Adam Curtis" in 2004. It won a type of British Academy Award for documentary and a Cannes Award in 2005.

There were multiple documentaries made mostly by the British on how the media was controlled. There was even a British documentary with Rumsfeld's own handwriting in the margin of a military report stating that prisoners should be kept in "stress" positions for longer than the military suggested long before anything was said on US media. Documentaries interviewing prisoners just released from Iraq prisons who made statements about being tortured by US soldiers a few years before it was shown on US television. The people were just farmers and not Bath(Saddam's party?) or anything. Many well known US newsmen and cameramen are shown on one documentary in particular stating that they were told not to say certain things by the higher ups of such ABC network etc(could have been CBC ). They were told not to report or take footage of certain things that had been taken during such wars as Viet Nam etc. I'm not sure if it was Harry Reasoner or some other person of his calibre. The reporters were imbedded and controlled rather than permitted to explore on their own. Caskets of dead US soldiers were not permitted to be shown on television so that the average US citizen would not become upset as they became during the Viet Nam war. You should see the statements that Clinton makes in Canada about what he told Bush before Bush took over. Clinton states that he was quite specific about the dangers and Bin Laden. Somehow, he won't say it in your country. Clinton made that statement on Canadian television before his wife ran for President and Bush was still President. Maybe, he is lying don't know but there is a lot that is not reported in US media. So, many, many more examples. I don't mean to offend or upset you. I don't mean to make you deny or reject my words but if you do ..you do.


Cite sources, please. There is nothing resembling the truth in this post regarding the media or Bush.

Pasadenacpl

[tenni]

You may believe what you wish to believe. I've told you what was said outside of your country in many media reports and documentary.
Here is a wiki quote from Adam Curtis

"Something extraordinary has happened to American TV since September 11. A head of the leading networks who had better remain nameless said to me that there was no way they could show it. He said, 'Who are you to say this?' and then he added, 'We would get slaughtered if we put this out.' When I was in New York I took a DVD to the head of documentaries at HBO. I still haven't heard from him.[6]"



Yeah...again..sources. You went off on another tangent there.

Being a gulf war vet, and coming from a military family, I can tell you that when the press is allowed to run amok in a war zone, bad things happen (Geraldo Rivera, anyone?) and good soldiers get killed. Yes, the media is controlled when they are in a war zone, because to report everything is to murder our soldiers.

Clinton had the same policy about not showing caskets, btw. So did every president since Viet Nam. That's not a Bush thing. And, it's Clinton. The man who argued what the meaning of 'is' is. You will recall that he had the opportunity to capture Bin Laden, as the Egyptians had him in custody and offered him to us in 1998. Clinton decided to let him go. But, none of this has anything to do with your original allegation.

You pointedly ignored every one of your original allegations. Bush was questioned, plenty. He never muzzled the press. You can make allegations all day long, but I lived here the whole time listening to the drive-by media beat the president up on a daily basis. Like him or hate him, President Bush was the most scrutinized president in our nation's history. So, until you have some credible sources, I'd appreciate it if you didn't spread that sort of poppycock around.

Our freedom of speech has been just fine, thanks very much. Our freedom of the press has been as strong as ever. The only real danger to either is the 'fairness doctrine' that is being proposed, which is a misnomer to be sure.

You are right about one thing: There is a lot not reported by the mainstream media. But, it isn't true in the way you meant it.

Pasadenacpl.

[tenni]

Well we are way off on the healthcare discussion and so I will be brief as possible.

I saw it on Canadian CBCnewsworld. The BBC of course will show anything that is intelligent..that is freedom of speech...lol Present stimulating and controversial issues for the people to consider and decide. Do not control them but offer both sides of an issue. It won a Cannes Film festival award and has been shown all over Europe. It has been shown in Australia and many countries other than the US. It is clearly being censored in the US as you had not even heard about it. I don't know if it has been shown on Al Jazerra but it might be good for you to watch Al in English to broaden your perspective. The film is very critical of extremists both Islamic and Christian fundamentalists. It is directly connected to what Bush did and why.(theoretical premise). It has everything to do with the lack of freedom of speech in the USA just as much as censorship over Communism had to do with presenting only the government sanctioned ideas during that era. Economics has something to do with the lack of freedom of speech in the USA. Feed the people pablum and control them. Don't make them think or be rational beings. It is connected to your healthcare problem as the big economic factors of health insurance companies are controlling your elected reps in your government. Big business has bought and controls the USA whether it is the military business or the healthcare business.


This quote had nothing to do with Bush, or the repression of free speech. It did have to do with his film, which the only people who would show it was the BBC (who will show anything) and Al Jazeera. When Al Jazeera shows something, it is automatically suspect, wouldn't you say?

The reason it won't be shown in the US has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with dollars. If people won't watch it, or will be outraged by it, then sponsors won't pay to have it shown. That's simple economics. And while you might think this was an issue during Bush, it has been the same way my entire lifetime living in the US (all 40 years of it).

So..again. Bush did not muzzle the press. And you have failed to provide a source for such an accusation. That's the way this works. If you make an accusation against someone, be able to back it up. I don't care if you remember hearing your Canadian news report it that way. I'll say the same to them...source?

Bush did not do what you accuse him of.

Pasadenacpl

[darkeyes]

7. Honestly, you write with the Grammar of a 5 year old and complain of vulgarity? Sorry, but when you learn to write as an educated person, I'll take your points more seriously.

Pasadenacpl

Hahahahahahahaha.. God u r priceless.. :bigrin:

The rest was a load of bolloks an all.. hav gud Crimbo me luffly....:)

[tenni]

Pasq
You have not watched the British documentaries created outside of your country such as "Power of Nightmares" and yet you state that my assertions are false?

Uh....really? Deny what you have not seen? Believe that you are correct without examining evidence?

Gee you are priceless. "WMD existed in Iraq." ya sure.

[Long Duck Dong]

let me get this right, tenni is claiming censorship cos a few people have not seen or watched the media programs that tenni has ????

I have never known any program that is presenting any side of a story to be unbiased..... and honestly just cos people may not have a interest in it....or not seen it, is not proof of censorship

what I would love to see, is tenni post factual statements from sites that that show the programs are banned from being shown in the USA and not a assumption that they are censored cos a person has not seen them

[tenni]

LDD
I did. The Power of Nightmares by Adam Curtis is just one documentary.

For those not able to google well.

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



I can not find the name of the British documentary on media censorship where US newspeople report that they were told not to film/report on many aspects of what went on in Iraq. I saw them years ago(maybe four ?)


A person must actually watch the documentary and it is controversial. They are actually long. I saw them over a period of three nights and they ran three hours each.(some commercial breaks though)


The media failure to challenge Bush on WMD in Iraq has been widely discussed outside of the USA. The failure of proper media discussion of Haliburton contracts being awarded untendered contracts by the US government and the connection between Cheney and Haliburton has been discussed widely outside of the US..maybe also inside the US but not sufficiently during the era by US mainstream media.

People within the US discuss the Healthcare Insurance companies controlling US Senators. Lieberman being one that has been mentioned.(to bring it back to the topic)

As far as bias is concerned that is where open minds, intelligent examination, seeking out both sides on issues from several sources within and outside of your country and several other cognitive abilities are required rather than accepting dumbing down media coverage that places child kidnappings, celebraty marriages-deaths as a higher priority to report/discuss than such issues as healthcare truths/lies, war criminals who are/have been leaders in your country, tea party manipulations etc.

LDD
It is more than a few US people not seeing such media coverage. It was wide spread. Few outside of US universities have probably seen these documentaries...if they have not been seen in any US university that would be sad.

[rissababynta]

All I know is that when I had to be on government aid before I married my husband, I had free healthcare. The only thing that bothered me was that I had absolutely no dentists near me that accepted the state aid. That sucked. Now that I get Tricare from the military, I find out that my mouth is not in good shape from years of pregnancy and not being able to get to a dentist to get a cleaning. Even after insurance, it's going to be over a grand to get my mouth back to the perfection that it used to be. Not to mention how much it is going to cost to fix my sons teeth which, apparently, are prone to cavities because of their shape. That sucks even more.

SOLDIERS DON'T GET PAID GREAT! We're screwed, and we know it.

At least hubby gets his dental care for free, which is good because his teeth were all kinds of jacked up until recently.

Even getting my glasses were a pain in the butt. I had to get the cheapest ones they had available because we had just enough money for them at the time. But when hubby needed to get his, he got three friggin pairs for free. Damn soldiers and their free benefits lol.

Now I say this for a reason. As much as just these few little things are killing us right now, there are people in this country who have it way worse. At one point my husband was getting paid minimum wage at a job where he worked almost full time but not quite. He got free health care from the state. The second that he took on another part time job for the same pay to try to help get us on our feet, he started making too much and lost his health care. Does that sound right to anyone? Does that sound like enough money to be able to afford healthcare? So basically, in this country you have to either be dirty poor to be able to get a little bit of help, otherwise whether you can really make it work on your own or not, the goverment makes up it's mind that you can. Thus, and endless circle of not being able to get yourself out of a funk commences. I don't know who's working out these numbers, but something isn't quite right and it would be nice if something could be done.

I think the whole world should stop paying celebrities and pseudo celibrities like Paris Hilton and everyone else who basically gets famous for showing up places and looking pretty SO DAMN MUCH, then they can put that money towards paying the doctors what they deserve. Then there wouldn't be anymore worries about how doctors are going to get their money from people who can't afford it.

[mendoncpl]

you have got to be one of the biggest morons i have ever heard spout off on the internet."the power of nightmares" are you serious? have you really seen the pile of lies.It claims al-Qaeda is made up by politicians.Well those made up mother fuckers killed over 3000 innocent men,women and children here in my country and you have the audacity to try and quoat a film like that.

The fact of the matter is ,we do not want national health care in our country.if it works for you in your own country fine have at it.We can not afford to pay for this health care and be expected to pay for the rest of the world also.Most of the planet has been living off the American tit for the last 100 years,and i for one am tired of hearing the rest of the world think say we should do this and that because they think America owes them something.We don't owe anyone anything.This country was founded on the free market system and it`s principals and our way of life stems from that. if you do not like our way of life then stay away from the American dollar.We are Not a country of Socialist and Communist,We are Capitalist and we will not let our country be ran into the ground anymore by people who want to pay for the worlds problems.We will not apologize any longer for who we are and for what you think we have done.If you want national health care then please move to a country who wants it,

The American government is about to change with the next election and with the grace of God we will take back our country.

[jamiehue]

This quote had nothing to do with Bush, or the repression of free speech. It did have to do with his film, which the only people who would show it was the BBC (who will show anything) and Al Jazeera. When Al Jazeera shows something, it is automatically suspect, wouldn't you say?

The reason it won't be shown in the US has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with dollars. If people won't watch it, or will be outraged by it, then sponsors won't pay to have it shown. That's simple economics. And while you might think this was an issue during Bush, it has been the same way my entire lifetime living in the US (all 40 years of it).

So..again. Bush did not muzzle the press. And you have failed to provide a source for such an accusation. That's the way this works. If you make an accusation against someone, be able to back it up. I don't care if you remember hearing your Canadian news report it that way. I'll say the same to them...source?

Bush did not do what you accuse him of.

Pasadenacpl

If my (sources) were fox news.......

[tenni]

I've seen the documentary and many more. I'm an open minded free thinking person who examines all sides. The Power of Nightmares makes some sense to me and it is definitely controversial. I am not in agreement that it specifically stated that Al Qaeda was made up by politicians per sei. You have over simiplified and exaggerated what was said and explained over a nine hour documentary. You have exhibited an emotional reaction due to having been manipulated. Not all of the 3000 were citizens of your country. It was tragic. It was horrible but it is not justifiable for the actions that your government took. In fact, it is not even connected to the invasion of Iraq. You have exhibited brain washing manipulation of the masses that has been used in the US, Britain, Russia, Islamic extremists etc. for decades. The documentary explained how governments use fear as a method of controlling its citizens more and more since the 20th century is a more accurate summary of some of what that documentary stated. There are those who have used the same fear tactics with regard to US healthcare issues.


you have got to be one of the biggest morons i have ever heard spout off on the internet."the power of nightmares" are you serious? have you really seen the pile of lies.It claims al-Qaeda is made up by politicians.Well those made up mother fuckers killed over 3000 innocent men,women and children here in my country and you have the audacity to try and quoat a film like that.

The fact of the matter is ,we do not want national health care in our country.if it works for you in your own country fine have at it.We can not afford to pay for this health care and be expected to pay for the rest of the world also.Most of the planet has been living off the American tit for the last 100 years,and i for one am tired of hearing the rest of the world think say we should do this and that because they think America owes them something.We don't owe anyone anything.This country was founded on the free market system and it`s principals and our way of life stems from that. if you do not like our way of life then stay away from the American dollar.We are Not a country of Socialist and Communist,We are Capitalist and we will not let our country be ran into the ground anymore by people who want to pay for the worlds problems.We will not apologize any longer for who we are and for what you think we have done.If you want national health care then please move to a country who wants it,

The American government is about to change with the next election and with the grace of God we will take back our country.

[littlerayofsunshine]

The Military, hell even American Football you will hear "We are only as strong as our weakest member"

One of the representations of our country, sign of our strength and hope, The statue of liberty is scribed with

""Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Refuse to acknowledge our weakest, fail to provide a better way, fail to help, we will always be as strong as our poorest.

Since so many are against government sponsored healthcare for all.. Why not forgo the other socialized things that are not rights foretold in the constitution. Reject Social Security, Refuse to take medicare as your age will eventually allow you to take. Better yet, force teachers, Military, senators, governors and all others, to pay their own medical health, and not get tax dollars paid toward their family/personal plans. Don't use Insurance companies that are subsidized by government dollars. Hate to tell you, there aren't any. Don't go to hospitals that get gov't funds to care for the poor and gain new equipment and fund studies.

Quit taking the tax exemptions. Because others are paying more, just for you to have the benefit of such.


My husband and I have no health insurance. We can not afford it for ourselves, but we have it on our children. Since all children are required to have health insurance. But it is a gov't subsidized insurance. We pay monthly premiums based on income. Some people have the exact same insurance and pay more, and some who get it for free.

I don't see anything wrong with that method being available to adults and children alike, but that's not the way it is.

Regardless, Even people who think they are paying for their own insurance. You are getting the benefit of tax dollars. While my husband and I can't. Health insurance is more than our mortgage, car insurance, home owner insurance combined.

Wanna say I could sell my home and rent??? Like that would help us afford health insurance. To rent a three bedroom home... easy $2300 maybe more. Um Yeah..

groceries are about 900-1000 a month, and thats still with running out of staples every week. Feeding six mouths. Wanna tell me how to fix that? Oh I should make more money right??? Yeah..... well ya see...... there's a lil issue with that.. And I know it may not be your "problem". But our government doesn't seem to have sufficient laws when it comes to children and so I was homeless at the age of 16 and raped and beaten starting at the age of 6. Ya know, its a little hard to get accepted in to community college when your address is a homeless shelter. And your "God" made it so that I had my first little blessing at age 17 and my second at age 20 and two more since then. 2 conceived while on birth control... Your "God" destined me to have all those little blessings.

So, I know there are scammers that abuse the system. But I have been from the very bottom, to the very middle of the financial scale in life. Disability gets scammed the worse. And the shame about it is.. Its not the poor scamming the shit out of it and bleeding it dry. It's mostly people who worked their asses off most of their life and got tired and decided shit, it pays more to be poor than to lose blood sweat and tears.

So I won't apologized for desiring rigorous overhaul of a system that subsidizing the richer that can afford, and the poorer that can not. And not extending a hand to my husband and I, who barely see each other because he's working up to 12 hour days sometimes, while on salary. Paying in the upper 4 figures for taxes and yet have to go without.

This country is only as strong as its weakest.

Keep your opinions the way they are, but the next time you see a picture of the statue of liberty, remember to turn your back to it.

[tenni]

You have an understandable perspective based upon what you have been exposed to. I have a perspective based upon what information that I was aware of four or five years ago. We are discussing something four or five years ago and not any discussion in your society today. The evidence was there four or five years ago about media deception and government control of information....just not in the USA. This thread is about healthcare. Whether media manipulation or failure to present truths by the US media has resulted in the US legislation is what should be discussed. Can we say Tea Parties, town hall myths, Canadian Death Panels and the truthful beliefs that were being spread or issues examined resulted in what you have now? Enjoy your healthcare and congratulations on finally attempting a change. Clearly, we examine issues from different perspectives. As far as how close the war criminals have been exposed/charged the closest is the CIA agents that were found guilty in Italy within the past few months...they will probably never be imprisoned though.


You are priveless. Brainwashing? Geeesus, give me a break. First, every issue you claim wasn't discussed by our media was not only discussed, but gone into ad infintum by our press.

Second, you sound not at all like a free thinker, but as a pretty standard Huffington Post bullet points reader with a Canadian twist that if we disagree we must be 'brainwashed.' We've been dealing with your type of freethinking for awhile. *rolls eyes*

Further, your claims about the Iraq war are wron. I'm not talking about whether we should have gone as that is debateable. But just about everything ele from WMDs to Haliburton is either factually wrong or missing half the story.

Anyone screaming that our leaders are war criminals gets a big eyeroll from me and most folks who aren't far left nuts.

Pasadenscpl

[niftyshellshock]

You are priveless. Brainwashing? Geeesus, give me a break. First, every issue you claim wasn't discussed by our media was not only discussed, but gone into ad infintum by our press.

Second, you sound not at all like a free thinker, but as a pretty standard Huffington Post bullet points reader with a Canadian twist that if we disagree we must be 'brainwashed.' We've been dealing with your type of freethinking for awhile. *rolls eyes*

Further, your claims about the Iraq war are wron. I'm not talking about whether we should have gone as that is debateable. But just about everything ele from WMDs to Haliburton is either factually wrong or missing half the story.

Anyone screaming that our leaders are war criminals gets a big eyeroll from me and most folks who aren't far left nuts.

Pasadenscpl


Fact: Going into Iraq was wrong. Both times.
Fact: The mess we made there is worse than the mess it was before we got there.
Fact: A lot of people are making money off of war profiteering.
Fact: Not a lot of this money is returned for proper care to the soldiers that are getting shot up and maimed in the quest for such profiteering.
Fact: A socialized healthcare system would work in America if everyone got on the ball about it.
Fact: It's going to be far from perfect the first few years.
Fact: It's still far from perfect in the countries where it actually is available.

As for the media being censored, I believe there was not a lot of black ops-esque arrests in the middle of the night. However, I also know that the press is a business, and the goal of a business is to make money. If the press is asking uncomfortable questions that are going to shake the status quo of society, advertisers won't want to put up with it.

[Karasel]

6. Like Denmark, where they have a 50% tax rate? Hrmm? And then...see point 3.

Pasadenacpl

Ok, counting the fact that Denmark has about a 5% percentage of homeless people in their entire country, and ours has about a 20 to 30% flux on homelessness. I would say that it is pointless to cite the high tax rate in government paid health care countries as a standing structure for your argument against public option in America. They are clearly doing way better than we have in a long time. ..I personally believe that America has fallen very far from our founding fathers' expectations, and it just boils my blood just to think about it.

Taxes may be high in Denmark (and other countries), but those tax dollars go into real spending in free education (public and college), free health-care and etc. You may not want to help pay for another person's health, or anything else for that matter. But when you or a loved one gets sick and needs a few $100,000 to pay for a life saving surgery, it is an unbelievable relief to know that the government has your back and will pay for everything and you don't have to mortgage a house to save your own life.

I would gladly pay extra out of my pocket over time and live comfortably, than have to suffer through the headaches that comes from dealing with the insurance companies and the med bills that can rack up astronomically high.

Course I am going to be a surgeon and will have tons of money to spend like water, (once I pay off my $200,000+ student debt). So I don't really mind paying extra, because I will have plenty cushion room. But in a country that denies coverage to honest people because they have a "pre-existing condition," that can't be helped, is just un-acceptable in my eyes. I believe we need at least SOME reform, public option would be amazing... But I don't think this country and it's senators/congressmen could handle something like this yet, it's a shame really. I'd be thrilled just to see pre-existing conditions to be wiped from our state's dictionary.

[BareHunter45]

Sorry...these are NOT "Facts" they are "Opinions"...and I don't care where you are from or not from...a fact is indisputable, backed by hard evidence...these are your opinions based on your values and beliefs...some I agree with, others I do not.



Fact: Going into Iraq was wrong. Both times.
Fact: The mess we made there is worse than the mess it was before we got there.
Fact: A lot of people are making money off of war profiteering.
Fact: Not a lot of this money is returned for proper care to the soldiers that are getting shot up and maimed in the quest for such profiteering.
Fact: A socialized healthcare system would work in America if everyone got on the ball about it.
Fact: It's going to be far from perfect the first few years.
Fact: It's still far from perfect in the countries where it actually is available.

As for the media being censored, I believe there was not a lot of black ops-esque arrests in the middle of the night. However, I also know that the press is a business, and the goal of a business is to make money. If the press is asking uncomfortable questions that are going to shake the status quo of society, advertisers won't want to put up with it.

[Long Duck Dong]

LDD
I did. The Power of Nightmares by Adam Curtis is just one documentary.

For those not able to google well.

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



I can not find the name of the British documentary on media censorship where US newspeople report that they were told not to film/report on many aspects of what went on in Iraq. I saw them years ago(maybe four ?)


A person must actually watch the documentary and it is controversial. They are actually long. I saw them over a period of three nights and they ran three hours each.(some commercial breaks though)


The media failure to challenge Bush on WMD in Iraq has been widely discussed outside of the USA. The failure of proper media discussion of Haliburton contracts being awarded untendered contracts by the US government and the connection between Cheney and Haliburton has been discussed widely outside of the US..maybe also inside the US but not sufficiently during the era by US mainstream media.

People within the US discuss the Healthcare Insurance companies controlling US Senators. Lieberman being one that has been mentioned.(to bring it back to the topic)

As far as bias is concerned that is where open minds, intelligent examination, seeking out both sides on issues from several sources within and outside of your country and several other cognitive abilities are required rather than accepting dumbing down media coverage that places child kidnappings, celebraty marriages-deaths as a higher priority to report/discuss than such issues as healthcare truths/lies, war criminals who are/have been leaders in your country, tea party manipulations etc.

LDD
It is more than a few US people not seeing such media coverage. It was wide spread. Few outside of US universities have probably seen these documentaries...if they have not been seen in any US university that would be sad.


ok you cleared that up for me, there is censorship cos people have not seen some programs.....

now about iraq, ...the same thing happened in the falklands, nam, kuwait etc and it also applied to other countries..... new zealand did their nut over the releasing by the dutch, of the location of nz special ops

censorship is there for a reason in war town.....its a form of protection, its not always covering up issues...
imagine a platoon of troops shown in a location, its screened on tv, finds its way to you tube etc, and hello, you have the enemy having advanced knowledge of troop movements.....

and before you tell me that I do not know what I am talking about, I have served in the armed forces..... and there is a lot I would say, but can't and cos I am a NZ civilian, its got nothing to do with the US.....

now G bush.... no WMD.... big deal.... so what .... the world knew about it.... and so what if G bush was not hung out to dry, he has a country to run.... and there were more pressing matters to address other than appearing on the jeremy kyle show in england....

you do remind me of a person in another place that was arguing the cruel and inhuman treatment of animals cos peta posted about it and the person saw you tube vids, so it had to be true....... I pointed out the same was done in NZ with pig farming cruelty.... including a piggery that had not existed for 8 months, but was filmed 3 weeks ago.......

honestly, you do amuse me.... you talk about censorship and biased media.... and your proof is.... omg... biased media.........
yes there is some censorship and yes some restricting or changing of facts.....its the same in every country.......
but my proof is not some documentry made in some other country .....my proof is watching the new on the tv at home in nz, and watching 3 tv channels give totally contradictory info on the same stories....

[12voltman59]

Well--the Senate "made history" according to the spin----I guess that some of my critical points were not as correct as I thought---from what President Obama said---they are going to have the "insurance exchange" that will allow everyone to purchase their helath plans for a pool--the only thing with that is--so what if you can get insurance that is affordable for you--but that plan has few doctors, if any, and the only hospital that will accept the plan is 30 miles from ya??? Not good if you have major trauma in a bad accident or your heart has stopped--if they are going to MedFlight you--you are going to the closest hospital with a trauma center--for me--that is the our county's biggest hospital--that is on Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield and I don't think I would take insurance from them--I had gotten their plan independently and after a few months---told me I had not disclosed some unspecified "pre-existing conditon" when I had appliedand dropped me!!!! The condition I had not disclosed---that I used to have bad sinus problems----I had told them of a surgery for that----and they had my records----if they had gone over them from the begining--they could have just denied me---I didn't think it was all the pertinent since compared to when I was younger---and prior to having that surgery----I suffered terribly from such problems---now---I just suffer from them no more than anyone else--in fact hardly at all unless it is a really bad time for whatever it is that bothers me------I figured that the surgery and subsequent treatment I had undergone---had done the trick---they "cured" my condition to such a degree that it no longer was a big factor in my life as it had been at one point!!!

I guess that the Senate plan does prohibit insurance companies from denying you coverage for "pre-existing conditions."

They still have to "reconcile" the Senate version of the legislation with what came out of the House---so things could still change with exactly what the thing does cover--I guess that I am so leery of and cynical about politicians of both parties---that I really don't trust that they are no longer capable of creating legislation that is in the best interests of "we the people."

I guess we have to see just what does finally come out of this legislation. I guess we have no choice but that while we might expect the worst----we have to hope for the best!


When it comes to the way the US military has dealt with those who have served its wars---namely---that the government has screwed them in the rear without any lube-----that is hardly anything new----the US government started doing that to the Vets of the Revolutionary War and has been screwing the Vets in every war since, save maybe the Civil War and WWII.

Just look at the history---the Vets of the Revolutionary War basically went to war against the new government when the promises made by the new government were renigged on----they sure did screw the vets of WWI-think back to what they did to the vets who set up the tent city in Washington, DC--they sent in an Army company to take out the settlement.

The government fought the Vietnam era vets for years regarding the exposure to Agent Orange trying to say there was no connection with the serious health problems vets exposed to that stuff suffered but othe "in country" vets not exposed to that crap never had; and vets of Gulf War I for those who developed negative health consequences due to exposure to depleted uranium armor piercing rounds---onve again--trying to say that being exposed to that nasty stuff had no harmful effects-------Yeah----RIGHT!!!!

[darkeyes]

Umm...According to the federal government, the U.S. has about 1% of it's population as homeless. Less if you go on a week to week basis.

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20070510103756/http://www.nrchmi.samhsa.gov/facts/facts_question_2.asp



They are? If they have a 5% homeless rate, then they have 5 times the homeless rate we do. Couple that with a higher tax rate that is nearly double our current tax rate, and the facts do not agree with your assessment of them, or us.

Your feelings might be that we are doing worse, but those are opinions that do not have a basis in fact. Here are some facts:

Denmark actually has a 63% tax rate. Which means that for every 3 dollars you earn, the government keeps 2.

The united states has one of the highest corporate tax rates of any industrialized nation. It has one of the lowest personal tax rates.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

The United States has reasonable amountof people living at or below the poverty line (12%). Though, this poverty line is thousands of dollars above the poverty line for nearly any other industrialized nation.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_livi ng_in_poverty



The way to meet your goals is to get the government out of the medical field, not to marry the two.

Want better, cheaper insurance? Stop giving people only the choice of their empoyer's plans. Choice = cheaper and better product. Competition always improves an industry.

Want medical costs to go down? Get the government out of it. Why do drugs cost less in Canada? No FDA. Why do doctor's visits cost less in Mexico? No AMA. Why does practioner's insurance cost less in other nations? Limits on malpractice suits.

The government is the least efficient way to do ANYTHING.



Really? Cuz, I'd rather pay less and get better service. Which is what competition (true competition) does to any industry.



You won't be getting all that cash if the reform goes through. Welcome to being a government employee just like teachers and police. Of course, teachers only pay about a third of what you do for their education. But, that's alright. After all...we need the reform. Right?

Pasadenacpl

Hun..its Crimbo time.. an since its season a gudwill 2 all men me is gonna b nice..an say jus this... look up a book..even betta a few books..an don mean political junk by sum rite wing politicos an do sum reel readin..an try..now me knos its hard.. but try an think things out for yasel... look roundya an c the world as it is.. everythin yas sed in evry post tells me 1 thing..that yas a selfish gett..an don give 2 hoots for ne 1 less fortunate than yasel.. ne 1 who has a diff pointa view..an that as far as u can c... no place on earth is a luffly an progressive an nice as that place in wich u happen 2 liv.. ya has an inbuilt jingoism wich is not only unpleasant but downright odious.. ya care bout yasel an no otha human bein on the planet..ya care bout ya country an everywer else is a shitehouse wich shud kno betta than 2 even thinka takin issue wiv ya own..

Wouldn mind ya kno 2 sum degree..but even summa ya things yas quoted..ya cudn even work out the figures rite.. but then thats a triff rite wing ploy in ne case..they jus don expect that the masses will check em out.. an usualkly tehy don.. still its Crimbo.. so will end by sayin this... hav gud crimbo an Happy new Year.. an make a New Year resolution that ya will read and learn summat otha than rite wing poopy political an economic garbage.. an even betta..taht ya will switch ya brain inta gear an try an use it a lil more efficiently than so far ya hav.. ya mite jus find the world a much more interestin place an hav a lil more undastandin a diff ideas an that on this planet..ther mite jus b betta places in wich 2 live...an that otha nations mmite jus hav an edge ova ya own on many things.. 2 much 2 ask prob me knos.. but am askin ne way...

Toldya..me wud b nice... enjoy ya hols!:tong:

[rissababynta]

I don't even have a clue what you just said. Translation?

I did catch jingoistic, which considering that we were talking about what was happening in our country seems appropriate. And, darkeyes, I have lived all over this globe. I'll be willing to wager I've seen more of Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America than you have. I'll be willing to wager that I am far more familiar with far more nations and the way they do things. When I say that the US is tops, I really mean it. I can't think of a single nation that is freer, has more opportunity, and more built in infrastructure than the US. I will be happy to compare notes on that topic.

I also caught that you claim I screwed up the numbers. But, then you didn't back it up. Fairly typical of many people in this thread to make baseless statements and not back it up with sources.


Beyond that, I have no idea what you said. English. We speak it here.
Pasadenacpl

She said you're selfish.

[meflash]

We do not have a lack of Freedom of Speech. Our media says pretty much what it wants, our citizens say what they want. And Bush never muzzled the media...which is what you asserted and have yet to provide any evidence for.

You might wonder why I am so adamant about not allowing you to change the subject (though, you have yet to answer your original assertion). It is not because I wish to defend Bush. He did many things I disagree with. But, when you say that he muzzled our freedom of speech and press you have a fundamental lack of understanding of our nation and it's people.

Bush had no power to muzzle our press or to keep himself from being questioned. Our nation does not tolerate that. So much so, that we wrote it into our constitution. And our people don't put up with any attempts to do so. Even if he had wanted to, he couldn't.

Do you think CNN ever refrained from reporting something negative about Bush? I think not. How about MSNBC? Again, I think not. Even FoxNews would if they thought they could get headlines out of it. No, the business of reporting the news is such that every president must face them, and doesn't get to do it on their terms.

The closest Bush ever came to 'muzzling' the press was when he refused to call on Helen Thomas and eventually kicked her off the Whitehouse Press Corps. She had it coming. While you can ask the president just about anything, there is a certain decorum expected and she refused to play by those rules.

Your assertion is faulty. It is faulty not only merely on a factual level, but on a basic lack of understanding of the United States, its principles, its history, and its people.

As for perspective, I have visited 5 of our 7 continents, 100+ nations in Europe, India, the Far East, Africa, the Middle East, and South America, lived in four different nations, and am a war veteran. When it comes to understanding our freedoms, and comparing/contrasting them with other nations, I have a pretty good handle on it.

Pasadenacpl

Pasadenacpl I like your posts but talking truth to coolaid drinking dems is a total waste of time. The founding fathers would cry over whats happening to our country.

[tenni]

"When I say that the US is tops, I really mean it. I can't think of a single nation that is freer, has more opportunity, and more built in infrastructure than the US. I will be happy to compare notes on that topic."



Most people believe that their country is tops. It depends upon what criteria that you are using to determine which country is tops.

The USA has never been declared the best country to live in by any organization outside of the US measuring "tops". The one thing that the US is is the top or one of the tops to spend citizen's tax money on its military business infrastructure whatever. Like a lot of western countries the US infrastructure such as roads, sewers etc. are reaching the end of their life expectancy and falling apart. Like a lot of North American cities, provinces, states and countries there is little hope of remedying this situation in the near future.

In 2009, France was declared the best country in the world for quality of life. THE TOP....
http://www.internationalliving.com/Internal-Components/Further-Resources/qofl2009


The United Nation Development Programme (UNDP) declared Norway the best place to live for quality of life for their citizens in using their criteria. THE TOP.

Canada, Australia and Norway have consistently been either the top or within the top five places to live. The US usually is around 13th out of 182 countries. In 2009, Niger was declared the worst country to live in by the UN followed by Afghanistan.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/best-country-live-list-countries-2009-un-hdi

Now, the UN uses what it calls the Human Development Index and uses such criteria as life expectancy, literacy, school enrolment and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Healthcare is a factor in determining Life expectancy of the citizens of a country. The TOP 2009 literacy rate for a country is held by Cuba with 99.8% for literate citizens. The US is 19th and the second lowest literacy rate of the G8 countries. Now, the differences between #1 TOP and the US is less than 0.8% and so that is forgiven..but still NOT TOP. Nope, the US doesn't have that bragging right to be Top literate country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

As far as freedom, it is a myth that people in the USA are feed from birth. Heck Bush used the words "freedom" while he lied to the US people. He knew that the US people were conditioned to believe that they were free and that they would die if he told them that they were dying for "freedom". They feared losing their "freedom". They spent trillions on their Bush wars without complaining but listen to some of them complain about giving all of the US citizens the freedom and human right to have health care.

It is just a myth that some are blinded to see otherwise. Again, freedom to do what? Unlike a lot of western countries, if you are gay in most of the USA, you certainly do not have the freedom to legally marry your same sex partner that you love.

[rissababynta]

Pasadenacpl I like your posts but talking truth to coolaid drinking dems is a total waste of time. The founding fathers would cry over whats happening to our country.

It's spelled Koolaid! If you are going to diss us dimwits you might as well do it right lol.

[goldenfinger]

It seems to me that people in favor of private health care don't understand the basic of insurance. The basics of insurance is that many people pay into a pool from which you can draw more money out then you put in, if and when needed. If you don't want to pay for other people, don't have insurance,it's that simple.If the money you claim is more then you put in, where do you think the money is coming from.Other people,I hope not.

[tenni]

"I have yet to see a government that didn't outspend it's income."
"Then we could afford a trillion dollar healthcare bill. Of course, the ramifications of that would be far reaching and unintended, I'm sure."


Pasadenacpl

You may want to look a little harder and perhaps wider in your search as far as fiscal responsible governments. Up until this fiscal year and Canada electing a neo con government there were something like nine years in a row where there was a fiscal surplus. In 2007, China (372 billion surplus), Germany ( 252 billion surplus), Japan (211 billion surplus), Saudi Arabia, Russia, Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands, Kuwait, Singapore, Algeria, Iran, Hong Kong, Venezuala, Austria, Finland, Belgium, Chile etc. In 2007, the US had a deficit of 731 billion according to the IMF and was the worst fiscally balanced country on the planet. It is true that there has been a huge global economic problem. Where did this global fiscal problem start? Why? Venezula.... Chavez right...lol...maybe China..... There seems to be a global over dependence on the US fiscal policies. The US fiscal policies get too globally intertwined and impact too many other countries. No one will deny the significance of the US consumer, credit pay tomorrow, economy on the world. In that sense, the US is number one...top...lol

I agree with you that it is a country's government that will decide where to spend money but deficit financing and where to make cuts is always interesting as it demonstrates what a society values most. You may not believe that the US military spending has any connection to the cries for not spending on healthcare but it sure looks strange from over here. If you think that you can afford to spend money on your military but not healthcare that is up to your people (or those who manipulate them to thinking that way). This nonsense that Canada is sitting protected because of the good ol USA is crap. It has been a frig'n buffer for the USA...a puppet state in some respects. You'd drop a nuke on us or over us and let millions of Canucks die without a drop of concern if your government thought that it would save some Yank's ass. Get real....lol

Again, there is a difference in beliefs and perspectives about calling on the USA for help militarily. Did Iraq and Afghanistan call on the US for military help? "Please invade us " calls come into your government? pfft If you go back further in the US history with a more open mind, you should find out about the truth...check Panama, Hawaii, and even Peurto Rico's history and involvement with the USA. Check all the bribery money..uh I mean "foreign aid to those who obey us". The US is not the only country to treat foreign aid that way though. You continue to believe your 1950's propaganda and I will believe in what I see. I get your propaganda over here but see through the crap. I get the propaganda that my neo con government is now spouting and see through it too. It is hard though and so I wish you well.

Good point goldenfinger
If you want to see a healthy society, the society needs to be willing to pay for it as a government service. There are no free rides. We pay one way or the other for whatever we get. If you do not care for your fellow citizens and are not willing to offer healthcare as a government service, then so be it. Be the number 1 top cold, uncaring bastard society where only the rich surivive. Oh....another myth that I've just recently heard about is that China is a society where there is universal health care. Apparently, not any more. If a Chinese person doesn't have money to pay for cancer treatments, they die. In China, one human life is not held as a highly valued comodity in the Chinese society. Not much choice if you don't have the money to pay...you die. Maybe, that is just another area where China is out to outdo the USA.

[Doggie_Wood]

Sigh.

You do not have the right to healthcare. It is not a right. Sorry.

You do not have the right to make me pay for your healthcare. Sorry.

You do not have the right to expect that doctors accept less than their standard price because you are on a government plan.

You do not have the right to do things that are unhealthy and make me pay for your long term care costs that are a direct result of this.

Doctors have a right to make a living. Given their number of years of education, they have a right to make a REALLY good living.

Medicine is a business. Always has been. Always will be.

Government is the least efficient, and most costly way to do anything.

These thoughts brought to you by common sense, and the letters F and U.

Pasadenacpl

I competely agree. I have a good job that pays a fair wage. Why? Because I went to school (college) on student grants and loans, which I am still repaying, thank you very much.

Doggie :doggie:

[Doggie_Wood]

The topic of the thread was . . . errr . . . is "Healthcare..."

Regardless of what "We The People" want, our government, more specificaly the Senate and Congress, is doing "For The People" regardless of what their constituants truely want. Don't misunderstand what I am saying, YES, our country needs some form of health care reform and insurance reform.
But more so, we the people need to band together and hold our government accountable to the same standards and limitations that they would enact into law and impose upon us, the citizens of the United States.
Our senators and congressional leaders need to be - no - must be brought to bear that which has been and is going to be upon the people that elected them to office, which they have long since forgotten for the most part.
For I feel that if they, themselves had to live with the health care that is being imposed upon the US citizens, they would be more causious on how the bills were worded.

Doggie :doggie:

[12voltman59]

Government is the lease efficient way to do most things. Once you accept this idea, you ask yourself why you want the government in charge of anything.

Pasadenacpl

I could not disagree with you more Pasadena. Here is a long winded ramble that contains the jist of the reasons why I so profoundly disagree with your view that government is such a bad thing! This is not a personal attack on you--I am just merely stating my views regarding what I see as being the utility and necessity of government.

It does seem to me that the government does a pretty damn good job of providing things like our roadway systems; air traffic control; providing national defense; handling Anti-criminal activity that goes beyond local jurisdictional lines (state and national) as provided by such federal law enforcement agencies as the FBI, ATF, DEA, Customs/Border Patrol/ICE; Secret Service; the US Coast Guard in its non-military roles providing Search and Rescue, Aids To Navigation, Pollution Control and Cessation, Drug and Illegal Immigration Interdiction; Setting Safety standards and enforcement of same for commercial and passenger shipping, Marine fisheries protection.

Continuing with more examples: Investigatons of airline crashes and setting of standards for safe operation of commercial aircraft; the national park system; the Federal juidicary and federal prison systems--just to name a few of the many things our federal government provides-and does a damn fine job that I really doubt a private company could do as well!

At the state and local level: water and sanitary sewer systems; municipal law enforcement; operation of State highway patrols or similar agencies; state investigative agencies; state, county, municipal court systems; county jails/detention centers; state highway departments/Departments of Transportaion; state environmental divisions that set and enforce state and federal enviromental standards; state occupational safety agencies; state job agencies.

Does government provide such services perfectly, totally cost efficient and all that??? No way---but many of these things--simply could not be provided by "for profit" entities----they have a value to the overall betterment of society that we don't think about--like the common good the US Coast Guard provides when it places buoys, day markers and such on our many hundreds of thousands of navigable federal waterways in its role as the primary provider of ATON (Aids to Navigation), with most states picking up the placement of ATON in waters under their jurisdiction---this helps both shipping interests and the interests of recreational boaters. It would be pretty hard for any sort of economic model to make sense that a private, publically traded company with making profit as its main goal to take up such a task, also maintaining the waterways by dredging them to make them continue to be navigable by ships and boats. How the hell would a private company get money for providing buoys or daymarks to boaters/shippers---put on a toll each time a boat or ship passes by them????

Also----what about a "service" like air traffic control---I really don't see how that could be effectively "privatized" without it being a private monoply due to the profound inconsistent levels of service that would be bound to ensue if we had various firms providing ATC in different parts of the country not operating to a standardized set of standards as normally provided by the government---when I am on board an airplane either in or outbound to an airport--I want a consistent system handling the control of airborne aircraft!

Back when a lot of this anti-government stuff was going around during the Clinton era--his old bulldog political advisor, James Carvel, made a funny but pointed comment regarding the dissing of federal law enforcement: "what are ya gonna do when ya live in New York and someone kidnaps your kid and takes him to California--calll your local Sheriff?? What about if we get attacked by some foreign army--we gonna have the local militia go fight 'em over in Iraq?"

Many of the "invisible" things that government provides to its citizens---are things that simply could not realistically or rationally be provided by private interests--with the same level of relatively low costs and quality that we do receive. We do get major "bang for the buck" from our dollars going to the government to provide these "services."

I think that many people have lost that sense that we once had of 'the commonweal."

Most of the things I list above help make life better for us all---and it does help private interests to receive all of these services--look at when a new expressway is built in areas that were once "undeveloped"---at government expense---the infrastructure elements like the public roadways and water systems are extended to such areas where the private interests go build retail, commericial, residental and other construction projects that make them nice profits.

Now--one can debate the sense of the continued promotion of "urban sprawl" in this day and time--but the fact is--at the behest of the interests of the real estate industry, the developers and other interested parties---the laws in most states have been written to require local elected officials to pursue such policies.

The government then, in most areas, will go on to provide law enforcement and fire protection by extending police and fire stations in such areas, building more feeder and secondary roads, building more schools, etc.--factors that once again help bolster the bottom line of those private interests.

This argument regarding the desirablity of government or not was settled long ago and I thnk it came out right for the most part.

The government does all kinds of things well---things that serve us all as a society and I for one would not want to live in a world without government!!!

The modern world--such as it is constituted--would simply not be possible without the existence of government.

Without the existence of government to act as at least to some degree as a "referee" between those who hold the economic reigns of society and the rest of us----we would be at the whim of their uncontrolled capricousness.

Think back to your history people, to a time before the government stepped in and started enacting laws that set standards on workplace safety, work rules, fair compensation, creation of the 40-hour work week, preventing the exploitation of chlld labor--things of that sort!!

Think of what the environment would be like if the government had not enacted laws to control how much crap that factories could freely dump on the land, into the water or air???? You would not be able to drink the water, breathe the air or find unspoiled land. You would be lucky to find fish in our streams, lakes and rivers--if you did find them---you could not eat them at all anymore--even though we still have many warnings about eating fish too much or at all in far too many waterways!!! You'd never be able to swim in any water other than a pool.

Would you want to drive a car?? Fly in an airplane??? Take a cruise on board a cruise ship???? It would be unsafe to do any of those things since the government stepped in to set basic safety standards for all these things since private companies--left to their own devices in the design, construction and operation of these machines didn't seem to care much for making them safe and reliable!!!

I betcha the answer to those questions would be a big fat NO in each case.

Of course---to be able to do things like make enough money to take a vacation, by a car or ever get enough time off to take a vacation would be moot since you wouldn't most likely be able to do so---unless you were lucky enough to have"been born to the manor rich!"

If you were just another schlub worker---your life would be pretty damn rotten!!

We'd all be still singing good Ol Tennesse Ernie Ford's song: "Sixteen Tons" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIfu2A0ezq0

That song might be kinda cool--but it talks of a day that companies didn't pay ya in the form of a check worth cash---you got paid in "script."

You lived in company housing--and out of your meager check for going down in the mines, working in the forges, coke furnaces, foundries or steel mills for hours at a time each day (with nary any time ever getting off) in horrendous working conditions. The company took out of your "pay"---the rent on your hovel, and the stuff you had to buy from the company store which was the only place to buy such goods most often since the company owned the town, lock, stock and barrel.

When you looked at your account---you owed the company more each and every week---sorta like the modern "check to cash" places we have today.

Instead of making money, saving it and improving your lot in life----your body was worked to death and you wound up being in ever deeper debt every work period.

Life was a Hobbsian hell--it was "nasty, brutish and short!"

To work towards getting a better deal from employers----many people fought, bled and died in so doing---just ask the descendants of those coal miners who died at the base of Blair Mountain in West Virginia when the powers that be, using government forces---opened fire on the miners in the "worst series of battles on American soil since the end of the Civil War."

http://www.wvculture.org/history/minewars.html

The "Mingo County Mine Wars" were not the only "battles" that took place between "the workers" and "the owners" of companies-----it took hard efforts to make better working conditions in every industry from the mines, to auto manufacturing, textile mills and the factories that made clothing.

The powers that be who owned the mines and other companies--fought tooth and nail to prevent workers from getting a fair shake--and in many cases--the government helped to maintain the status quo but finally---things turned around and the government slowly began to act in the best interests of "the common man" over the elites.


Life without government---FRACK THAT--NO FRACKIN' WAY!!!!!

Sorry to be so long with this post---but this is one of those cases---a comment is made that I obviously do not agree with--and I just hate to let such comments stand without rebuttal.

Once again--this is not one of those "sound bite" issues that are easily or quickly discussed.

Like I said at the top of the page--this ramble is not personal---I was merely making a case, in as strong a fashion possible, for the position I hold regarding the subject that Pasadena brought up.

[niftyshellshock]

Government is the lease efficient way to do most things. Once you accept this idea, you ask yourself why you want the government in charge of anything.

Pasadenacpl

RON PAUL! RON PAUL!
: roll eyes :

[darkeyes]

Now.. bak 2 healthcare.. correct me if me is rong.but is the christian way not them that hav helpin out them that don? Is it not looked on as nice thing 2 do..hav lots spend sum of it out them who r less fortrunate than yasel... is it not looked on as a gud thing that peeps wiv loads..spend a lil 2 help out them that don hav owt?

So lets look at healthcare..an the daft sods who r not prepared 2 pay a lil in2 a pot 2 help ther whole nation hav decent healthcare..an mos of all those who hav nowt..or at least hav less.. course them that r poor r scum aint they? Lazy sods who do nowt 2 help themselves an ther babs an ther kin.. who liv on welfare an r prepared nerv 2 lift a finga 2 betta themselves..a lil illusion a course..nice myth spread by the right 2 do down the poor an depict em as scum..

Fact that so many think that the poor r lazy, scum an worth nowt, peeps who will do nowt 2 betta themsels is a scandalous misrepresentation a reality..ther r lazy sods in the poor sure..but equally ther r lazy sods in the rich.. the middle classes who enjoy ther wealth an don give a poop bout ne 1 who is less weall of than themsels..who think indeed that such peeps r scum...

Wen me listens 2 or hears that peeps r nev prepared 2 dip inta ther own income 2 help out the less well off then me gets irate an downrite bitchy...wen me hears peeps say that they r not preparered 2 help them wiv less than othas.. me gets rite ratty... cos peeps that say that jus don wanna b part a a society wich has true compassion an feelin for the less well off.. no society will eva run properly wivout the betta off helpin out an givin more than the poor... it mus b like that if only 2 prevent a total humanitarian disasta.. ther will always b those that giv more..ther will always b those who r able 2 give more... an ne who grudge an refuse 2 contribute more who hav more than they contribute..deserve 2 b called scum... much more than those who in fact they call scum.

For ne society 2 run smoothly ther mus b a contribution from those with as well as those wivout.. those with by the very nature of the fact that they have more to offer mus play ther part..an do ther bit.. for ne society 2 run smoothly, capitalist, socialist or whateva, the wealthy hav a duty 2 contribute more per capita than the poor... this is particularly so in health care...an ne selfish gett that argues wiv that point deserves nowt but the condemnation of not only the poor but his or her peers..

This a Christmas time..now.. am not a person who believes in Jesus as bein a son a God.. but thats a no consequence..jus ask thisa peeps who seem 2 grudge payin ther contribution 2 a national health care scheme.. those whio clain 2 b christian in ne case... jus wot wd ur saviour say bout ur mean spirited an shitty attitude.. an ifyas not religious fine.. don believe in Jesus.. thats ok an all.. but how dus it feel 2 b a nasty miserable selfish an mean shitebag?

Happt Christmas 2 all and a Happy New Year!

[tenni]

So, what are the US citizens getting for their present costs being paid for the US healthcare?

The Organisation for Economic and Co-operation and Development [OECD] released the “OECD Health Data 2009” report which compares the health care statistics across OECD countries.

1/ on a per capita basis, the U.S. spent the highest with a total of $7,290 which is two-and-half times the OECD average. More money is spent to US healthcare insurance companies on non medical applications (overhead, executive salaries, bureaucracy etc.) rather than to each person insured actual health needs(operations, xrays, doctor appointments, doctor salaries, etc.) when compared to other countries with a universal health care system. (I mean really....why would a private system bother if they can not make a really good income from offering the service?...:) As someone is arguing private health care is not a charity...not even a non profit based system..It is there to make the big bucks) Now this higher cost is being paid with 30% of your citizens uninsured and 60% of your citizens under insured or improperly insured.)

2/ Life expectancy in the US is lower when compared with Japan, Switzerland, Canada and Australia. All of these countries spend less on healthcare and offer it through a government paid system. The USA's life expectancy lags 42nd in the world, after most rich nations.


3/ Infant mortality rates in the US is higher than most OECD countries. (in 2006, 6.7 deaths per live birth in US compared to 4.7 outside)

http://seekingalpha.com/article/146992-comparing-u-s-healthcare-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

4/ Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

5/ A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.[19]

The basis of the difference seems to be the concept in the US that each person is responsible for themselves (individualism). The rest of the G8 countries have a government that believes in the collective good of ALL of the citizens by providing universal health care to some degree much more efficiently through taxes.

[elian]

The funny thing is that in the US it seems that most of the charity work IS done by religious organizations - generally speaking for profit corporations only support charity for the perceived marketing value of good will.

Right now I thinking of a hypothetical parallel between for profit health care and a for-profit fire department. I'm only going to put out fires in large commercial properties where I know that the owners have very deep pockets so I can apply high profit margins.

Insurance is interesting business - one could argue that it nearly crosses the line into oligopolistic behavior.

There are a LOT of baby boomers going to be retiring in the US. I was wondering how GM was going to pull off not having to pay all those retirement pensions. Oh wait, gee the company is bankrupt, what's that you say - we have to fire all the workers?

Oh but wait, there's still demand for the cars? Let's hire back all new employees with no vesting in the company and pay them no benefits

All I can tell you is that I don't want to be 80 years old and having to work at WAL*MART to afford my prescriptions. If you all think that the for profit company you work for gives a crap..well actually you might be right because some of them take out an insurance policy on you so they profit in the event of your death.

What pisses me off is that we can fight over this crap, all the while Hillary Clinton takes a few billion dollars worth of cash over to Israel, no questions asked and says "Oh gee, we're sorry you blew up your OWN COUNTRY, here have some AMERICAN MONEY. The dollar isn't worth as much anymore so we gave you TWO briefcases instead.."

It's a very complex issue, but in this case I am thinking that a single payer option to compete with private insurance is good.

After the tenures of Messrs. Cheney and Bush it seems like the only rallying point the Republican party can come up with now is simply screaming "NO" as loud as they can for as long as they can. It's all fine and good if you already HAVE insurance but once you don't have it, things look kinda different on the other side of the fence.

I wouldn't worry too much about the US becoming a "socialist state" I have no doubt that healthcare reform will pass in the US, and I have no doubt that the interests of private insurers will be "well represented". They have a lot more funding, time and political power than I do.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Oh Lord...dont even get me started on Healthcare in America. Its so hard nowdays to Find a healthcare professional that will Take anyone of low income status, let alone give them the same care and benefits that they would give someone who was well to do. Those of us on disability do Not recieve the same type of medical care as someone who has a good job and good health insurance. I've seen it, felt it, and am experiancing it right now.

If you dont have a Prime Insurance you are shuffled off to a place where the Doctors and nurses arent the most top notch, and the care they give you is Lousy. And, in some places, the conditions arent the best in the world. I was refered by the ER to a supposed women's clinic downtown, and decided to visit it first and do any necessary paperwork early. (I like to check out places before an appointment) I walked into the shabby looking building, and say that it was run down and none too clean. I approached the desk and saw that some of the people were raggedy and not much cleaner than the facility. A small rat trotted across the carpet and No Body seemed to notice!!!
(Granted, the rat had to come in out of the cold too, but I mean, Damn!)

I went to the desk where a very disinterested chick says "Yeah? Can I help you?"

I promptly cancelled the appoinment time that I was going to have, and marched my sick ass right out of there!

It took me almost a month to find a proper Dr that would accept a Medi-cal coupon from the state, and I am Still waiting for an appt from the Gynocologist, fer God's sakes. And I'm still being told "If your bleeding gets bad, get to an ER immediately"
Yeah right. I if I go into the ER and they ask what time of medical insurance/coverage I have and I say "State coupon-C" their faces fall and they go "Oh..ok" and your paperwork goes off to the side for like 2 hours....
Healthcare in America Sucks....If you are older and dont have the top of the line Insurance, or have big bucks. Its that simple.:disgust:
Cat in waiting

[tenni]

Pasadenacpl

How does having everyone covered by healthcare make it worse? How does increasing the life expectancy of all citizens make it worse?

If the US rates the lowest in quality of healthcare, then the increase is worth it except for the people like yourself who are complaining about their rates going up.

If the US has 30% of its citizens without healthcare and 60% underinsured or at risk of getting cut off their health care plan, then perhaps the increase is worth it.

You seem against anything that will improve the health of everyone in your society. Your words are not opposing for profit health insurers but against something to benefit all of your citizens. You words seem to support private health providers and are willing to pay excess money so that the companies may make a profit. It seems illogical to want to pay to a for profit company something that a non profit company will provide cheaper? The argument that the universal healthcare systems are a waste of money and cost inefficient are proven false.

Your words are about costs and not about injustice to your fellow citizens. This comment about socialism is such a funny old chestnut from people who really seem selfish, greedy and elitist. Your country was based upon the language of equality. Are you opposed to equality and your constitution?

As far as a total trillion dollar healthcare cost over ten years, where are your complaints about spending much more than that by invading Iraq and Afghanistan? The estimate cost of occupying Iraq alone was 3 trillion dollars as of 2008. Three trillion in five years and no complaint. That does not include the cost of occupying Afghanistan. That includes money costs and not the life of your citizens who were killed or injured. Apparently, just the cost of healthcare for injured military involved with Iraq cost one half a trillion dollars alone by 2008. That doesn't include the future costs over the next ten years plus. Were you writing to your Senator and Congressman complaining about those trillions over the past seven years?

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-03-18/news/17168215_1_war-s-price-tag-war-cost-care-for-iraq-war


Tenni,

If the national healthcare bill would lower our costs, I would be for it. But, this bill will raise our costs. It is flawed legislation.

We are currently spending about 17% of our GNP. This bill will take us to about 21%. It is adding a trillion dollars to our debt. And, it is not expected to lower our individual contributions, in fact it is expected to raise it by about 5%. THIS PARTICULAR healthcare bill does not fix anything.

You will not get any argument from me that what we currently have is broken. You will, however, get me opposing anything that makes it worse. And this is worse. I don't oppose it solely because it's national healthcare. I am against anything that is socialist, to be sure. But even more importantly, I oppose anything that makes things worse.

This is worse.

Pasadenacpl

[elian]

With an unprecedented number of people retiring, and an unprecedented number of people living much longer I think our costs are going to go up here in the US no matter which way we decide.

It's hard to deny the feeling of entitlement you get when you work hard for something and feel like you ought to be rewarded, but there are a lot of people who work hard every day just to simply survive. Do those people deserve a chance to live a healthy life?

As the former president thanked our vets for their military service he simultaneously cut health benefits for them as well. I'm not a veteran, but I believe the least we can do for those who choose to serve their country is to make sure their medical needs are met when they return.

As I sit here, with my time off work, and my decent house, decent car, nice computer, fast internet, so much food that I have to actually spend money (or so advertisers say) to work off those extra pounds I have to wonder when having enough is enough.

It seems to me that neither Adam Smith, nor Karl Marx really ever took into account ALL of the aspects of human behavior when they espoused their respective philosophies.

Pure capitalism doesn't work because when you treat human beings as just another market commodity bad things happen to the society as a whole. Whether or not you feel those things depends on how insulated from the rest of society you are through money, power and influence.

Pure socialism doesn't work either because it doesn't take into account lazy sonn-a-bisches who would rather think up witty cons or sit back and do nothing instead of work for the "glory of the commune".

Consumerism and ego continue to amaze me. Incidents of workplace and school violence still happen here in the US but yet when one of these incidents happen we all look around at each other dumbfounded and dazed as though we don't know what could've possibly been the cause. You know what happened? We didn't put people first.

Teachers and social workers have consistently one of the lowest paid salaries in the US, football players and celebrities (people who are marketable?) on the other hand make millions of dollars. In the eyes of society we prefer to reward the "successful" and as much as possible ignore those who are not.

What I see is polarization, those who have, those who don't. Not every person but lots of them who are scared and selfish. We keep our heads stuck in the sand hoping no one will notice, "as long as it doesn't happen to me"

Sorry for ranting - It's a beautiful sunny day outside and I think it's time to go out into the real world and live life.

[Karasel]

Never mind that some of us don't want bureaucrats involved in our private health decisions.

Pasadenacpl

We already do have bureaucrats involved in our private health decisions.

[tenni]

I don't. Don't know where you go for your health care. I go to a doctor, and we decide what I need, and we do it. No government employees involved.

Pasadenacpl


Would you please expand upon the type of healthcare that you have?
Please give more details.

1/ If it is you and your doctor deciding what you need, who pays for it?

2/ Do you personally pay and then submit a bill to your healthcare provider?

3/Can your healthcare insurance company say no payment or a limit to what you and the doctor want to do?

4/Does your healthcare provider have to agree to what the doctor suggests?

5/Are there limits on spending on one type of illness before you are cut off?

6/ How does the patient and the doctor differ in deciding what to do from a patient and doctor in a universal healthcare system?

[tenni]

Thanks Pasadenacpl

1/ When my doctor and I decide what I need, I pay for nothing as far as my visit to the doctors' offices, medical treatment in hospitals(operations etc.), medical tests including MRI etc.
If you have an operation that costs $10 000 you pay $2 000. I pay nothing. I do have to pay for drugs (outside of a hospital), some extended benefits and dental care. Like you, I have private coverage for drugs and extended health benefits. That includes, chiropractic, vision care(minus seeing a medical doctor for any vision care which is covered by my provincial health care plan-government), drugs and other things that may vary depending upon what extended health care plan. Not all procedures are covered by our healthcare and that is often cosmetic surgery. Obesity operations are covered as they are a health risk by medical doctors in my province.

2/ Again, my universal health care pays for what is predetermined to be covered by it. Extended health benefits payments are done in a few different ways depending upon which insurance that you have. I actually, can have drugs nearly completely covered if I order in 3 month supply. I do that over the internet as the prescription has been filed There are pharmacy services and you look for the lowest one if you are smart. Generic drugs are common and often a doctor simply writes the prescription in the generic term. You get the same drug. Canada has provided many US citizens with generic drugs that your drug industry is preventing from being offered over your way...(uh...a few manipulative lies about the quality just to keep things under control of drug companies...I understand. Generally,drugs and dental costs have about 20% payment by the patient but it really varies. Again, nothing is paid for what is covered by the universal healthcare.

3/ No approved procedure by the provincial health care system may be denied. Where there has been problems in the recent past is that certain hospitals and specialists are limited as to the maximum expenses that they may have paid for in a fiscal year. That means that the patient must go to another hospital or doctor in some rare cases. I've never known anyone to be caught in the horrible situation. Again, if the patient needs to travel outside their region or country, the health care system pays for the procedure AND the travel. You may go to as many doctors for a second opinion but I'd bet that there would be some resistence for 8th and 9th opinions...I've not heard of such a thing though. The above situation seems fixed for now. When there was a conservative government provincially there were such problems as the government tried to cut back on healthcare expenses. The federal government has a role in that it sets certain country wide standards and transfer payments to pay for them.

4/ Again, if there is an exclusion for a certain procedure, the patient must pay but I've not heard of that every happening. The arguments come up about new procedures, medications and type of illness (such as gender operations) being paid. That is all decided and known by doctors and the public well in advance. Treatment for autistic children although not technically a medical procedure has been controversial recently. I'm not sure if the money came from healthcare or some other government agency.

5/ As mentioned above, there is no limit per patient. However, experimental treatments such as some forms of cancer treatment may not be approved. I heard of one incident where a very expensive experimental cancer drug was limited for one patient. The medical advisors set the number of treatments thought to be needed. If you need more then you must pay. This is rarely a problem from what I can tell. There are kinks in decisions about what will be covered in both universal and for profit healthcare systems.

6/ No, you are under a misunderstanding. No government employee decides whether you receive a procedure under Canadian healthcare. What is covered is all predetermined by qualified medical doctors acting as advisors. There are wait times that are greater than in the US for those who are rich enough to pay for private health care. There has been problems in some areas but there has also been laws passed to set maximum wait times. Again, doctors decide how long that wait time is and not a non medical person. Those doctors who decide are paid of course for their services. In some respects, all Canadian doctors are government employees. As doctors they make the medical decisions. The government decides how much of the entire budget will go to healthcare to cover the needs of the citizens.

As far as electronic health records, this is the new method as it is in all types of services. You are probably fighting a losing battle there...lol
There have been a few bad glitches here recently over how the provincial system is being developed. Wasted money of bad decisions. These mistakes and wasted spending were found out by the government arms length auditor general. This person is there to check up and report publicly wasted expenditures and show flaws in all goverment systems including health care. When I go to see my doctor now, he does everything electronically. He comes in to the room with his laptop. It is recorded in his system. I go to the desk to pick up any prescriptions. He no longer writes them. The same electronic system is used at the pharmacy to insure safety. The linking of electronic records helps hospitals but yes, I agree that it can be frightening if such personal information goes to the wrong place. Don't we all have similar concerns about all data collected by government agencies? That's life as we enter 2010....lol




Would you please expand upon the type of healthcare that you have?
Please give more details.

1/ If it is you and your doctor deciding what you need, who pays for it?

The insurance pays for most of it. I pay about 20%.

2/ Do you personally pay and then submit a bill to your healthcare provider?

I pay my 20% and then they pay the rest.

3/Can our healthcare insurance company say no payment or a limit to what you and the doctor want to do?

I suppose they can. It has never happened to me personally.

4/Does your healthcare provider have to agree to what the doctor suggests?

Yes. Unless it falls under something that is an exclusion, and then they told me up front that they would not be paying for that (example: anything to do with obesity, which is utterly stupid IMHO).

As long as it's not a listed exclusion, they have no choice but to cover it.

5/Are there limits on spending on one type of illness before you are cut off?

I believe it's something like 150k as the limit on one thing (except ICU services where there is no limit). With a 500k yearly cap.

6/ How does the patient and the doctor differ in deciding what to do from a patient in a universal healthcare system?

Well, it differs quite a bit. In a universal system, government employees decide whether I need a procedure or not. We are already seeing the first stages of this with Tom Delay's system requiring doctors to electronically file your medical records.

Don't know about you, but I don't want the government to have my medical records. I don't want them involved in my life more than is absolutely needed. I don't want them to have your records either, or anyone's . Too much harm can become our nation by having those records at the hands of bureaucrats, some of whom just might be willing to misuse that information.

Again...read Harrison Bergeron. This is where we're headed.

Pasadenacpl

[tenni]

Who do you hold responsible for this failure?

Will not all citizens be covered? That in itself is a victory. Sad that it doesn't work for you as best as you would like it. Do you have auditor generals watching over government expenditures and publicly reporting on what wastes that they find?



Tenni,

Not a single one of the benefits you list will be true under the proposed system here. It won't work the way it works in Canada. Not even close.

Like I said. This 'reform' makes it worse. It does not cover anyone. It is not universal. It is not going to save anyone money. It will, in fact, be a money pit. It will not help the poor, and people, even more people, will still be 'underinsured'.

It forces us to purchase insurance out of our own pockets. It makes not having insurance (whether you can afford it or not) a crime. It has taken what you see as a right, and turned it into an obligation. It does not increase competition (the only thing that keeps costs down). In fact, it provides no incentive for insurance companies to do anything, and yet ensures that they will be receiving millions of new customers *(customers they did nothing to get). The only people this 'reform' helps is insurance companies.

This is not the reform you are looking for.

Pasadenacpl

[elian]

I don't. Don't know where you go for your health care. I go to a doctor, and we decide what I need, and we do it. No government employees involved.

Pasadenacpl

My mother was contnuously having problems with her nerves and circulation leading to symptom of pain in her back and legs if she walked for more than 30 minutes or so. She got the spinal injections allowed for by the insurance company, changed her diet, started exercising for at least a few months but that treatment didn't work.

She and her DOCTOR decided that lipsuction to remove the extra weight she was carrying since my birth would be preferable to spinal surgery. She submitted a claim to the insurance company to have the surgery covered - her claim was denied by the insurance company.

She took out a personal loan and had the surgery done anyway - she can now walk pain-free. She is continuing her regimen of exercise and diet.

Just for the record for big civil works like dams and levees, I would rather have the big ol' inefficient government build my flood protection then a private for-profit contractor who is looking to save a few bucks by using the "wrong" concrete mix or a little less rebar. Government does have a place in our society.

[AdamKadmon43]

Just for the record for big civil works like dams and levees, I would rather have the big ol' inefficient government build my flood protection then a private for-profit contractor who is looking to save a few bucks by using the "wrong" concrete mix or a little less rebar. Government does have a place in our society.

Yeah.... that sure worked real well in New Orleans, didn't it... The Army Corps of Engineers built all the levees and flood protection there.

[AdamKadmon43]

The American people don't want this. So, should they have something forced upon them that they don't want?



Because it is being doing done by people with good intentions.... and I suspect that just about much harm is done by "good intentions" as is ever done by bad ones.

And you might just as well not waste your time in discussions with a bunch of whacked-out Socialists who have gotten their collective heads parked so far up their collective idealistic butts that there is little hope of ever extracting them. They mean well.... but they are mostly out of touch with reality.

[darkeyes]

I don't believe this is being pushed forward by people with good intentions. I believe that it is being pushed forward by people who know better who use people with good intentions to be their mouth pieces.

This is the problem with many social/environmental problems. There are true believers out there, and those people are used by politicians who have no actual interest in solving anything.

Pasadenacpl

For jus bout the 1st time in this thread..me agrees wivya 100% hun... is sad..but soooo true...:(

[Hephaestion]

1) The UK NHS has become inefficient, untrustworthy, and unevenly avaliable.

2) The privitised public utilitites in the UK have become inefficient and wasteful

3) The privitised transport systems in the UK have become dangerous and inefficient

In all three cases it has been the result of adopting American style free market practices in which goverment participation and control has receded.

The financial sector has claimed to be the paragon of government free, market leadership and performance - rubbish - as has been demonstrated.

[AdamKadmon43]

I don't believe this is being pushed forward by people with good intentions. I believe that it is being pushed forward by people who know better who use people with good intentions to be their mouth pieces.

This is the problem with many social/environmental problems. There are true believers out there, and those people are used by politicians who have no actual interest in solving anything.

Pasadenacpl

I think you might be right......... Unfortunately.

[darkeyes]

Enforced charity, especially enforced charity that is fiscally irresponsible, is not charity at all. Charity is personal, and private and not done by force. The bible is rather silent on the issue of governmentally funded and run charity.

I find it hilarious that you use such common tripe as this. That anyone who opposes national healthcare is just mean. Wow. Don't let the economic issues get in the way. Ignore that this will cost our nation in ways that will bankrupt it. Never mind that some of us don't want bureaucrats involved in our private health decisions. No, no. Valid reasons to oppose it must be ignored. We're just mean and don't want to help people. :rolleyes:

Pasadenacpl

Is me talkin bout charity??? Is odd that lotsa peeps who donate lotsa money 2 charity 2 help the poor an less well off grudge it wen the state tells em its necessary..but they odd bods... yep.. charity is bout a cause or causes.. taxation an contributin 2 the welfare an well bein of all is wetha ya likes it or not a necessity..them that hav shud do ther bit an coff up 2 help them that hav not an r unable 2..an them that hav an grudge contributin r indeed a buncha meanies, selfish, unpleasant an odious..

Fact is that in ne society the betta off pay more..as they shud.. for all sortsa things.. them that hav lil or nowt don hav it 2 spend.. for ne society 2 run smoothly, 2 b a society wich in ne way is worth livin in... that is how it shud b..

Now hun..lemme telya summat wich ya may or may not like...ur choice.. am a nice middle class girl, livin wiv anotha nice middle class girl wiv 2 reely nice middle class kids we adore.. me earns a bit over summat like 12k more the national avge wage..me partner a bloody site moren me.. in a year or 2 me own pay will b sumwer round bout same as me partner.. if 'ers stays same..wich me doubts.. lil smarty pants she.. me attitudes an me upbringin r not a the class peeps tell me me belongs 2.. am workin class in attitude..me dad brought me up that way..an he not poor eitha..but wos 1ce.. sheer graft got 'im wer 'e is..an so me an me bro an sisr r wer we r..sheer graft an the attitudes a 'is class got im an us wer we r.. an the attitudes a 'is class r that peeps cooperate an pay ther dues..they help them less well off than themsels... yea..even wivin such peeps ther r poor bloody poor an shit poor..as well as peeps who r reasonably well off... so me an me bro an sis wer brot up that we shud nev grudge owt for those who our taxes help... wiv regard 2 payin for a health service wich we r lukky 2 hav... an it qaint as bad as u seem 2 hav been told it is.. toldya..saved me life twice for starters..,, its insurance gainst gettin sick.. an if u cant c that me pities ya..cos it far less costly than if me paid insurance for private health care wich is ARGUABLY betta than that provided by the state!!!! So much for ya claim that it cant b done by the public sector as cheaply as private... tell that 2 Canadians, Brits, Germans, French, Spaniards, Dutch, Belgians, Australians, New Zealanders, Italians, greeks etc etc etc etc etc...

Wos brought up 2 b a part a society.. a human bein ...1 who cares bout all human beins... an so me is happy 2 pay the tax rates me dus.. the National Insurance contribs me dus... cos the health service wich those taxes pay for is amazin..yea probs exist..an lotsa them an all.. but if ne party who ev hopes 2 aspire 2 power in this country..or ne a the countries me mentioned earlier...had a policy 2 abolish the NHS or equivelant..they wud die in ballot box.. an b slaughtered.. an 2 rite an all..

Ya may sit on ya lil chair hun an think yas payin for othas..butyas not..wotyas payin for is the future health an well bein a ya children an grandchildren.. they may or may not ev hav wealth.. they may or may not ev b poor.. but if they r poor for woteva reason..that public health service will prob b the only thing wich keeps 'em healthy.. an if that health service is nev provided..then hun..ur children, ur grandchildren..shud they..or indeed u ev fall on hard times an so cant afford or obtain private health care..they will curse ya..an hun...soz 2 say..ya will deserve that curse... cos u hun..shud they ev need healthcare, u will hav condemned 'em 2 a lifetime a misery an ill health... that hun..is mean...

[tenni]

It is my understanding that it has been the insurance companies who have created an erroneous perception in many US citizens about healthcare.(that and the kind such as Glen Beck who admits to not being a journalist but a commentator. Who is paying Beck to spread erroneous beliefs?) It is my understanding that the insurance companies have "bought" most Republican and several Democrats by donating to their election funds etc. The insurance lobbists have created this present status of the US healthcare reform. Whether it is the politicians or something more dark and devious creating this situation, I don't know. Is it the politicians who should be blamed for taking campaign donations with too many strings or a flaw in the election campaign laws?



I don't believe this is being pushed forward by people with good intentions. I believe that it is being pushed forward by people who know better who use people with good intentions to be their mouth pieces.

This is the problem with many social/environmental problems. There are true believers out there, and those people are used by politicians who have no actual interest in solving anything.

Pasadenacpl

[12voltman59]

We in the US are supposed to be, as a country, such lovers of life---but it does seem----when it comes to things like going to war---for any reason, at any time and any place---our leaders--and most Americans say: "Go for it--got to war and we don't care how much it costs!!"

Our Congress basically writes a blank check for our wars----but when we try to do something like provide health care or any other "social" good----those same people that don't have any problem with us spending hundreds of billions or now---many trillions on warmaking---but when you want to spend a fraction of what was spent on war for something like health care---their response is: "What---we don't have enough money for that--do you think we are made of money??? Sorry--we can't do it!!"

[darkeyes]

We in the US are supposed to be, as a country, such lovers of life---but it does seem----when it comes to things like going to war---for any reason, at any time and any place---our leaders--and most Americans say: "Go for it--got to war and we don't care how much it costs!!"

Our Congress basically writes a blank check for our wars----but when we try to do something like provide health care or any other "social" good----those same people that don't have any problem with us spending hundreds of billions or now---many trillions on warmaking---but when you want to spend a fraction of what was spent on war for something like health care---their response is: "What---we don't have enough money for that--do you think we are made of money??? Sorry--we can't do it!!"

...an ther Voltie me luffly..is prob the biggest truth ne 1 has brot out in this thread...:)

...lil question for the doubters...wot kills more 'mericans than ne thin else?? It not bloody war ne ways. Not by a long shot.... wud me b rong in sayin ill health an accidents a 1 kind or totha? Don think so sumhow...

[darkeyes]

...an ther Voltie me luffly..is prob the biggest truth ne 1 has brot out in this thread...:)

...lil question for the doubters...wot kills more 'mericans than ne thin else?? It not bloody war ne ways. Not by a long shot.... wud me b rong in sayin ill health an accidents a 1 kind or totha? Don think so sumhow.....an wile we on the subject a healthcare...wot kills an maims more 'mericans?? War or violent criminal activity since 1971? r otha areas a crim actvity wich claims lives... an lotsa them an all... but lets jus stik at the violent stuff huh??? Interestin.. innit? All sortsa questions arise ther .....

[AdamKadmon43]

..an wile we on the subject a healthcare...wot kills an maims more 'mericans?? War or violent criminal activity since 1971? r otha areas a crim actvity wich claims lives... an lotsa them an all... but lets jus stik at the violent stuff huh??? Interestin.. innit? All sortsa questions arise ther .....

I have not the slightest notion what you are trying to say.... since you generally don't make much sense to me.

However, I shall make some sort of guess and try to provide a response to it.

I do not know what kills and maims most "mericans"...... But I am reasonably certain that what has, historically, killed and mained most Europeans is their bloody cultural and religious hatred of each other. So they seem to be in a poor position for handing out advice and criticism.

[goldenfinger]

Would you please expand upon the type of healthcare that you have?
Please give more details.

1/ If it is you and your doctor deciding what you need, who pays for it?

The insurance pays for most of it. I pay about 20%.

2/ Do you personally pay and then submit a bill to your healthcare provider?

I pay my 20% and then they pay the rest.

3/Can our healthcare insurance company say no payment or a limit to what you and the doctor want to do?

I suppose they can. It has never happened to me personally.

4/Does your healthcare provider have to agree to what the doctor suggests?

Yes. Unless it falls under something that is an exclusion, and then they told me up front that they would not be paying for that (example: anything to do with obesity, which is utterly stupid IMHO).

As long as it's not a listed exclusion, they have no choice but to cover it.

5/Are there limits on spending on one type of illness before you are cut off?

I believe it's something like 150k as the limit on one thing (except ICU services where there is no limit). With a 500k yearly cap.

6/ How does the patient and the doctor differ in deciding what to do from a patient in a universal healthcare system?

Well, it differs quite a bit. In a universal system, government employees decide whether I need a procedure or not. We are already seeing the first stages of this with Tom Delay's system requiring doctors to electronically file your medical records.

Don't know about you, but I don't want the government to have my medical records. I don't want them involved in my life more than is absolutely needed. I don't want them to have your records either, or anyone's . Too much harm can become our nation by having those records at the hands of bureaucrats, some of whom just might be willing to misuse that information.

Again...read Harrison Bergeron. This is where we're headed.

Pasadenacpl

Pasadena,you may still be in good health, but when the day comes when you have to look for 20% of $1M to fight "C" then where are you going to find $200.000, NOBODY knows how their health will be in 10-20 years time.You think you will always have a job to pay for your insurance your wrong. Many people have, through no fault of their own, found them self in such a situation. Go ahead, sign a paper that you will Never seek help from public health care, no matter how bad your situation may one day get.
Pasadena, you need to get over the cold war brain washing you suffer from.

You do NOT have right to health insurance.
You DO have the right to bare arms.
Hmmm.
Pasadena, people did know about all this before the last election, so to claim that all people people don't want health care is just wrong. The voted for it.

[darkeyes]

I have not the slightest notion what you are trying to say.... since you generally don't make much sense to me.

However, I shall make some sort of guess and try to provide a response to it.

I do not know what kills and maims most "mericans"...... But I am reasonably certain that what has, historically, killed and mained most Europeans is their bloody cultural and religious hatred of each other. So they seem to be in a poor position for handing out advice and criticism.

Sumhow hun ..me thinksya missed the point....the US is a yung nation... but correct me is me is rong... r u an most ya compatriots not descended from Euroopeans?? An since ya inception correction me if me is rong..but has not ur nation not invoilved itsel wiv wars..an massacres an slaughters caused by racial hatred?? Religion? O yeah an culture?? Readya history babe..cos me has..an fact that bthe US is a new nation dusn mean it is innocent a the same violence an disgustin crap Europe has..less mayb..but as a yung country wotya expect? But think on this..UR ancestors r as guilty as mine for the sins a Europe...jus as my parents r as innocent a the sins a Europe as u r.. for the sins a the US as ur...an if u don undastand it fine... jus think bout it for a few days... mayb sum sense will cum inta ya lil bonce...

As a pacifist..as a human bein who cares an luffs otha human beins..who dus not believe she cud ev kill anotha human bein..who cares for ALL life on this planet.. animal an veggie.. an works an livs 2 do wot she can 2for the benefit of all.. will NOT accept ne shit from the likes a u on how the world shud b..an shit from u bout 'er nation an continent..wen ur nation an continent is pretty much shaped by an influenced by the nation an continent in wich I liv... an believe me...am not proud a that...my nation an continent hav much a wich they shud b ashamed..fact that in last haff century that self same continent has been tryin 2 get 2 getha 2 avoid makin the mistakes a the past ya shudn slag it off for. Am not me luffly quite so sure ur nation has learned those self same lessons...

Am afraid Adam dearest...ur parta the world for all its short history...isn provin itsel that much betta than mine.. readya own country's history...mayb then ya will learn summat...

..and finally, I make no apologies for the way I often speak in .com. It is my way and if u were a little less dim and a little more imaginative, and a bit more accepting of the ways of others, then maybe you would understand the differences between people!!!

[Canticle]

Sumhow hun ..me thinksya missed the point....the US is a yung nation... but correct me is me is rong... r u an most ya compatriots not descended from Euroopeans?? An since ya inception correction me if me is rong..but has not ur nation not invoilved itsel wiv wars..an massacres an slaughters caused by racial hatred?? Religion? O yeah an culture?? Readya history babe..cos me has..an fact that bthe US is a new nation dusn mean it is innocent a the same violence an disgustin crap Europe has..less mayb..but as a yung country wotya expect? But think on this..UR ancestors r as guilty as mine for the sins a Europe...jus as my parents r as innocent a the sins a Europe as u r.. for the sins a the US as ur...an if u don undastand it fine... jus think bout it for a few days... mayb sum sense will cum inta ya lil bonce...

As a pacifist..as a human bein who cares an luffs otha human beins..who dus not believe she cud ev kill anotha human bein..who cares for ALL life on this planet.. animal an veggie.. an works an livs 2 do wot she can 2for the benefit of all.. will NOT accept ne shit from the likes a u on how the world shud b..an shit from u bout 'er nation an continent..wen ur nation an continent is pretty much shaped by an influenced by the nation an continent in wich I liv... an believe me...am not proud a that...my nation an continent hav much a wich they shud b ashamed..fact that in last haff century that self same continent has been tryin 2 get 2 getha 2 avoid makin the mistakes a the past ya shudn slag it off for. Am not me luffly quite so sure ur nation has learned those self same lessons...

Am afraid Adam dearest...ur parta the world for all its short history...isn provin itsel that much betta than mine.. readya own country's history...mayb then ya will learn summat...

..and finally, I make no apologies for the way I often speak in .com. It is my way and if u were a little less dim and a little more imaginative, and a bit more accepting of the ways of others, then maybe you would understand the differences between people!!!

Very, very nicely put and that is all I dare say. :bigrin:

[darkeyes]

Pasadena,you may still be in good health, but when the day comes when you have to look for 20% of $1M to fight "C" then where are you going to find $200.000, NOBODY knows how their health will be in 10-20 years time.You think you will always have a job to pay for your insurance your wrong. Many people have, through no fault of their own, found them self in such a situation. Go ahead, sign a paper that you will Never seek help from public health care, no matter how bad your situation may one day get.
Pasadena, you need to get over the cold war brain washing you suffer from.

You do NOT have right to health insurance.
You DO have the right to bare arms.
Hmmm.
Pasadena, people did know about all this before the last election, so to claim that all people people don't want health care is just wrong. The voted for it.

Sweetie...on this issue jus don think 'is lil grey cells work 2 cleva... am I wrong in thinkin getts like 'im r selfish? Mean? Not nice? Naaa.... don think so...jus hope the day don cum wen..cos 'e an 'is kind hav killed ne kinda decent healthcare in the US... 'e finds 'imsel skint..wiv no health insurance and no job....an has nower 2 go 2 get 'imsel looked afta...

[tenni]

But,...but darkeyes...I lay out the details and Voltie gets the credit for summarizing! :cool:

* picks up his pants and puts them back on...leaves the room scratching his head....jokingly :bigrin:




...an ther Voltie me luffly..is prob the biggest truth ne 1 has brot out in this thread...:)

...lil question for the doubters...wot kills more 'mericans than ne thin else?? It not bloody war ne ways. Not by a long shot.... wud me b rong in sayin ill health an accidents a 1 kind or totha? Don think so sumhow...

[AdamKadmon43]

Sumhow hun ..me thinksya missed the point....the US is a yung nation... but correct me is me is rong... r u an most ya compatriots not descended from Euroopeans?? An since ya inception correction me if me is rong..but has not ur nation not invoilved itsel wiv wars..an massacres an slaughters caused by racial hatred?? Religion? O yeah an culture?? Readya history babe..cos me has..an fact that bthe US is a new nation dusn mean it is innocent a the same violence an disgustin crap Europe has..less mayb..but as a yung country wotya expect? But think on this..UR ancestors r as guilty as mine for the sins a Europe...jus as my parents r as innocent a the sins a Europe as u r.. for the sins a the US as ur...an if u don undastand it fine... jus think bout it for a few days... mayb sum sense will cum inta ya lil bonce...

As a pacifist..as a human bein who cares an luffs otha human beins..who dus not believe she cud ev kill anotha human bein..who cares for ALL life on this planet.. animal an veggie.. an works an livs 2 do wot she can 2for the benefit of all.. will NOT accept ne shit from the likes a u on how the world shud b..an shit from u bout 'er nation an continent..wen ur nation an continent is pretty much shaped by an influenced by the nation an continent in wich I liv... an believe me...am not proud a that...my nation an continent hav much a wich they shud b ashamed..fact that in last haff century that self same continent has been tryin 2 get 2 getha 2 avoid makin the mistakes a the past ya shudn slag it off for. Am not me luffly quite so sure ur nation has learned those self same lessons...

Am afraid Adam dearest...ur parta the world for all its short history...isn provin itsel that much betta than mine.. readya own country's history...mayb then ya will learn summat...

..and finally, I make no apologies for the way I often speak in .com. It is my way and if u were a little less dim and a little more imaginative, and a bit more accepting of the ways of others, then maybe you would understand the differences between people!!!

What did she say????

[tenni]

"Perhaps instead of touting homilies about rights and justice, we could stick with facts. That would be nice. "

The facts are there if you look beyond your border as far as healthcare being a right. I don't think that I read anything that you have written that proves that healthcare is not a right except that it is your opinion and desire to deny healthcare as a right.

If you examine other countries you find that most developed countries have some form of universal healthcare.(fact)

If you check the UN, you will find that access to healthcare is a principle that is recognized as a human right (fact)

Uh..what makes you think that your country is so freak'n good with facts?

Facts were made up and used by your former government.

Rights were denied to blacks, women and same sex couples. Just saying that it is not a right doesn't make it so. Look around the world. Times have changed and your beliefs are not generally supported about healthcare.

[elian]

Yes, it is sad that the original vision for the bill got distorted into the piece of crap that is currently under consideration but apparently such is life in today's Senate..if you want to pass anything into law it has to be loaded with a lot of special interest bullshnit.

[elian]

Quite right, the government is not in fact, building its own levees, but the inefficient management process you are railing against ensures that the contractor they employ does build the dam to the proper specifications. I understand that an extra level of management is expensive and makes things more cumbersome but in some cases it is justifiable.

Insurance companies may not be politicians but any big institution absolutely has bureaucracy. Look at the institutionalized policies on Wall Street .. none of the folks who work there seem to want to take any responsibility for their actions playing any role at all in the current financial crisis. They had influential folks at every level of government work to deregulate the finance industry in the name of "free enterprise" and when we have to step in to clean up the mess they still seem to want to continue on, business as usual.

I remember there was a time when you couldn't GET a mortgage in the US if you didn't have 20% down payment, period. Now all of the sudden they were handing out $500,000 to people who had absolutely no credit and expecting someone else to take all that risk?? Generally speaking people in finance aren't THAT stupid, so it must've been something else that was motivating them, like GREED.

Making sick people better isn't a very PROFITABLE business if you are the one paying for all of those medical procedures, so I have to wonder to my self .. why is a FOR-PROFIT organization the one deciding who will receive care? Sure, the doctor can recommend care, but the system revolves around money, no money to afford the procedure, no care. The gatekeeper of those funds for most people in the US are for-profit insurance companies who are in the business of betting on risk..not providing medical care.

If you are an insurance company, the only way you can make money is to bet that healthy people won't get sick, whenever the odds start to turn away from profitability they all yell foul. Government on the other hand, isn't in business to make money.


First, that was an insurance company...not a bureaucrat. My point stands.

Second, when contractors do a bad job, they don't get further jobs. In order to continue to get jobs, they have to provide high levels of service for the lowest price. That's how business works.

Your dams and levies, and even roads btw, are built by private businesses who are paid by the state/fed. Oh, except in Lousiana, where the state does it solely. Yeah. That worked out pretty well for them :rolleyes:

Pasadenacpl

[tenni]

Pasadenacpl
You have written a good amount of criticism and about your disappointment with the present legislation passed by your Senate. You have also given me the impression that you do not like the types of universal healthcare that some of us have in our countries.

"Here I will slightly agree. If we got the government out of the way, and stopped this ridiculous idea that employers should be paying for insurance, not only would people stop using insurance (which eliminates cost) but they would be able to save money and actually pay for doctor's services. This would, in turn, lower costs that the doctors charge as getting more money in the front door is better for business than waiting months for it to come in the back door from the insurance companies. Oh...that's probably not what you meant. "


If you had the power to make it so, what would you pass into law so that all of your citizens have affordable healthcare? How would it be paid for? How would it be determined what was covered and what was not covered? I'm not quite clear on the above quote from you? People would stop using insurance if employers didn't pay a share? Doctors would get paid faster if there was no insurance ?


btw
Your comment about "fixing" things with regards to equal rights commented on blacks and women and civil rights. However, you ignored the equal right to marry for same sex couples? Was that an accidental?....or intentional omission?:bigrin:

[tenni]

Thanks
I can not write that I agree with you but I appreciate your explanation.

I''l think about what your wrote for a bit. Maybe some others will comment.

[12voltman59]

Thanks
I can not write that I agree with you but I appreciate your explanation.

I''l think about what your wrote for a bit. Maybe some others will comment.

I have to agree with ya tenni---I don't accept Pasadena's viewpoint and he/she surely doesn't accept mine or yours--I do think that Pasadena puts way too much trust and faith in the "goodness" of private enterprise and "the free market"

What we have here with Pasadena--and ourselves--is vast difference in the way we view the world--and it seems----we are so far different in that respect--it is not possible for us to agree on most points, facts, etc.

The only real thing we can do--"is to agree to disagree."

We are not likely able to sway the other--all we can do is to present our respective views in as a respectful manner as possible and let it go at that.

[darkeyes]

Welfare is slavery. Universal healthcare is another form of welfare, and therefor...slavery.

And, for the record, I'm the 'he' portion of the couple.

Pasadenacpl

It is??? U try tellin that 2 300mill plus Europeans.. 20 plus mill Canadians..16 mill plus Australians.. 4 mill or so New Zealanders.. Think they may jus take issue wivya...it not perfect...leaves a lot 2 b desired not arguin..but the alternative...well.. don think that deserves even bein given a 2cd thot... Slavery?? Jeez... ya havn a clue hun..... seems ya don even hav a clue wot slavery is ifya think that.....:rolleyes:

[tenni]

Pasadenacpl

Facts are indisputable in your mind. In reality facts are often made up (ie WMD in Iraq said Colin Powell and he believed it cuz he was told that it was a fact.) and manipulated to suit the purpose of one perspective or another. However you seem to have missed a few facts and distorted your presentation of facts.

Fact
The US has the most expensive healthcare system compared to its peers

Fact
The US has the worst quality of healthcare amongst its peers

Fact
The life expectancy in the US is lower than other G8 countries and its infant mortality is high in comparison

Fact
No for profit US health insurance company provides health care cheaper than non profit

Opinion
The new reforms will not help the poor or middle class of the USA

Opinion
Pasadenacpl are selfish and greedy

Confused Opinion
Universal healthcare is a form of welfare and slavery uh...wtf kind of a brainwashed mind do you have?

Opinion
Pasadenacpl has a very provincial attitude toward other human beings and the purpose of government

Opinion
Pasadenacply is a nice guy but a little misled

Peace out dude....pass the joint that you are smok'n (kid'n ;)



You are right. Our worldviews are vastly different. Though, facts are not up for agreement or disagreement. Facts are what they are. The problem with most of teh folks who I have been arguing against is that they keep bringing up issues that have nothing to do with their premise in a very juvenile 'oh yeah? Well....well...what about Buuuush?' Whenever we stick to facts and not 'feelings' then we get somewhere.

Feeling: we should help the poor
Fact: This won't do that. A simple reading of even the most basic news on the bill tells us this.

See? It's just that easy. You can do it too, if you try.

Feeling: conservatives are mean
Feeling: Bush supressed free speech
Feeling: You must be greedy to oppose this.
Feeling: Ima no goin ta insul ya as is chissy, but ya jus ma chus ta us ya'brane (or, whatever Darkeyes says)

These are all bullshit statements meant to steer the conversation away from what's actually going on. What's really going on is pretty easy to figure out. You just need to follow what is actually true, and not what you've been told.

You are correct, though. Our worldviews are different. Mine is in keeping with the founders of our nation, that each man is accountable to himself, and that everyone is able to succeed, or fail, based upon his own merits and his own choices.

Yours is one where the government is there to fix your problems. It is not one I can ascribe to, nor is it one that I will allow to take over my nation. The government is not, and has never been, 'here to help.' The founders knew that. It's the purpose of the bill of rights, to protect us from the government. They were wise enough to know that even as great a job as they did in setting up the freest nation on earth, that the government will keep trying to 'help' and will instead enslave our populace.

Welfare is slavery. Universal healthcare is another form of welfare, and therefor...slavery.

And, for the record, I'm the 'he' portion of the couple.

Pasadenacpl

[Doggiestyle]

Dayummmmmmmmm ,,,, :mad: All this idle talk and strong opinions, with everybody at each others neck!!! :mad: :banghead:

My thoughts are that there is one thing that I am absolutely positive about! And that is that I don't know... :rolleyes:

Just my :2cents: ............... Your friend, :doggie:

[darkeyes]

Pasadenacpl

Facts are indisputable in your mind. In reality facts are often made up (ie WMD in Iraq said Colin Powell and he believed it cuz he was told that it was a fact.) and manipulated to suit the purpose of one perspective or another. However you seem to have missed a few facts and distorted your presentation of facts.

Fact
The US has the most expensive healthcare system compared to its peers

Fact
The US has the worst quality of healthcare amongst its peers

Fact
The life expectancy in the US is lower than other G8 countries and its infant mortality is high in comparison

Fact
No for profit US health insurance company provides health care cheaper than non profit

Opinion
The new reforms will not help the poor or middle class of the USA

Opinion
Pasadenacpl are selfish and greedy

Confused Opinion
Universal healthcare is a form of welfare and slavery uh...wtf kind of a brainwashed mind do you have?

Opinion
Pasadenacpl has a very provincial attitude toward other human beings and the purpose of government

Opinion
Pasadenacply is a nice guy but a little misled

Peace out dude....pass the joint that you are smok'n (kid'n ;)

S'ok Tenni hun..me agrees wivya... but spose 'e cant help havin 'is head stuk up 'is arse...poor bugga is so brainwashed, fact that places exist wiv universal healty care wich is 2 the benefit a hundreds a millions a peeps is a lil 2 much for 'is lil grey matta..so it hurts...an so 'e refuses 2 believe or accept it..well thats fine...if thats all 'is lil brain can handle...but we kno how it is...jeez if we didn hav universal health care in the UK me wudn b 'ere 2day..private medicine wudnta giv a sod bout me an me woes..an so me wudda been left 2 waste away an die... Pasadena wonts that? Fine..'e can hav it... for 'imsel...for me an mine?? NHS has lotsa probs..but Christ gimme it ova wot the US has now..an the US is considerin now... ther is NO substitute for a publicly owned an run health service...proof a the puddin is that wereva it exists...no 1 seriously wud ev consida replacin it wiv owt else...wot else is the state for?? But 2 provide servces for the well bein an gud a its citizens..the WELFARE a those self same citizens...but we who live in such places..wot dus we kno?? Sod all..we r rong...Pasadena's way is best..its the only way...wotta a dimwit the daft bugga is!

[darkeyes]

Dayummmmmmmmm ,,,, :mad: All this idle talk and strong opinions, with everybody at each others neck!!! :mad: :banghead:

My thoughts are that there is one thing that I am absolutely positive about! And that is that I don't know... :rolleyes:

Just my :2cents: ............... Your friend, :doggie:

Well mayb ya shud start readin up on things an findin out shudntcha????

[Hephaestion]

"........Pasadenacpl....
1/ If it is you and your doctor deciding what you need, who pays for it?
The insurance pays for most of it. I pay about 20%.....

2/ Do you personally pay and then submit a bill to your healthcare provider?
I pay my 20% and then they pay the rest....."

Doctors and patients deciding together on what to do - It would seem that doctors in the USA do the same as doctors elsewhere.

Re the insurance company paying, this needs a little perspective. It is not the insurance company which is actually paying. The paying is being done by everybody else that is a member of the insurance scheme. The insurance company are merely administering other people's money and taking their cut.
Economies of scale are claimed elswhere - why not in this arena?

Bugger - I can't spell privatised (privitised - much gnashing of teeth).
.

[AdamKadmon43]

Well mayb ya shud start readin up on things an findin out shudntcha????

Read up on things????...... It has been my experience that people only read up on the things that tell them what they want to hear and believe.

I was all set to post this long, drawn-out dissertation on the relative merits of various social systems, but I decided to not bother because it is somewhat off the "socialized medicine" topic, and because nobody cares anyhow. Their minds are already made up. They have reached the conclusion that whatever is in their best interest is also in the best interest of the rest of the world.

[AdamKadmon43]

It totally astounds me how very willing people are to accept something just because it sounds humanitarian.

No one even knows exactly what this "piece of crap" legistation will actually do...... but it sounds good.

[orallybi4cpl]

1. No..it's not a right. We have very specific rights listed in our constitution. This is not one of them. You may think it's a right over in your nation. But..that's your nation, not ours. You may recall that we kicked you out so that we did not have to abide by your rules. And thank God.

2. I said you have no right to make me pay for YOUR healthcare. Reading. It's a skill.

3. For 20 years before this we have been reading about how bad yours, and the French, and the Canadian plans are. Please do not tell me how great they are now. They aren't. They cost trillions of dollars (pounds), provide crap care, with people waiting for bureaucrats to make decisions on what care they are allowed to have.

4. When you take my tax dollars apply it to other people, then I am paying for them. This is economics 101.

5. See point 3.

6. Like Denmark, where they have a 50% tax rate? Hrmm? And then...see point 3.

7. Honestly, you write with the Grammar of a 5 year old and complain of vulgarity? Sorry, but when you learn to write as an educated person, I'll take your points more seriously.

Pasadenacpl


there is no sense in talking to a republican.... you might as well be talking to a facist nazi

the party of NO

the party who took away your house, your job, your car and your right
to the persuit of happiness...
the party saints are chaney bush, glen beck, and you know the rest

tune in to msnbc for the truth!

even republicans have recently said
they passed things without regard to cost.. i.e. the war, medicare expansion
of prescriptions and yes they lied..

when clinton lied nobody died.

who bailed out the banks instead of the people with the mortgages?
who blocked unions? who wanted 'free' trade.. there is no such thing
and who's buying american products? who can now?

your local republican is a 912 person.. do you really know what that is?
READ YOUR HISTORY..NAZI GERMANY WORLD WARS I and II

Chaney could have distroyed this nation if he would have been
president.. .

ever notice that all republicans vote the party line and only the party
line? communism is alive in american.. it's called repubic'an

the great communist republican doctrine of bush and chaney

the great lobbyist continue to con and bribe congress

do you know republicans hate bisexual people?

imagine that

[orallybi4cpl]

I'll start with: You're an idiot. And if you type this way on purpose, as you claim, you're an even bigger idiot. Get an education.

Next I'll go with: can you, in anything resembling English, define for us the British version of Universal Healthcare, and tell us how it works? Then, can you do so with the Canadian and French versions? Could you tell me how they are the same, and how they differ? And then, could you tell me how any of these plans resembles the US version that is being voted on? Remember, please do so in something resembling English.

My guess is that, beyond all having the same lable of 'universal healthcare' they don't resemble each other at all. And, further, my guess is that you don't have the slightest fucking clue what the answers are to any of my questions.

Why don't you go read a book, Darkeyes. I suggest Advocacy and Opposition : An Introduction to Argumentation by Karen and Donald Rybacki. This might help you in constructing an argument that is based upon reason, logic, and facts rather than rambling sidelong attacks and DNC talking points.

I could further suggest A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving by Eugene Bardach. This might help you to understand the basics of how public policy works.

You want me to accept your point of view? Then convince me. That goes to all of you. Show me exactly what this bill does that will benefit this nation. Don't just go one examples of Britain or Canada. Their plans are not ours. Show me and I'll consider thinking about it.

Pasadenacpl

DNC talking points.. oh man.. look you live in california.. didn't you already lose your job and your house .. if not.. you must be a doctor

Gleg beck is your god.

no sense in talking to someone who can read but ignores
the facts of the last 8 years...

lie cheat steal and threaten people...

chaney and bush... and now we'll be paying for it for the rest of our lives
talk about cost? about cheats about rights?

wow... this discussion shouldn't be on this site even

know why?

as you can see this country is messed up

and these discussions do nothing but create civil war

keep it up folks and watch the civil war destroy this country

yes history repeats itself

the republicans don't think they have to follow the laws...and you know
what? they've been right about that.

if we put the money from the false war that bush lied to us about
in iraq we all could have had 'free' medical for life

oh but republicans don't worry about what it cost when they were
in control...

and they also don't believe they should honor equal protection under the law

roe vs wade... and they still want the church to rule this country

republicans = fascist communism... it's ok for us to not have unions
and for them (rich people) not to pay taxes.. take a look at the
upper class in Russia in China

talk about stupidity... that woman from Alaska didn't even know
that Russia would welcome her as president and glen beck as
the vp... they'd take over Alaska in a heartbeat..and she'd think it
was a Boston tea party event.

Fox is propaganda...

now watch pasedena yell... that's what those republicans do

good thing california people are smarter than that

at least most of em who are democrats

the terminator will terminate your job and
all you're have left is the 'change' in your pocket
which is what those darn republicans want

so they can steal your property and your 'rights'

cause they don't believe in rights cause they are leftist

[Canticle]

I'll start with: You're an idiot. And if you type this way on purpose, as you claim, you're an even bigger idiot. Get an education.

Next I'll go with: can you, in anything resembling English, define for us the British version of Universal Healthcare, and tell us how it works? Then, can you do so with the Canadian and French versions? Could you tell me how they are the same, and how they differ? And then, could you tell me how any of these plans resembles the US version that is being voted on? Remember, please do so in something resembling English.

My guess is that, beyond all having the same lable of 'universal healthcare' they don't resemble each other at all. And, further, my guess is that you don't have the slightest fucking clue what the answers are to any of my questions.

Why don't you go read a book, Darkeyes. I suggest Advocacy and Opposition : An Introduction to Argumentation by Karen and Donald Rybacki. This might help you in constructing an argument that is based upon reason, logic, and facts rather than rambling sidelong attacks and DNC talking points.

I could further suggest A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving by Eugene Bardach. This might help you to understand the basics of how public policy works.

You want me to accept your point of view? Then convince me. That goes to all of you. Show me exactly what this bill does that will benefit this nation. Don't just go one examples of Britain or Canada. Their plans are not ours. Show me and I'll consider thinking about it.

Pasadenacpl

Darkeyes is no idiot. She chooses to post in the manner she does....it is her right! When Darkeyes posts in the Queen's English...and she can.....she is most eloquent and shows herself to be a very educated person.

The UK National Health Service is not free, except when one needs medical care and treatment. We pay for the NHS. It is not a free hand out!!

Prescriptions for medication have to be paid for, unless one has a life threatening or ongoing medical condition and if one is aged over 65, or under a certain age, or in full time education etc.

Dental treatment is charged in much the same manner, as are sight tests. One does not have to use the National Health Service, if one prefers not to. We have private hospitals too. Indeed, every National Health Service hospital, will have a private wing. I guess it brings in money for the hospital.

Nice to have choice. The system may not be perfect and there may be too many chiefs and not enough Indians, but the NHS is 60 years old and we are very proud of it, in the UK.....no matter how much we may criticise it.

I have an ongoing, life threatening condition, Epilepsy. I am not required to pay for my medication and I only take two different kinds of drug. Some people take far more than I do. Lord knows what would happen if we had to pay for the medication, every month. I guess a lot of people, just would not bother, or try to take less. I'd rather live, because every seizure that I have, could be my last. I thank the NHS for giving me all the necessary tests back in 1972, allowing for a swift diagnosis.

Long live the NHS!

[Canticle]

It is absolutely her right. If she chooses to post in such a moronic fashion, then I stand by my statement. I put it right up there with emo kids and Uwe Boll films.



That's great.

Now..how does it work?

Follow up question: how is it similar to the US plan?

Pasadenacpl

Have you got 60 years to spare? Could take a long, long time.

[Hephaestion]

".....That's great.
Now..how does it work?
Follow up question: how is it similar to the US plan?

Pasadenacpl..."

-------------------------------------
Essentially, we pay into an insurance fund (National Insurance contributions x% of pay to a limit) and then when we need it, the service is there without need for a further percentage contribution. Those who can, do make a further flat rate contribution through prescribed medicines. Those who cannot receive these on a 'benefit' waver.

If anything is beyond the local facility then the relevant treatment is sought nationally or even internationally.

The service is not sustained by a bottomless pit of money but the service has national resource behind it. More money raised by lower contributions on a national basis rather than small scale schemes and consequently better faclities are available (cf "a penny on everyone's tax raises more revenue than taxing the 'rich' excessively"). Thus, we ALL pay when we can for the greater good of our fellow countrymen. Nowadays there is reciprocal regard for colleagues of the EU.

Our international medics are amongst the finest and most dedicated people anyone can hope to meet and they are paid tribute here. Those who wish to buy (extra) medical attention outside the NHS are free to do so. NHS general practitioners and specialist consultants will even help secure that for their patients.

Despite the problems, largely newly introduced by market oriented politicians, the NHS tries to function (and largely succeeds) as intended.

As a civilised society, we do not kick dirt into people's faces or piss on them because they are ill and poor; the Union Jack comprises Christian symbols irrespective of personal faiths.

[tenni]

Pasa

I find it surprising that you believe that doctors within some form of universal healthcare would have to give up a 6 figure salary and accept a 5 figure salary! Where did you hear that? I would believe that all doctors in Canada earn more than 6 figures however, they do have to pay their staff and office expenses. Doctors in Canada get their fees from the provincial health plan. There are experiments going on to contract the doctor for a set fee per year per patient. The doctor gets paid for that patient whether they come to see the doctor one time or twenty times per year. Other doctors are paid a fee for each patient visit. They may be paid different fees for different medical service that the doctor provides. Specialists get paid the same way. Doctors may also refuse to take on a patient if they so decide. Now, I'm not a doctor but I was in a relationship with one. She chose to work part time rather than full time due to what she saw as burn out of her colleagues(mostly guys) working long hours for the big bucks. I was involved with her more than ten years ago. I'm sure that even as a part time doctor that she earned more than $100 000 per year but I never asked her. I judge by her lifestyle.

I've been thinking about some of your posts. You are an interesting person and show signs of being a fair person. I decided to read over your comments on this thread. It seems to me that by starting with statements such as "healthcare is not a right" that you set your position as being opposed to healthcare improvements but later I think that you changed my mind. Later, you have argued that this healthcare reform bill will not be an improvement. You agree that the US has the most expensive healthcare costs but the poorest quality of healthcare. You state that the present plan has no coverage. You state that you can not give coverage when there is not a public option. Employers should not be forced to pay for insurance. Universal healthcare is a form of welfare and therefore slavery. Social programmes cause greater harm than good.

Now, there seems to be contradictions or at least confusing statements to me. First by arguing that healthcare is not a right and to provide it as a social programme will cause great harm is a strong negative opposing any government involvement in healthcare of your country. Yet, you agree that your country has the most expensive and worst healthcare plan of all G8 countries. By stating that there should be is no coverage in this plan without a public option, you confuse me. You seem to be stating that you are in favour of a public option with government involvement on one side of your mouth while arguing against government involvement on the other side.

Please clarify.

[Hephaestion]

Pasadenacpl - You asked how it works - you have been informed

Paraphrasing your reply:

a) the Rich can take care of themselves
b) Poor get State and Federal aid
c) You are againest ilegal immigrants exploiting your charitable systems

Strikes me as though there is a yawning gap which leaves the average man floundering and in potential trouble else why would your Presidents strive to do something about this.

We don't have this problem. In illness the average man becomes poor under your system - we do not oppress when a man becomes ill. If he is or becomes poor in the process then we do not introduce further oppression by denying the best a country can offer in medicine.

Illegal immigration is NOT a problem that should be confused with a comprehensive medical system for the legitimate population.

How do our doctors qualify? there is a subsidised education system - the country invests in its population. Merit plays a large part in the selection of would be doctors. Latterly we have adopted USA style market led tuition fees - rejected by the other members of the UK but retained by England much to everyone's disgust (money seems to be diverted into war and keeping the failed bankers in bonuses - our university system in England is about to suffer a hit for these two very factors).

How much are our doctors paid - they are paid well in comparison with the general population but not as much as the layabouts who puport to be competent financial leaders.

How much are we taxed? - not enough in my opinion, but any amount would still better than paying a more expensive private fund which rejects any chronic condition or non-profitable practice. It is not unusual for the NHS to be called upon to fix the bungling of would-be profit merchants.

.

[darkeyes]

Pasadena hun..I am sorry if u dont like how I usually write in forums.. its a quirk..comes from how I txt my m8s on the mobbie and has spread into messenger and chat.. its how I am.. I know also that in many ways the arguments which i make are often weakened by this chatspeak..Franspeak as its known in .com..or to give it its proper title Bootgirlspeak, which is how my m8s and I all speak to each other on messenger. But I make no apologies for it because it marks me out as who I am. I have always belived that the message is far more important than the language used to convey it. I hold to that. Many dont like it, and yes, it is best used in a light hearted manner. However, please don't dismiss what I have said by the manner in which I have said it.

What I am also somewhat sorry about is some of the more personal things I have said about you as a person. I am afraid your bloody mindedness on the issue inflamed my passion for an issue I hold dear to my heart. I hold it dear partly because the British National Health Service saved my life twice in the last 30 years..and I am immensely grateful for that. I aklso hold it dear because I am unable to imagine a better way to provide healthcare for all in any society other than by universal health care provided by the state for its citizens. The arguments you have made I have no doubt are sincerely held and I have attempted in my own way to dispute them..

Health is far too imnporrtant an issue to leave in the hands of private sector mavericks who provide healthcare for profit. Health should never be a profit making concern, and I argue with 100% conviction that the only way to do this is to have it own and operated by the public through the state machinery. It is a fundamental right of all human beings to be entitled to good professional healthcare.. it is the duty of the state to provide that care by funding publicly owned professioanl hospitals and other health services. Ill health is an enemy of humankind, and as an enemy of humankind, the state has an obligation to defend its citizens against that enemy. Any state which fails to do this is a failed state.

It is not the duty of any state simply to defend its poor. It is the duty of the state to defend ALL of its people in the war against ill health. The only way to do this is to have a publicly iwned health service properly funded throuygh taxation so that when any individual falls ill, or gets pregnant, or wishes to prevent a pregnancy, has an accident, or is injured in any way, all the medical resources of the state are placed at their disposal to ensure that, as far as is medically possible, the best id done for those citizens that can be done.. it is their right.. and to ensure they obtain that right, by far the best option is publicly owned unversal healthcare provion.

I doubt you will agree.. that is your right.. but living in a nation which has universal health care, having been provided with the most wonderful treatment throughout my life and never had to pay a bean (save for presciption charges occasionally) and dental charges.. (a right sore point this one because in this the NHS does fail miserably).

No nation will ever provide the perfect health care for its citizens.. the uk does have huge problems in this just like everywhere else.. yet such is the astonishingly successfuil job it does, that few, if any Britons can imagine the country doing without it. People in the UK can and do get private medical treatment. Yet it is arguable whether this is better than anything offered by the state. What it does do is offer the rich and those who can afford ir the opportunity to queue jump. Yet just as there are horror stories about NHS treatment.. there are also such stories to be told of private healthcare. which let me add, is not cheap.. those who pay for private health care are not barred from obtaining NHS treatment.. on the contrary..many of the rich and better off only use private hospitals when they gaurantee better service than the state owned ones.. very often the NHS os the better bet whatever a persons financial situation because it has a much larger variety of treatment facilties.

Unniversal health acre does not, cannot provide care for every single illness or misfortune. I accept that. No health serviuce ever can..yet far and away it is the most succesful, cost efficent provider of health care in this country. It has by far and away the most broad based facilties of any health care provider.

Because of my personal history, I am a committed and passionate supporter of my health service. Not only my history but that of my parents and siblings, grandparents, my partner and our children, my partners parents and my friends, relations and work colleagues.. we are all immensely grateful for a service that is paid for out of taxation as an insurance against illhealth, against prganany, birth, and yes even death (in this of course it is not entirely successful..but it does ease things a great deal for the dying, and does often delay the inevitable and help provide those not expected to live quite a long time of decent life).

This is long. I know. It is long deliberately. I dont expect to convince you of the merits of a universal health service which is paid for out of some kind of taxation. I just want you to realise that where such systems exist, in the main few people would have it any other way.

There are few things about which I have such a passion.. universal healthcare and the National Health Service I am afraid is one upon which you have touched a raw nerve in your arguments.



*Soz for the typos..am lil tiddly.. only a lil honest...*

[tenni]

Pasadenacpl (or Pasa if i may be a little chummy with ya ;)
What the US decides for their healthcare is for the US to decide. However, in this world there are many countries who hold various forms of universal healthcare as sacred. We hold it as sacred as you value individualism. We see it as part of our society's infrastructure. It has often been said that nordic countries have more respect for collectivism and the need to share due to our harsher climate than those who are in in more tropical climates. :) It is part of our survival needs to cuddle closer and share our food, childcare etc. A little less absolutism in your early statements might have been a better approach as you are not just chatting with your country's citizens. Now, I happen to know that not all of your citizens believe in "individualism" that you support and it is not an absolutism but an opinion on your part. There are some in my country who agree with your individualism but probably not as to such an extreme perspective as you do. Some may though. The fear of what you refer to as socialism is a bit over the top from my perspective but I will respect your "right" to hold that view.

It is not really my business to object or support your legislation unless it impacts me and my sovereign country. However, I still do not understand how you propose to reduce the healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare in your society? When we write about our countries' healthcare, we are attempting to explain how things work for us and we do it a lot cheaper than your country. The thread is titled healthcare and although focused on the US attempt to change it is broader than the US itself.

A few questions if I may:

1/ Does this bill propose that all in your country will have healthcare regardless of the ability to pay?
2/ Does this bill remove the right for an insurance company to deny offering payment for medical procedures and refuse their right to end a person's healthcare?

[tenni]

Pasa
Since you do not know whether the private healthcare insurance companies will be permitted to continue to cut citizens coverage off or not, might it be best to investigate this before declaring this bill a complete failure? I would propose to you that you are discussing this matter in absolute terms without having a sufficient understanding of the reported 7 000 page bill. You seem biased against the bill without fully understanding it? It was my understanding that cutting off/denying middle class paying clients when expenses of a certain illness was a prime flaw of such approaches to healthcare using private providers with a prime reason to make money rather than provide healthcare?


"If people were allowed to fail (and die for failing) then there would be fewer of them failing and living off the government tit."

Now this is quite a draconian and anarchistic statement. I suspect that you are toying with us and do see the radicalism of such a statement?..lol

With regards to your comments about student failure, I understand your frustration but it is not comparable to healthcare and offering it as an "essential service" similar to road maintenance, defence of borders, policing and enforcement of laws, potable drinking water, etc. You adhere to a personal perspective that many of us reading your thoughts disagree with. I assume that you consider your countryman, Ted Kennedy, as one of the morons? Again, you are expressing an opinion and not a fact. A constitution rarely includes healthcare as a right but it has been declared an international human right in the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. If your constitution doesn't have human rights included in ammendments, then you have more serious flaws to deal with and should be suspect of your leaders promoting the exclusion of internationally declared human rights in your laws etc. However wiki states:

"Human rights in the United States are legally protected by the Constitution of the United States and amendments,[2][3] conferred by treaty, and enacted legislatively through Congress, state legislatures, and plebiscites (state referenda). Federal courts in the United States have jurisdiction over international human rights laws as a federal question, arising under international law, which is part of the law of the United States.[4][page*needed]
The first human rights organization in the Thirteen Colonies of British America, dedicated to the abolition of slavery, was formed by Anthony Benezet in 1775."

Since abolition of slavery was deemed a human right but it took your country almost two hundred years to give full and equal voting rights to former slaves' descendants, may I suggest that it is quite possible that the human right of access to healthcare will come but hopefully the US citizens do not have to wait another two hundred years to have full access to this human right.

In your student scenario, failure doesn't mean that it results in death while failing to offer healthcare services to all citizens could lead to death of the citizen. In fact, I agree with your basic premise regarding failure if the student has the innate intelligence to complete the task but see it as not a good comparison to healthcare.

[tenni]

Pasa buddy
What I think is draconian is that your statement referencing failing includes "failing and dying" as draconian. Since the thread is about healthcare, I consider the failing and dying is connected to the middle class losing their health benefits or being cut off and then failing that... they die? Maybe, I misunderstood you? I understand failing on your own merit concept.


"If people were allowed to fail (and die for failing) then there would be fewer of them failing and living off the government tit."



Tenni,

Yes. Ted Kennedy was a moron. Actually he was a politician who used social welfare to build and maintain power. Our nation is betteer for his loss. That they killed Jack and Bobby but left us that alcoholic blubbering murderer was a tragedy that had dire affects on our nation.

And it's not draconian to expect people to succeed or fail based upon their own merits, dedication, and choices. Choices have consequences. No, life isn't always fair. Oh well. America doesn't promise a fair life. It only promises that everyone can choose their own path with limited interference by the government.

Pasa

[elian]

After we are finished debating, can we have angry make-up sex? <smiles>

[Hephaestion]

Pasadenacpl - The interpretaion of our UK tax system is wrong

There are several types of 'tax' here: Income tax; National Insurance; Local (Rates/ Council); Stealth taxes e.g. VAT; fuel duty, Road fund licence, sewerage, TV reception.......all the way to farting (just like elsewhere - 'Born free, taxed to death' and then the residual personal estate is taxed beyond that).

The income tax is the one which needs putting into historical perspective. At one time it was MANY tiered and progressive to 95&#37;. This was a legacy of men dying in other people's wars and the denial of 'a land fit for heroes'.

Instead of dealing with the true issues, Mrs T removed this at a stroke and expected the newly unfettered rich to re-invest in their country. They didn't and had one hell of a good time instead (at one time the popular saying was 'Fuck you Jack and I'm alright' and seemed aposite then). The repercussions are felt to this day and so the call is to re-introduce higher taxation IN PART because that is the only place where spare money is to be found - in the artifically inflated and obscene wage packets (no arguments about worth please - recent history has proven otherwise)

What was wrong? Wage awards had been adjusted to the tiered tax system. To receive the 100 UKP per annum pay rise awarded elsewhere, then at a level of 95% taxation the fat cats' (even in those days) pay rises were (100/5) *100 = 2000 UKP (giving a 100 UKP pay rise @ 5% and 1900 UK as tax @ 95%). Arguments for parity and differentials cemented the problem.

When the 95% tax was abolished (and the many tax brackets beneath together with modifications to the tax liability laws which meant the well hidden illegal funds became legal) those who benefitted were embarrassingly swimming in money. Did they forego any sense of greed following this - NO. The differential between rich and poor became astonomical and has continued to grow ever since.

The USA would appear to be in the same position in its differentials. From a very recent trans-Atlantic interview, at one time the difference in pay rates between average person and the top earners was deemed to be x12 whereas now it is claimed to be x325.

Just to clarify our tiered taxation system using HYPOTHETICAL figures (The tiers are played around with at whim by governments):

Each person gets a tax free allowance depending on circumstance (e.g. single or married) - typically 7K UKP
Earnings in the range 7k -15k pounds are taxed at rate w (say 10%)
Earnings in the range 15k -25k pounds are taxed at rate x (say 25%)
Earnings in the range 25k -40k pounds are taxed at rate y (say 33.33%)
Earnings in the range 40k -150k pounds are taxed at rate z (say 40%)
Projected Earnings in the range 150k plus to be taxed at say 50%

say someone earns 250k UKP and in the ABSENCE of any other dodges, then their Income tax liability becomes

7k tax free = @ 0% = 0 UKP
+ the next 8k @ 10% = 800 UKP
+ the next 10k @ 25% = 2500 UKP
+ the next 15k @ 33.33% = 5000 UKP
+ the next 100k @ 40% = 40,000
+ the next 110k @ 50% = 55,000

= 103,300 UKP income tax on 250k UKP annual salary - 41.32% overall

There are regional differences but as the majority of people earn about 25K UKP their income tax burden is not more than at a rate for that component of 25%. From the above it would be typically 800+2500= 3300 UKP total per annum = 13.2% on gross salary of 25k UKP

Back to NI this is typically 7.5% of gross salary to a maximum (with similar contribution from the workplace - what the maximum is I cannot tell you). From observation it would be at least double this under private provision and with swingeing qualifications/restrictions.

It cannot be stated enough - If illegal immigration is the problem in the USA then that is the problem that should be addressed and not shoot off at a tangent and cause mayhem elsewhere to perfectly deserving and innocent fellow countrymen. As for government misbehaviour in spending tax revenue that should be addressed separately also.


I hope this clears things up for you.

[Hephaestion]

After we are finished debating, can we have angry make-up sex? <smiles>

OK - your place or mine

xxx

[Hephaestion]

Thanks for the explanation. It makes things more clear. You're still taxed at much to high a rate IMHO, but it is far more clear as to how it works.

And, those two problems need to be fixed FIRST before we 'fix' healthcare. To do otherwise is to screw up any fix before it starts.

Pasa

Not so sure that your cart and horse are in the correct order or even facing the same direction but it's your country and your countrymen.

Good luck

[AdamKadmon43]

After we are finished debating, can we have angry make-up sex? <smiles>

Can I get in on that???

[darkeyes]

You're on. You probably need to get out of the northern cold and come to Texas anyway.

Pasa

*Shivers*

..an' not cosa fact ther is 7" a snow out the bak door.. tee hee:tong:;)


Happy New Year wen its cums hun... enjoy!!!:bigrin::bigrin:

... an Happy New Year 2 u Heph an all..an Elian..an resta yas lesser mortals...:bigrin: On this mass luffin me will sit it out ta...:tong:

[darkeyes]

Dark Eyes, you are of course more than welcome to come in out of the cold. I'll warm ya up. ;)Ha..that'll b day...hav sum1 eva so gorge 2 do that for me wen we gerrin afta the bells go babes.. but u jus hav luffly time an enjoy yasell..:tong: