# Before Racing To National Healthcare: Listen



## Annie (May 8, 2009)

Faces of government healthcare:

Faces of Government Healthcare


----------



## KittenKoder (May 8, 2009)

Hell ... you could add my name to that list.


----------



## sealybobo (May 8, 2009)

What a piece of propoganda.  

If you guys were right about this, or the economy, or the war, why are you approaching this problem the same way you approach every problem?  Deny there is a problem for as long as you can, do nothing about it when you are in charge, Have prices go up 101% after you get into office, and then lie and scare people into thinking the liberal approach will cause the exact problems your own status quo is guilty of?

Hightower Lowdown | The four Big Lies about universal health care

This debunks all your bullshit.

We want exactly what Senators get.  SINGLE PAYER.  Choices!  No pre existing conditions!  Inexpensive!  Covers everyone!

We decided a long time ago that education was important.  We made it MANDATORY for every kid.  This is more important.

Yesterday this guy who sells insurance called the Ed Schultz show crying that this would put 15,000 agents out of work in Dallas alone, or something like that.  HA!  How's it feel bitches?  You didn't mind sending manufacturing jobs overseas.  You didn't mind putting truckers out of jobs.  Now it is your turn.  Go find another fucking job.  Maybe you can work for the humain society euthenizing kittens.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 8, 2009)

Annie said:


> Faces of government healthcare:
> 
> Faces of Government Healthcare





Dick Cheney, George Bush, John Boehner, your parents, my parents,  and retired military vets are all on taxpayer funded public healthcare.  And I haven't heard them complaining about it. 


why don't we ask them how they like it, rather than rely on the opinons of a rightwing blog author?


----------



## DiamondDave (May 8, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Faces of government healthcare:
> ...



Funny... a benefit of employment.... for the likes of the Military, Bush, Clinton, Cheney, Carter, etc

Not exactly the same of just giving it away

But nice try


----------



## wihosa (May 8, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Giving it away? Hey we will be paying taxes to pay for it. Nothing going to be given away. The difference is that there will not be a middle man (insurance companies) taking a cut for doing nothing. All the money will go to medical expenses instead of fat cat corporate CEOs.

Why is it that right wingers love to get screwed by big buisness?


----------



## DiamondDave (May 8, 2009)

wihosa said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



Which means those that pay taxes will be providing it for everyone, whether they pay taxes or not... 

Sorry... but you are not OWED a damn thing for your personal care, health, and well being from anyone else on this fucking earth

You're an adult... earn it and pay for it yourself

The government does not exist to be your insurance company.. what next? Government single payer auto insurance? 

This is why left wingers just don't get it...


----------



## wihosa (May 8, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Ah yes, the 'rugged individual' argument. Everybody in this country pays tax. The idea that some don't pay tax is a lie.

I love how the righties are always saying that people who don't pay tax are getting a refund. This is a lie. It's true that some don't pay 'income tax' but those people do pay a tax on their income, it's just not called income tax. It's called FICA and it's paid by most people on the first dollar they make and they pay it on every dollar they make. Everyone pays sales tax. Everyone pays property tax, either directly or indirectly.

The government exists to be what the people decide it should be. If we want to pool our resources to provide health insurance for everyone we can do that.

This is why right wingers just don't get it.


----------



## WillowTree (May 8, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Faces of government healthcare:
> ...






it's going to be a little different when 350 million people are on it.. why don't you dig around with eyes wide open and learn..


----------



## WillowTree (May 8, 2009)

wihosa said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...







There you are being dishonest again... a large proportion of citizens do not in fact pay federal income tax and you well know it..


----------



## strollingbones (May 8, 2009)

whats good enough for the government leaders should be good enough for the voters...if they get "free" (its paid for by the taxpayers) why shouldnt the taxpayers?


----------



## WillowTree (May 8, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> whats good enough for the government leaders should be good enough for the voters...if they get "free" (its paid for by the taxpayers) why shouldnt the taxpayers?






well,, if you had listened to the posted video you would know that what you get for "free" is a chance to stand in line and wait for healthcare,,,sometimes til you no longer need it. now you don't really think they are gonna make the obamalama wiat? doya? or any of the congresscritters? even the tax evading congresscritters...


----------



## wihosa (May 8, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



I said "it's true that some people don't pay income tax" How is that dishonest?

Oh you were just trying to gloss over the pertinent point that everyone pays tax.

Nevermind.


----------



## WillowTree (May 8, 2009)

wihosa said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...







everyone pays tax but about 50% pay no income tax? that better?? how about we all don't pay any income tax.. that would be fair..


----------



## wihosa (May 8, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > whats good enough for the government leaders should be good enough for the voters...if they get "free" (its paid for by the taxpayers) why shouldnt the taxpayers?
> ...



Guess what, everyone stands in line to get health care. I had to wait 6 weeks to get an injection in my back to relieve extreme pain and I have Kaiser.

Trying to scare people about the availablity of healthcare with a single payer system isn't working anymore. I've met and talked to quite a few people from Canada and Europe (Britain and Sweden) who report no wait times for emergency care.


----------



## WillowTree (May 8, 2009)

wihosa said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > strollingbones said:
> ...






don't fall back on the "you're trying to scare me bs, you should know exactly what you are buying into when you buy into something.. the good the bad and the ugly.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 8, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> whats good enough for the government leaders should be good enough for the voters...if they get "free" (its paid for by the taxpayers) why shouldnt the taxpayers?



Everyone else is not a government employee

But nice try


----------



## wihosa (May 8, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



No, what would be fair is to stop trying to make working people who pay a large percentage of their income in taxes look like freeloaders. 

Just because the tax on their income is not called 'income tax' does not mean that they don't pay a tax .

Now that's dishonest.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 8, 2009)

wihosa said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

Idiot leftist

#1 - Not all people pay income taxes.... this is an undisputed FACT
#2 - FICA goes to something SPECIFIC, does it not?
#3 - Property tax is not assessed by the federal government... but nice try
#4 - If you don't OWN property you don't PAY property tax
#5 - Any use of taxation for individual care of adults would have it that some are paying more for the same care, than others. I do not see anyone calling for the same AMOUNT of tax to be taken from every person to pay for the same PRODUCT or SERIES of PRODUCTS
#6 - By the nature of what is proposed, those who sit and earn nothing would be sapping off of the rest of the taxpaying citizenry

And once again.. as an adult in a country based on freedom and liberty... NOBODY FUCKING OWES YOU  A GODDAMN THING TOWARDS YOUR PERSONAL CARE OR WELL BEING

Oh... and BTW... we have a little thing called a constitution in this republic that keeps us from inherently suffering the tyranny of pure democracy and the whim of the masses... and that is one thing the little extreme lefties such as yourself cannot seem to understand


----------



## WillowTree (May 8, 2009)

wihosa said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...






nope,, not at all, unless you can show they pay all the same taxes as everyone else does then it's not fair.. I don't want to pay taxes either.. let's all not pay taxes and then we can call it fair.


----------



## wihosa (May 8, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...




1. All people who work legally pay a tax on their income, that's a fact. If you think that the name of a tax makes a difference, that's your poor ability critical thinking at work.
2. In theory, FICA goes to something specific, but the reality is that only 2/3 of the money collected for Social Security goes to pay for SS. The rest is 'borrowed' by the general fund so in reality every one is paying into the general fund.
3. I never said anything about federal or state taxes, only that everyone pays tax.
4. If you don't own property but only rent or lease property, let me assure you, you are paying the property tax through your rent payments. No property owner pays the property taxes out of his own pocket, they all charge enough rent to cover the property tax.
5. There are always inequities in tax payments, people with higher value homes pay more tax and thus pay more than others for their services be it public education, fire or police protection, etc.
6. There will always be some who will not work but the reality is that the vast majority of people want to be employed and therefore will pay tax. But to argue that therefore the rest of us should continue to be ripped off by the insurance companies is silly.

We as citizens can decide to pool our resources through taxations to provide for ourselves quality healthcare for all. You can continue to hurl invectives at those of us who think it is a good idea but it doesn't hide the weakness of your arguments.

If legislation is passed, it will be entirely consistent with the Constitution, but that same Constitution will continue to protect your right to make your silly arguments.


----------



## Iriemon (May 8, 2009)

Annie said:


> Faces of government healthcare:
> 
> Faces of Government Healthcare



Hell I've heard horror stories far worse than these by Americans, including those that supposedly have health insurance, much less the tens of millions that don't.


----------



## wihosa (May 8, 2009)

Want to bet there are more horror stories of people unfairly treated by private insurance companies than of people who were by national health care services?


----------



## wihosa (May 8, 2009)

Private insurance companies exist to make profits not to make people healthy. They routinely look for ways to deny coverage to policy holders. That's how they make money.

Medicare is designed to provide healthcare and it does it for only about 2% overhead. Private insurance companies suck out 25% of the total spent on policies for doing essentially nothing.

Who thinks this is a good way to deliver health care?


----------



## MaggieMae (May 8, 2009)

Annie said:


> Faces of government healthcare:
> 
> Faces of Government Healthcare



Except that nobody is presently talking about installing "government" universal health care. Try to pay attention.

But even if they were, why is there the erroneous perception that we would follow the models of Canada or Great Britain? If universal health care _were_ being proposed, a plan would be developed which does _not_ include what does _not_ work well elsewhere, and injecting what does work, then designing it after our own health profiles.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 8, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Hell ... you could add my name to that list.



I thought you were on Medicaid?


----------



## Annie (May 8, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Faces of government healthcare:
> ...


Sure they would. Just like the great job they're doing with autos and financials.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 8, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Point taken, but why should they get it FOR LIFE? How about if exclusive federal employees are required to opt for COLA coverage until they can buy their own health insurance once they leave government employ? [Spinning wheels..ain't gonna happen...]


----------



## MaggieMae (May 8, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



What we *get* and you don't is that without a healthy, educated society, we will continue to slip as a global power. *Those are fundamental requirements.* If the private sector had delivered and not created a downward spiral of unaffordability, health care wouldn't even be an issue.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 8, 2009)

wihosa said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > strollingbones said:
> ...



I have relatives in Toronto, and although I haven't talked with them in recent years, the last time they visited the States, we had a kitchen table discussion over this, and they both said that, just as in the United States, the "horror stories" we hear have been plucked from isolated incidents and blown out of proportion to become all-inclusive "examples" of Canadian health care. Although these relatives could well afford their own health coverage, and do have secondary coverage, for day-to-day health needs at a PREVENTIVE level, they say that it is well worth the taxes even if they, personally, don't avail themselves too often. But others do, and without such free preventive care, would be subject to more serious and expensive protracted illness, which would cost the government more in the long run. Sound familiar?


----------



## MaggieMae (May 8, 2009)

DiamondDave said:
			
		

> And once again.. as an adult in a country based on freedom and liberty... NOBODY FUCKING OWES YOU A GODDAMN THING TOWARDS YOUR PERSONAL CARE OR WELL BEING



Tell that to returning Iraqi vets and their families.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 8, 2009)

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Bad analogy. Quite simply, to allow the financial institutions to fail would mean zero credit flow to keep the *private sector *functioning. But wait! What *you're* saying is that <gasp> the autos and financials, _all privately operated_, fucked up. 

No shit.


----------



## Annie (May 8, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


Not as bad as it is with Uncle Sam in there.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 8, 2009)

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Must...have...last...word... Knock yerseff out "Annie" honey.


----------



## Maple (May 8, 2009)

I have talked to several and all have told me that thier health care system is horrible. They have waiting lists to a point where people have died waiting for surgery.

You have all seen how the government manages Medicare and Medicaid,  trillions of dollars in programs and yet some physicians are now refusing to see Medicare patients. Do we really want to turn over our health care to a huge government who can't manage efficiently what they already have.

I agree that something has to be done, I think that it should be state mandated. Make it law that you are required to carry health insurance, we do it with auto insurance in the state of Colorado. It keeps everyone's costs down.

There has got to be a small business group plan that small business can join, over 80% of Americans are employed by small business yet there is no plan that they can join. Any wonder why so many Americans don't have health care, this is just one of many reasons.


----------



## Seraega (May 8, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Please get out your constitution and read about the general welfare clause, the taxing and spending clause... read Alexander Hamilton in the federalist papers, US vs. Butler.... 

You guys are raving lunatics that have no eduation to back up your meme of "OMG OMG We have a constitution!  You're shitting on the constitution!!!!!!111!!!"


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 8, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Dick Cheney, George Bush, John Boehner, your parents, my parents,  and retired military vets are all on taxpayer funded public healthcare.  And I haven't heard them complaining about it.
> 
> 
> why don't we ask them how they like it, rather than rely on the opinons of a rightwing blog author?



aparently RD you have never met an elderly person that has the "GOVT. FUNDED  HEALTHCARE"......my parents had it and when both needed care beyond what MEDICARE would cover,in order to get the needed care we were going to have to sell ALL their assets and turn their house over to the Govt.....and then they would cover what they needed.....yea great system....i am sure the elderly are eagerly waiting to turn their assets over to the govt.in return for needed care....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 8, 2009)

wihosa said:


> Guess what, everyone stands in line to get health care. I had to wait 6 weeks to get an injection in my back to relieve extreme pain and I have Kaiser.
> 
> Trying to scare people about the availablity of healthcare with a single payer system isn't working anymore. I've met and talked to quite a few people from Canada and Europe (Britain and Sweden) who report no wait times for emergency care.



what a crock of shit.....


----------



## Red Dawn (May 8, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Dick Cheney, George Bush, John Boehner, your parents, my parents,  and retired military vets are all on taxpayer funded public healthcare.  And I haven't heard them complaining about it.
> ...





Just encourage your republican representatives to run on a platform of eliminating Medicare, and letting seniors get insurance on the free market, if you feel that way.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 8, 2009)

wihosa said:


> Want to bet there are more horror stories of people unfairly treated by private insurance companies than of people who were by national health care services?



yea .....right


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 8, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Faces of government healthcare:
> ...


well we can hope.....


----------



## alan1 (May 8, 2009)

wihosa said:


> Guess what, everyone stands in line to get health care. *I had to wait 6 weeks* to get an injection in my back to relieve extreme pain and I have Kaiser.
> 
> Trying to scare people about the availablity of healthcare with a single payer system isn't working anymore. I've met and talked to quite a few people from Canada and Europe (Britain and Sweden) who report *no wait times for emergency care*.



Was that 6 weeks for emergency care?
I call bullshit.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 8, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> I have relatives in Toronto, and although I haven't talked with them in recent years, the last time they visited the States, we had a kitchen table discussion over this, and they both said that, just as in the United States, the "horror stories" we hear have been plucked from isolated incidents and blown out of proportion to become all-inclusive "examples" of Canadian health care. Although these relatives could well afford their own health coverage, and do have secondary coverage, for day-to-day health needs at a PREVENTIVE level, they say that it is well worth the taxes even if they, personally, don't avail themselves too often. But others do, and without such free preventive care, would be subject to more serious and expensive protracted illness, which would cost the government more in the long run. Sound familiar?


my son has some good friends in Canada....one of them has MS....he is not to happy with his waiting around for needed treatment....the other 2 say different then what your friends say...one of them is a nurse....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 8, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you mean the ones Obama suggested should pay for their own Ins.?


----------



## dilloduck (May 8, 2009)

wihosa said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Pool WHO's resources ???????????


----------



## alan1 (May 8, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Yours.


----------



## dilloduck (May 8, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



that's what I thought


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 8, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Just encourage your republican representatives to run on a platform of eliminating Medicare, and letting seniors get insurance on the free market, if you feel that way.


i am not the only one dude....while going through this with my folkes i talked to a dozen "kids" who were givin the same option as we were ....give us their house and we will give the treatment they need......if you want "national health care" they have got to guarantee that they will treat the person until death....without taking their assets....otherwise FUCK IT....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 8, 2009)

wihosa said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



"All the money will go to medical expenses" rather than "middle men taking a cut for doing nothing"? Which government are YOU talking about?  And what color is the sky on your planet?

Why is it that left wingers love to get screwed by big government?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 8, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> whats good enough for the government leaders should be good enough for the voters...if they get "free" (its paid for by the taxpayers) why shouldnt the taxpayers?



Because the taxpayers aren't government employees.  Politicians are.  Like most large employers, the government offers health insurance as an employment benefit.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 8, 2009)

wihosa said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > strollingbones said:
> ...



Trying to scare people the opposite way with anecdotes isn't working.  It doesn't matter what you, personally, did, or what your buddies, personally, report.  What matters is the general overall perspective of each nation's healthcare.  And wait times in Canada and Great Britain have been open scandals in those countries for a while now, such that both have started incorporating aspects of privatization to alleviate them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 8, 2009)

wihosa said:


> Want to bet there are more horror stories of people unfairly treated by private insurance companies than of people who were by national health care services?



Yes.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 8, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



Not all of them do.  The President and Vice President do because they generally retire after holding office, or go be diplomats or activists.  They're not likely to go out and get a regular, paying job with benefits afterwards.  Besides, those are two very unique, high-pressure jobs which are only going to produce a very, very small pool of people being taken care of at any one time.

Military vets, I believe, do not necessarily get coverage for life.  It depends on whether they retire from the military after a long career, or sustain a lasting disability due to their service, unless I'm very mistaken.  In which case, the retirement would make healthcare an employment benefit tied to their pension, and disability . . . I think if someone becomes disabled in the service of their country, it's the least the country owes them in return to provide them healthcare.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 9, 2009)

wihosa said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Well lefty... the fed is not running on state tax income


This bullshit that everyone pays income taxes is about as much of a myth as the Clinton surplus

No... everyone does not pay income tax... there are a LARGE number of people who indeed get every cent and more back than what they paid into the system for witholding... but nice try


Hmmm. inequity in property tax BECAUSE YOU OWN MORE PROPERTY OR MORE VALUABLE PROPERTY... nice try again... just like you pay more in total sales tax when you buy a Porsche compared to a Kia... don't mean you are getting taxed at a higher rate... and no, if you do not own property, you do not pay the tax... your landlord may, and may pass costs off accordingly to you.... but hmmmm, kinda sounds like the argument with BUSINESS TAX INCREASES NOW DON'T IT??.. 

And I will argue that you should work to pay for your own needs.... including health care... you're a goddamn adult... pay for it and take care of it like an adult instead of a sniveling child throwing a tantrum for a Hershey bar in the check out line, screaming that "I need it".. and I will argue that the rest of us are not responsible for your personal care and your personal wants and needs.. YOU are


----------



## DiamondDave (May 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Bingo... not all vets get coverage for life... I for one do not

And if you would offer legislation that states that politicians do not after they are out of office, unless they served for 20 years or so, I would not argue that... as long as it is known ahead of time

But I guarantee you that the insurance benefits who served their country fr 20+ years or sustained and injury while in, more than deserved and earned that benefit


----------



## DiamondDave (May 9, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Owed for doing nothing and earning it as an employment benefit..... big difference

nice try


----------



## DiamondDave (May 9, 2009)

Seraega said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Promoting the general welfare and providing for it are 2 different things... and the General Welfare is indeed much different as what was intended to what you are trying to shovel now... Founding fathers never intended for individuals to have their every need taken care of my the government.. try having some education about the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers


----------



## alan1 (May 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...


I think it's incestuous desire.
They want mommy/daddy government to provide for their every need/want/desire, including sex.


----------



## editec (May 9, 2009)

I currently have socialized medicine..through the VA.

I'm reasonably satisfied with it.

I got in to see a doctor faster at the VA than I used to be able to see my own doctor when I had private HC.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 9, 2009)

wihosa said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



You mean all the money will be going to pay for what the government decides is appropriate for you.


----------



## wihosa (May 9, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Guess what, everyone stands in line to get health care. *I had to wait 6 weeks* to get an injection in my back to relieve extreme pain and I have Kaiser.
> ...



I had extreme pain shooting dowm my leg (sciatica). It was completly dibilitating. I would wake from a dead sleep in so much pain that it brought me to tears. After four weeks of taking endocet I was becoming addicted yet I had to wait for my back injection. I would call it an emergency, but I had to wait.


----------



## wihosa (May 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Facts are facts, Medicare costs 2% for administration, private insurance costs 25% for administration and profits. Don't forget the profits, ah yes, profitting off of someone's poor health, sicko indeed!


----------



## Ame®icano (May 9, 2009)

How many of you ever lived in the country (countries) with government controlled healthcare?

Well, I did, and from my experience, thats a hole without the bottom where you keep pouring cash and never even partially fill it. Big NO NO on my list.


----------



## alan1 (May 9, 2009)

wihosa said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


Haha, sciatica.
A far cry from an emergency like a compound fracture or a bleeding eyeball.  The fact that you want compare a sciatica to an actual emergency medical need is ridiculous.


----------



## wihosa (May 9, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



OK the fed does not collect state income tax, what's your point?

So when people pay tax on their income, but it is called FICA, it is not a tax? Nobody is getting a refund in excess of the total tax paid, maybe in excess of that portion of their tax called 'income tax' but certainly not in excess of their total tax. Are you really so easily fooled by the name of the tax?

The fact is if you live in a home with a higher value than someone else in the community you pay more in school tax than that person. You also pay more in taxes for fire protection and police protection, for street maintanence etc. Sorry, that's is just a fact.

I've been self employed for thiry years . I have raised three kids to adulthood and paid cash for all my medical bills since I could never affored health insurance, but never once used government assistance so don't try to lecture me about pulling one's self up by the boot straps.

This is not about "screaming that "I need it".. " this is about realizing that we are being ripped off to the tune of 25% of our health care dollars. If you think that is a good deal I can't help you but the majority of Americans now realize we can do better.


----------



## HUGGY (May 9, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> What a piece of propoganda.
> 
> If you guys were right about this, or the economy, or the war, why are you approaching this problem the same way you approach every problem?  Deny there is a problem for as long as you can, do nothing about it when you are in charge, Have prices go up 101% after you get into office, and then lie and scare people into thinking the liberal approach will cause the exact problems your own status quo is guilty of?
> 
> ...



The facts are clear.  50-60 MILLION americans have NO health care liver, kidney transplants 60 years old or anything.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 9, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Dick Cheney, George Bush, John Boehner, your parents, my parents,  and retired military vets are all on taxpayer funded public healthcare.  And I haven't heard them complaining about it.
> ...



What's the alternative? Your house? What if one parent has advanced Alzheimers? Ever seen anyone suffering from that? They stare blankly into space, and if lying down, arms and legs flail just as if they were just born. There was a time families took care of their elders, but those days are _long gone_.

There are ways to get around the question of assets BEFORE someone is placed in a nursing home. Real simple ways, like transferring wealth to trusts or selling real property to family members beforehand. If an elderly person is all alone anyway and has a serious illness, I doubt s/he would care whether the government takes the assets or not. I sure wouldn't. I can't spend it immobilized or dead.


----------



## wihosa (May 9, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



Well you certainly are not a compassionate conservative are you? Even so I hope you never have to go through what I did. Ask around, many have had sciatica, if you ever do, try to remember what you said here.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 9, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



As is the customary misinterpretation by pubbies, that wasn't what it was all about. The intent (which never got off the ground, by the way) was so that the veterans didn't have to wait forever for the VA to get through its own red tape. But the whole thing got twisted by the Foxhounds who, of course, take everything they say as gospel.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 9, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Yeah, Heaven Forbid you should be asked to contribute to the health and welfare of the citizens of your country. Since you got yours, fuck no.


----------



## Iriemon (May 9, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > diamonddave said:
> ...



lmfao!

This exchange is too funny.

Wihosa points out that while many don't pay income taxes they pay FICA.  Meanwhile DD calls him an idiot, argues that some don't pay income taxes (which Wihosa admitted) and then talks about state taxes!  LOL!  

This deserves a spot on the liberal v. conservative thread.

BTW, there was a surplus under Clinton, proved here if anyone is interested.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ng-the-clinton-administration-was-a-myth.html


----------



## MaggieMae (May 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Where does it go now? Why do insurance premiums continue to rise on average of 7% annually to the point they are prohibitive just for basics and then with a huge deductible at the outset? Do you people EVER actually look into facts?


----------



## MaggieMae (May 9, 2009)

wihosa said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Poor people have been known to die in emergency rooms in the United States waiting to be seen. There are horror stories anywhere you look. 

Personally, I wouldn't go to a hospital unless I was dragged in unconscious. Now THAT'S where the horror stories abound.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 9, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > whats good enough for the government leaders should be good enough for the voters...if they get "free" (its paid for by the taxpayers) why shouldnt the taxpayers?
> ...



Here is the problem.  In the US, we pay twice as much for healthcare as most countries with universal healthcare.  We are not receiving value for our money.  At the same time, these countries with universal healthcare are not paying enough, and therefore they suffer by not receiving adequate and timely care.  

The answer lies somewhere between their system and ours, where costs should play a factor in healthcare, but it should not be the determining factor.  People in countries such as Canada and most of Europe, are not going to receive better care without paying more.  We, on the other hand, should be able to find a way to reduce costs somewhat, while still maintaining excellent care.

To date, the best system I have seen is that of Switzerland.  They have universal healthcare, but it is private in nature.  The key to their system is that health insurance in purchased by the individual; it is not a benefit provided by the employer.  So everyone must purchase a private policy.  For those who cannot afford one, the government subsidizes them, but they still pay something towards their own healthcare.

Because of the way the system is set up, most people purchase what we would consider major medical policies, which are not nearly as expensive as the A to Z policies most people in the US prefer.  However, that means that the basics are paid for out of pocket.  The good thing is that nobody can be denied or given higher premiums due to pre-existing conditions.  But then again, every adult pays for insurance.  Compliance is 99.5%.  

Here is the kicker.  With 99.5% of the population having coverage, the government share of healthcare spending is only around 24% compared to 45% in the US, and they pay substantially less overall.  

What I find disheartening, is that the argument on healthcare here in the US always boils down to one or the other; either leave it exactly as it is, which fails to address the staggering cost, or move toward a national one payer system.  Neither of these two seem to be the answer, yet we can't find anyone willing to discuss other options.  To me, that is sad that the intellect among those interested in this issue is so narrow minded.

Universal Health Care - Change.org: Swiping Ideas from the Swiss


----------



## alan1 (May 9, 2009)

wihosa said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Pain isn't an emergency darling.
I hope you never have to go through the potential loss of an eye like I did.  For some odd reason the hospital emergency room put my damaged eye at a higher priority than sciatica.  Gee, maybe it was a more critical situation than just pain.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (May 9, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > What a piece of propoganda.
> ...



What facts?....more than half of those millions you whine about are ILLEGAL ALIENS....if we got rid of them our medical costs would plummet.....and we'd go back to having good, reasonably priced, top-of-the-line American health care...


----------



## HUGGY (May 9, 2009)

ScreamingEagle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Excuse me...I was clear ...*AMERICANS* now go fuck yourself sparky.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (May 9, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> What a piece of propoganda.
> 
> If you guys were right about this, or the economy, or the war, why are you approaching this problem the same way you approach every problem?  Deny there is a problem for as long as you can, do nothing about it when you are in charge, Have prices go up 101% after you get into office, and then lie and scare people into thinking the liberal approach will cause the exact problems your own status quo is guilty of?
> 
> ...



Hightower?  The 70s called and they said they want their thoroughly played out leftist hack back...

And forget about Ed Schultze... I have PERSONALLY laid that idiot OPEN on his own show... he's an imbecile... he just _seems_ bright when idiots like you are close enough to force the comparison.

Nationalized, or socialised or Single payer healthcare is not mathematically tenable... and that is because the human system is in a constant state of deterioration from shortly after birth; and where a system is designed around an insurance paradigm, it violates the singular essence of insurance, which is to offset losses from unforeseen liabilities...

Where it is designed around an entitlement, the scope of the system is forced to provide care for volumes which it cannot hope to sustain... as it requires that what the sum of individuals could not sustain should by sustained by the collective. << that's too deep for you Bobo... just let it go.

Socialized medicine is healthcare by the lowest common denominator... it is all promise and no pay...  and will result in what will provide you to look back upon the glory days of healthcare, when one belonged to an *HMO*.

Let the record reflect that the same idiots that are now pushing killing off the American Healthcare system, and replacing it with Nationalized Healthcare... are the SAME PEOPLE that gave you that HMO YOU HATE!


----------



## driveby (May 9, 2009)

wihosa said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...




CEO's or Government Bureaucrat's ?  You're trading the measles for the mumps .........


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (May 9, 2009)

wihosa said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...




ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD!  Now THAT's PRECIOUS and what makes it so precious is she actually believes that drivel.

There is NOTHING less efficient than a Government project... NOTHING!  And you're desperate to apply that trainwreck to the healthcare system.  ARE YOU NUTS?

Have you NEVER experienced the independent attitude of a government bureaucracy, ANYWHERE?   Sis... if you think that a CORPORATION doesn't give a crap about you and your problems you haven't SEEN the absence of concern until you're looking into the eyes of some clerk who is being paid by the government...  and just IMAGINE the skill sets of a doctor whose ambition is to work for the GOVERNMENT!  

You're an ignoramous...  of the first order.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 9, 2009)

wihosa said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


a Chiropractor would have taken a good deal of your pain away with one treatment.....3-4 total and your done....4 years into my "mail-delivery" career the same thing happened to me....was limping badly...pain was 8 on a scale of 10....and not getting any better....went to a regular doc. at least 6-7 times that month....had Kaiser at time.....they were stumped and nothing they gave me was working....lady i knew kept telling me go see a Chiro.....reluctantly i went,but was desperate...after my first exam he said i have sciatica,and he can help....this was monday,by friday i was a new man....fucking Kaiser Docs were stumped,they NEVER heard of Sciatica?....Doctors from the Inquisition at Kaiser....back adjustments ,was as simple as that....been going to this same guy now for 26 years.......


----------



## alan1 (May 9, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> *a Chiropractor would have taken a good deal of your pain away with one treatment.....3-4 total and your done*....4 years into my "mail-delivery" career the same thing happened to me....was limping badly...pain was 8 on a scale of 10....and not getting any better....went to a regular doc. at least 6-7 times that month....had Kaiser at time.....they were stumped and nothing they gave me was working....lady i knew kept telling me go see a Chiro.....reluctantly i went,but was desperate...after my first exam he said i have sciatica,and he can help....this was monday,by friday i was a new man....fucking Kaiser Docs were stumped,they NEVER heard of Sciatica?....Doctors from the Inquisition at Kaiser....back adjustments ,was as simple as that....*been going to this same guy now for 26 years*.......



Sorry, just can't help myself.
3-4 treatments and your done?  Then why the fuck are you still seeing him after 26 years?  Are the treatments 8-9 years apart?


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 9, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



it isnt when you cant fucking walk.....and if you walked for a living....ITS A FUCKING EMERGENCY...


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 9, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> The facts are clear.  50-60 MILLION americans have NO health care liver, kidney transplants 60 years old or anything.


and how many of those are NOT americans?.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 9, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> There are ways to get around the question of assets BEFORE someone is placed in a nursing home. Real simple ways, like transferring wealth to trusts or selling real property to family members beforehand. If an elderly person is all alone anyway and has a serious illness, I doubt s/he would care whether the government takes the assets or not. I sure wouldn't. I can't spend it immobilized or dead.



you have to transfer those things LONG before they are getting bad,not when it happens.....we tried ......


----------



## alan1 (May 9, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



No, it isn't.
Posting in caps doesn't change that.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 9, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



you believe that BS if you want Maggie,as Commander in Chief ....HE SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAVE MENTIONED SOMETHING LIKE THAT... you might as well sign up for Bobo's class ......Bobo 101....hurry its filling fast.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 9, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Here is the problem.  In the US, we pay twice as much for healthcare as most countries with universal healthcare.  We are not receiving value for our money.  At the same time, these countries with universal healthcare are not paying enough, and therefore they suffer by not receiving adequate and timely care.
> 
> The answer lies somewhere between their system and ours, where costs should play a factor in healthcare, but it should not be the determining factor.  People in countries such as Canada and most of Europe, are not going to receive better care without paying more.  We, on the other hand, should be able to find a way to reduce costs somewhat, while still maintaining excellent care.



the things said about the US system,i can agree with much of that....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 9, 2009)

ScreamingEagle said:


> What facts?....more than half of those millions you whine about are ILLEGAL ALIENS....if we got rid of them our medical costs would plummet.....and we'd go back to having good, reasonably priced, top-of-the-line American health care...



8-20 mill anyway.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 9, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



MM...are you talking about waiting in an emergency room or just going to see a doctor?......my answers are about going to see a DOC., in his office,and how long it takes, NOT waiting in an emergency room.....obviously a bleeding eye or a broken bone is more serious....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 9, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Damned right, Heaven forbid I should be FORCED to contribute to you.  I got mine, go get your own, and get over the idea that you and other, greedy strangers like you have any right to take away from the people I actually care about.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 9, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Yes, we do.  We're looking at the fact that the government has never in its entire existence lowered the cost of anything it was involved in.  And the fact that it's not exactly famous for its streamlined efficiency and customer service.  AND the fact that once you start a government program, it's damned hard to get rid of if you decide it's a bad idea down the road.


----------



## Annie (May 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Just curious, why would an intelligent person spend 6-10 years beyond college to specialize in medicine when the outcome is beyond the known?


----------



## Seraega (May 9, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Seraega said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



I do have some education on the matter.  See how I cited some documents - THE constitution itself, the federalist papers (HINT - this provides insight into the intent of the founding fathers) and a supreme court case that greatly expanded the power of the government and applied to this issue. 

You on the other hand spout off some nonsense that probably came straight out of your ass and offer up no new evidence other than your lies that the constitution somehow forbids government spending on health care.  It expressly allows the government to levy taxes and allocate spending for the public good.  There is no shortage of evidence that there is a great amount of public good in ensuring universal healthcare.  Look at the H1N1 "swine" flu.  Had it been a bigger problem than it was, or perhaps will be should it return in the fall we as an entire nation would all be better off if we knew that people wouldn't avoid the doctor because they are unable to pay.  It'd be much easier to contain if everyone had equal access to antivirals.  That is a public good.  That is a perfectly valid argument in favor of universal healthcare.  You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to come up with a valid argument against it.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (May 10, 2009)

Seraega said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Seraega said:
> ...




ROFL... the US Constitution prohibited the increase in power which you cite as a decision of the Supreme Court... and while you erroneously believe that the Judiciary has the 'right' or the means to interpret the constitution anyway they 'feel' they need to, and in so doing TOSS IT OUT THE WINDOW... you're dead ass wrong.

The Judiciary does NOT have such power and the progressives who feel otherwise are, as a result, PART OF THE PROBLEM!

As is noted by another, above; the phrase: '...promote the general welfare' does NOT provide that the RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CAN BE SET ASIDE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF THE COLLECTIVE.  *WHERE* IN THE US CONSTITUTION, OR ANY OTHER INSTRUMENT IN THE FOUNDING CHARTER DOES SUCH AN ARGUMENT REST?

Promoting the general welfare is a rhetorical instrument which assigns the US government the power to lobby on behalf of the united states... NOT to confiscate the product of one man's labor to subsidize the existance of another man...  and THAT is all we're talking about here.  There is NO GREATER point, NO EXPANSION OF THE CONCEPT, NO HIGHER MORAL IMPERATIVE... 

YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER INDIVIDUALS LABOR... PERIOD.

NONE, NADA, ZIP... ZERO!

And while there are many necessary functions of critical infrastrauture which require the means of the government to assess taxes, which PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE... NONE OF THOSE FUNCTIONS SERVE THE INTERESTS OF ONE MAN OVER THE NEXT... and that is precisely what social entitlements do... and that is why such are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and this without regard for the absurd rationalizations which argue to the contrary.

Now CITE THE ELEMENTS OF THE US CONSTITUTION AND THE OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF THE US FOUNDING CHARTER; WHEREIN THE NEEDS OF THE COLLECTIVE ARE RIGHTFULLY DESIGNATED TO EXIST BEYOND RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND ARE TO BE DRAWN FROM THEIR MEANS...

Either cite the SPECIFIC TEXT or STFU!

Either


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Damned right, Heaven forbid I should be FORCED to contribute to you.  I got mine, go get your own, and get over the idea that you and other, greedy strangers like you have any right to take away from the people I actually care about.



Ok.  Then please stop using the roads, bridges, tunnels, or subsidized public transport.  If you get mugged, well you'll just have to deal.  House catches on fire?  Poor you.  After all, none of us want to contribute to your well being either.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 10, 2009)

Annie said:


> Faces of government healthcare:
> 
> Faces of Government Healthcare



Here you go pea brain...

*Conservatives for Patients Rights* is a front group organized in 2009 by Richard Scott to fight U.S. president Barack Obama's proposals for health reform. According to the Politico news site, Scott has raised $20 million to fight health care reform.

Maggie Mahar at the Century Foundation's Health Beat blog reports that Scott previously started the for-profit hospital chain in 1987 that later became the $23 billion Columbia/HCA. He was ousted from this post in 1997 after an FBI investigation of Columbia/HCA that led to 14 felony convictions and $1.7 billion in criminal and civil fines for Medicare fraud.

*Richard Scott* is the founder of Conservatives for Patients Rights, a group organized in 2009 to fight U.S. president Barack Obama's proposals for health reform.

According to the Politico news site, Scott has raised $20 million to fight health care reform

Maggie Mahar at the Century Foundation's Health Beat blog has written about Scott in her book, Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Healthcare Costs So Much. She reports that Scott previously started the for-profit hospital chain in 1987 that later became the $23 billion Columbia/HCA. He was ousted from this post in 1997 after:

    the FBI swooped down on HCA hospitals in five states. Within weeks, three executives were indicted on charges of Medicare fraud, and the board had ousted Scott. 

    The investigation revealed that the hospital chain had been bilking Medicare while simultaneously handing over kickbacks and perks to physicians who steered patients to its hospitals. ... The company did not fight the charges. In 2000, HCA (which by then had expunged Columbia from its name) pleaded guilty to no fewer than 14 felonies. Over the next two years, it would pay a total of $1.7 billion in criminal and civil fines.
Source Watch


----------



## Annie (May 10, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Faces of government healthcare:
> ...



Fucktard.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 10, 2009)

Annie said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Is that word in the pea brain dictionary?


----------



## HUGGY (May 10, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



No...you don't get it.  The people voted with the expectation of getting health care for all.  Like police for all...fire department for all...education for all.  The me first screw everybody else party lost.  Cry all you want.  When health care passes you don't have to go to the doctor under that umbrella. Just keep paying the insurance vultures until they deny you coverage.  Before you fall back onto the national coverage be sure to come back here and beg forgiveness for being such a thoughtless selfish little neo con.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (May 10, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


ROFLMNAO...

This nation is not governed on the 'will of the people'... it is NOT a social Democracy... it is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC...  one based upon valid and sustainable human rights...

YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER MAN'S LABOR!  PERIOD...

And there is NO MEANS OF FUNDING YOUR HEALTHCARE WITHIN THAT IMMUTABLE FACT... UNLESS YOU FUND IT.

Want healthcare INSURANCE... FUND IT YOURSELF...


----------



## HUGGY (May 10, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...





*This nation is not governed on the 'will of the people'*

Yes it is.  If you want to live in a kingdom I'm sure there are several countries that will accomodate you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Damned right, Heaven forbid I should be FORCED to contribute to you.  I got mine, go get your own, and get over the idea that you and other, greedy strangers like you have any right to take away from the people I actually care about.
> ...



How do you equate contributing to things I actually use with contributing to YOUR health care?  I drive on bridges and roads, so I don't mind paying for them.  It's MY house, so I don't mind paying to have it protected.  The fact that you ALSO contribute to and use those things is ancillary.  Please tell me in what way I, personally, am using YOUR health care.  When did YOU become a public utility, dumbass?


----------



## HUGGY (May 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



*people I actually care about.*

And most americans do not qualify for your club?


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Actually the government has the right to tax the people, and can spend that on whatever it damn well pleases.  So yes the government can fund things with other peoples labor.  Don't like it?  Tough shit.  But thats the way it is.


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



No, actually, I don't use your bridges and roads.  But you get the benefit of them because other people helped to pay for them.  But until you want to pay for those things fully out of your own pocket, or get together some of your fellow citizens to pay for them, you argument about healthcare is meaningless.  You are merely another of those selfish individuals who is more than willing to let others pay for things you use, but aren't willing to pay for what others use.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (May 10, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Clear as mud......you probably mean AMERICANS as in North, Central, and South....

Here are the FACTS dipshit.....
The Online NewsHour: The Uninsured in America | Who Are the Uninsured? -- April 6, 2007 | PBS

As you can see from the charts,  *non-citizens *account for almost half (43% and growing) of the non-insured and that figure is even disputed as being too low....


> American citizens -- especially native-born citizens -- are much more likely to have health insurance than immigrants are. In 2005, about 13 percent of native-born citizens lacked health insurance, while 43 percent of noncitizens did, according to the census bureau.
> 
> Even that estimate might be too low, according to Hoffman, because it's hard for census-takers to find undocumented workers willing to answer survey questions.



Also some say that *85%* of the _growth rate_ of the uninsured is due to illegals.... 


> While all experts agree that noncitizens are less likely to have health insurance than citizens, the jury is still out on the question of how much impact immigrants have on the overall national uninsured rate.
> 
> Hoffman said that the idea that the growth of the uninsured rate is being fueled by immigrants is myth. "The numbers just don't support that," she said. "The large majority of the uninsured are U.S. citizens. While immigrants and the undocumented are less likely to have health insurance, there just aren't enough of them to make a difference in the overall rate."
> 
> But Fronstin disagreed. He said that his research found that immigration accounted for about 85 percent of the increase in uninsured rates between 1998 and 2003.


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

ScreamingEagle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



A noncitizen is NOT the same thing as an illegal immigrant.  Ever heard of a little thing called a green card?


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 10, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> No...you don't get it.  The people voted with the expectation of getting health care for all.  Like police for all...fire department for all...education for all.  The me first screw everybody else party lost.  Cry all you want.  When health care passes you don't have to go to the doctor under that umbrella. Just keep paying the insurance vultures until they deny you coverage.  Before you fall back onto the national coverage be sure to come back here and beg forgiveness for being such a thoughtless selfish little neo con.



let me ask you Hug.....is this national ins. going to also deny coverage if they deem it to expensive?.....


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > No...you don't get it.  The people voted with the expectation of getting health care for all.  Like police for all...fire department for all...education for all.  The me first screw everybody else party lost.  Cry all you want.  When health care passes you don't have to go to the doctor under that umbrella. Just keep paying the insurance vultures until they deny you coverage.  Before you fall back onto the national coverage be sure to come back here and beg forgiveness for being such a thoughtless selfish little neo con.
> ...



Yes, just like private insurance companies do.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> You are merely another of those selfish individuals who is more than willing to let others pay for things you use, but aren't willing to pay for what others use.



this statement Nic is a little confusing......Cee is also paying for the things she uses,along with the others.....and she is also paying for what those others are using.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> A noncitizen is NOT the same thing as an illegal immigrant.  Ever heard of a little thing called a green card?



but he is still NOT an American citizen and if he is counted as part of those millions without Ins.,he will still figure in the numbers of the non-citizens....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


so then whats the big deal?....i thought that this would NEVER happen with Uni.Ins.....this was one of the big gripes with the private Companies....


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > You are merely another of those selfish individuals who is more than willing to let others pay for things you use, but aren't willing to pay for what others use.
> ...



She is paying for those (although she doesn't realize it).  But she is only willing to pay for things she, herself, may use.  This is without realizing that everyone else chips in to pay for the things SHE uses, whether we use them or not.



> but he is still NOT an American citizen and if he is counted as part of those millions without Ins.,he will still figure in the numbers of the non-citizens.... "



And?  Whether someone is a citizen or not in this country, if they are here legally, they have rights.



> so then whats the big deal?....i thought that this would NEVER happen with Uni.Ins.....this was one of the big gripes with the private Companies.... "



You thought wrong, and nobody ever claimed that.  Some treatments are just too expensive.  But there is no reason for people who have treatable, fairly cheap diseases being not treated because they don't have the money.  And then we all get to pay lots and lots when they go into the ER because the longer you wait before treating a disease, the worse it gets.

Thats besides the fact that just because you have money you don't have more of a right to life than anyone else.


----------



## wihosa (May 10, 2009)

Just got to laugh at the righties who keep defending the obviously failing private health care system in this country. Costs continue to soar, more and more people uninsured and without health care and huge profits to the fats cats who have control of our health care. 

Meanwhile American business, suddenly fighting for survival in a global economy, is burdened with the most expensive health care system in the world. We need universal healthcare as much for business as for people. Look at the competative disadvantage our auto industy is in compared to countries with universal care.

Even small businesses who don't provide healthcare to their employees would benifit from universal care. If everybody had healthcare why would businesses have to pay for Workers Compensation Insurance? This is a huge cost to many industries like construction. I'm a general building contractor and WC is the biggest added cost to labor, for carpenters it's around 40%. If I pay a guy $100.00, I pay $40.00 for WC. It's very hard to compete against the many unscrupulous contractors hiring illegal labor.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> And?  Whether someone is a citizen or not in this country, if they are here legally, they have rights.
> 
> You thought wrong, and nobody ever claimed that.  Some treatments are just too expensive.  But there is no reason for people who have treatable, fairly cheap diseases being not treated because they don't have the money.  And then we all get to pay lots and lots when they go into the ER because the longer you wait before treating a disease, the worse it gets.



they w. the green cards might be here legally and have rights, but they dont have a right for free medical care.......and as such, they will be counted in with the non-citizens without Ins.

and what constitutes a "FAIRLY CHEAP DISEASE",and who makes that determination?


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > And?  Whether someone is a citizen or not in this country, if they are here legally, they have rights.
> ...



Your statement about permanent residents not having a "right" to free medical care is nonsensical.  They don't have a legal right to it, as nobody else does either.  But as far as going to a hospital to receive emergency care, actually they do have that right.  They also have the same rights as citizens as far as drivers license, welfare, taxes, and any number of other rights and responsibilities that citizens share in this nation.  What exactly is your justification for unilaterally claiming that they suddenly don't have a right to free healthcare? Their right is exactly the same as any US citizen.  The government can discriminate against permanent residents, but only in a few, very specific ways.  How it treats them for entitlements and for healthcare purposes aren't one of those ways.

As for the "fairly cheap disease", I was talking about things like diabetes, or even allergies.  Where to treat it, it is very cheap, but left untreated it becomes extremely expensive.  

But, of course, you had trouble comprehending.  What you are trying to get at is what diseases will a national health insurance not cover because they are too expensive, and who makes the determination.  The answer is, I don't know, and the government makes the determination.  But right now the answer is, I don't know, and private for-profit businesses are making the determination.  If I have to trust my health to one of two different organizations, one of whose goal is to improve my health, and one whose goal is to profit, its pretty obvious which one I should pick, the wailing and gnashing of teeth about governments many failures notwithstanding.


----------



## Chris (May 10, 2009)

The lack of a single payer healthcare system is killing American business. 

We can't compete because every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Your statement about permanent residents not having a "right" to free medical care is nonsensical.  They don't have a legal right to it, as nobody else does either.  But as far as going to a hospital to receive emergency care, actually they do have that right.  They also have the same rights as citizens as far as drivers license, welfare, taxes, and any number of other rights and responsibilities that citizens share in this nation.  What exactly is your justification for unilaterally claiming that they suddenly don't have a right to free healthcare? Their right is exactly the same as any US citizen.  The government can discriminate against permanent residents, but only in a few, very specific ways.  How it treats them for entitlements and for healthcare purposes aren't one of those ways.
> 
> As for the "fairly cheap disease", I was talking about things like diabetes, or even allergies.  Where to treat it, it is very cheap, but left untreated it becomes extremely expensive.
> 
> But, of course, you had trouble comprehending.  What you are trying to get at is what diseases will a national health insurance not cover because they are too expensive, and who makes the determination.  The answer is, I don't know, and the government makes the determination.  But right now the answer is, I don't know, and private for-profit businesses are making the determination.  If I have to trust my health to one of two different organizations, one of whose goal is to improve my health, and one whose goal is to profit, its pretty obvious which one I should pick, the wailing and gnashing of teeth about governments many failures notwithstanding.



we were not talking about emergency care Nic.....just regular going to a doctor...

and it seems to me Nic if your saying that the Universal HC controllers can pick and choose what diseases it deems "affordable" than nothing has changed....especially for those with the "non-affordable" ones....


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Your statement about permanent residents not having a "right" to free medical care is nonsensical.  They don't have a legal right to it, as nobody else does either.  But as far as going to a hospital to receive emergency care, actually they do have that right.  They also have the same rights as citizens as far as drivers license, welfare, taxes, and any number of other rights and responsibilities that citizens share in this nation.  What exactly is your justification for unilaterally claiming that they suddenly don't have a right to free healthcare? Their right is exactly the same as any US citizen.  The government can discriminate against permanent residents, but only in a few, very specific ways.  How it treats them for entitlements and for healthcare purposes aren't one of those ways.
> ...



If you aren't talking about emergency care, then you are ignorant of the actual situation.  Emergency care cannot be denied to you.  So what happens to all those uninsured people when their untreated affliction gets worse?  Well, they go to the emergency room, where suddenly their disease is much more expensive and much harder to treat.  Please explain to me how treating a disease with public money once its become an emergency is somehow ok, but treating a disease before that (which its cheaper, safer, and overall better), is somehow a negative thing.   

As for nothing changing, a lot has changed, especially for the millions of people who have diseases that can be treated very cheaply, but they don't have the health insurance to do so, and so cannot get them treated at all.  It doesn't cost much to go to a doctor, find out you have diabetes, and start eating better/taking insulin shots.  Thats not an expensive treatment.  So please tell me whats the justification for denying that treatment to god knows how many uninsured individuals


----------



## Seraega (May 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> The lack of a single payer healthcare system is killing American business.
> 
> We can't compete because every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.





This is why I don't understand the opposition to universal health care.  It's not just bankrupting families... look what it's doing to General Motors.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 10, 2009)

Seraega said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The lack of a single payer healthcare system is killing American business.
> ...



Nah... the union labor rates at 2X what other autoworkers are paid by companies in the US have NOTHING to do with it.... or the other outrageous parts of unionized labor contracts?? Or nothing to do with other faulty design and business practices... It must be ALL health care 

Not to mention that we, with our health care system have the most advanced procedures and more advances of ANY medical system in the world...

Reforming health care so that more types of different groups can get group rates... fine... reforming frivolous lawsuits so that doctors and hospitals do not have to pass on the costs of HUGE malpractice insurance to patients... Fine....

But single payer government provided healthcare is NOT the answer


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Seraega said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Awesome...we have the most advances, just nobody can afford to use them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Actually, while the government has the right to tax the people, it does NOT have the right to spend it on whatever it damned well pleases.  So no, the government cannot LEGITIMATELY fund things with other people's labor.  It simply gets away with doing so illegitimately because uneducated ignoramuses like you sit around, prattling away as though you know something instead of actually knowing something.


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...



Actually, yes, it pretty much can.  Probably the only limits would be to fund things that are specifically prohibited by the constitution (funding for torture, and the like....oh wait, but those are actually ok to Republicans ).

This is how the Feds got around a lot of the Constitutional limits on them.  They don't mandate that states do something, they just won't give them any money if they don't do it.  So, yes, they can do pretty much whatever they like with it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Look, imbecile, I'm not interested in trying to have a serious political debate with a doofus who wants to either 1) pretend he's a fucking hermit, and that that impacts anything, or 2) wants to ridiculously parse issues based on irrelevancies like whether or not you live in the same state I do.  I will state this one time, and if you are not able to rise to the correct rung of the evolutionary ladder to discuss it like something more than a chimpanzee in the zoo flinging his feces at the crowd, you may join others of your species on ignore.  So take notes, and think about your response hard.

Roads, bridges, police and fire departments are all PUBLIC UTILITIES, of direct and personal use and benefit to the people who pay for them.  Your healthcare is of no direct and personal use to anyone but you, and YOU are of no direct and personal use to ANYONE.  So they are not comparable, and until you and your healthcare become useful directly to me and my life, I have no intention of contributing money as though they are.  Got it?

And you're damned right I'm selfish, and fucking proud of it, and certainly not about to hang my head in shame because an even MORE selfish - not to mention ignorant - twit like YOU tries to make me feel bad for keeping what I earned instead of letting him take what he didn't.  Try that guilt shit on someone you aren't robbing at the point of the government's gun.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



I fully realize that I'm paying for things that other people are using, ass hat.  The operative point here is that I don't mind paying for them because I am ALSO using them.  And I'm not asking them to pay for something that only I use, as you are.  I won't be using your healthcare, and quite frankly, the more you talk, the more of a liability I consider it to keep you alive, anyway.  So why the hell should I pay for it?



Nik said:


> > but he is still NOT an American citizen and if he is counted as part of those millions without Ins.,he will still figure in the numbers of the non-citizens.... "
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have a right to life, which means you have a right not to be killed.  It doesn't mean you have a right to have other people sustain your life for you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Seraega said:
> ...



Ah, childishly simplistic generalizations.  Can't have a good liberal viewpoint without 'em.


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Wow...sorry I missed the nugget from up above.  Healthcare can be treated as a public utility...its the healthcare that is the public utility, not the individual.  Same goes for roads, police, etc, etc.  

Please explain to me this.  I don't give a shit if you get robbed.  I don't give a shit if you get murdered.  I don't give a shit if you get beaten up.  So tell me again why I need to pay for the police to protect your sorry ass, if you can't protect yourself?

Hospitals, and doctors, are also of "of direct and personal use and benefit to the people who pay for them."  However, your safety is of interest to nobody but yourself.  So please do try to explain the difference between healthcare and the cops again?  

And next time, try to avoid assuming asinine shit about my personal life and my own healthcare status.  Do try and keep the debate at least somewhat coherent, although I know it must be hard for you.


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



No, you won't be using "my" healthcare, dumbshit.  But you WILL be using healthcare.  I assume that even you have the decent common sense to see a doctor, dentist, and the like.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



What part of the word "legitimately" did you not understand? Was it the fact that it has more than one syllable?  Maybe you LIKE living in a country where the government runs wild and ignores the people, and that's why you blithely encourage it with your apathy.  Or maybe you're just too damned stupid to realize what you're doing.  I favor the latter explanation.


----------



## jeffrockit (May 10, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Dick Cheney, George Bush, John Boehner, your parents, my parents,  and retired military vets are all on taxpayer funded public healthcare.  And I haven't heard them complaining about it.
> ...



And, wait till the government begins to run out of money for healthcare and they start to ration it. When they decide that a 75 year old man that needs hip replacement will not get it because he is no longer paying into the system, but  a 35 year old still has earning potential. The left lives in this utopia like dream world and think that the money supply for all of these programs is limitless. When it becomes a mess, they will be the first to start screaming for something to be done.


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Ah yes, legitimately.  And tell me, dear moron,  who decides whether its legitimate or not?  I'll tell you, since you seem to be too stupid to know:  The Constitution decides, which is what I referenced.  Your asinine views on whether its legitimate or not really doesn't matter.  So you think its illegitimate?  Nobody gives a fuck.  What the Constitution says matters.  What you decide in your little fantasy land is legitimate or not doesn't.

And the government isn't "ignoring people".  2/3rds of the American public want a government sponsored healthcare plan.  What it is doing is ignoring radical fringe elements like you who just assume your views are always in the majority and that you get to decide for everyone else what is legitimate and whats not.


----------



## jeffrockit (May 10, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



What the left doesn't get, and I realize there are exceptions, is that if you keep giving handouts to people, they will have no motivation to work. The whole welfare state just perpetuates more of the same.


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Yes, of course.  In Sweden people sometimes starve to death because there isn't enough food on the shelves because nobody is farming.  Why isn't anyone farming?  Life is too cushy, and nobody wants to work.  They are almost as bad as Zimbabwe these days.

Or, you know, not.  People don't work just so they can get healthcare.  They like nice things as well.  Making it so someone has to work in order not to die of a easily treatable illness is pretty fucked.


----------



## jeffrockit (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



And making someone else pay for another's healthcare because some are working the system is also pretty screwed up. This argument will go on forever. When the system is in place and people are still dying because the gov. is rationing, or has a long waiting time for simple tests or other people's money has been exhausted and the program can't be funded properly or a non-medical government official is making health decisions for you, the screams from both sides will be loud.


----------



## Seraega (May 10, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Seraega said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



I bet you believe that the average UAW worker makes $75 an hour don't you?  That's what Fox and Rush told you so it must be true.  The number has been debunked.  The fact is that UAW employees in Michigan make almost exactly the same wages and benefits ($47-50/hr) as employees for Honda and Toyota make in the south.  The difference is those foreign companies don't have legacy costs... yet. 

Colorado Media Matters - KOA's Caldara repeated $75 per hour autoworker falsehood despite GM's statements to the contrary

Learn to tell truth from fiction.  It will help you get along in this world.


----------



## Seraega (May 10, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Nobody is working the system.  What you're failing to realize is that the real moochers are ALREADY getting free government insurance, it's called Medicaid.  It's the middle class that's getting screwed and has been for decades.   We're not rich enough to afford to buy our own coverage, we're not poor enough to be on the government dole. 

Your argument that we're "working the system" is complete bullshit.  Most of us are working hard to provide for our families and every day are living in fear of losing our ability to do so.  We're afraid that some small accident may incapacitate us and leave us unable to take care of ourselves.  Lucky for you, at that point we will be in the system completely free Medicaid, yay!!!!


----------



## DiamondDave (May 10, 2009)

Seraega said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Seraega said:
> ...



Listen banana crammer

1st.. I do not listen to Rush or Savage or whatever other ones left wingers spout out about because they are afraid of them...
2nd... Union workers for GM/Ford/etc DO make more with wage and benefits compensation than American workers for Toyota, Nissan, etc
3rd.. Media matters... oh, that is RICH... nah, you're not a left winger


----------



## HUGGY (May 10, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Seraega said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...




Maybe we should get rid of veterans hospitals.  Only about 10% of the vets actually fight.  The rest are getting paid for thier service.  It was thier choice to join up not mine.  If they are dumb enough to hop too just because a moron like Bush says so ..well they should have thought it out better.  

Point is that almost everyone contributes to society.  Everyone pays some taxes.  Everyone born here or those that migrated legally have a dog in the fight.

I submit that you should rethink who you believe the enemy is.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 11, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Seraega said:
> ...



YOU can approach your representatives and vote to do so, since soldiers are indeed Federal Employees

And calling my fellow soldier brothers and sisters dumb... neg rep for that btw.... that's just plain ignorant... what next, cops 'dumb' too?

The enemy... not a term I would use... but those who are for someone else paying for their services, personal needs, etc.. that is someone indeed against the concepts of freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Health care can NOT be treated as a public utility, fool.  You saying it is - hell, your master in Washington saying it is - doesn't make it so.  Health care is an individual need, like food and clothing.



Nik said:


> Please explain to me this.  I don't give a shit if you get robbed.  I don't give a shit if you get murdered.  I don't give a shit if you get beaten up.  So tell me again why I need to pay for the police to protect your sorry ass, if you can't protect yourself?



You don't have to give a shit if I get robbed.  You give a shit if YOU do.  You pay for the police because of that, as do I, and they protect both of us.  And by the way, fucknut, I also pay for the police.  So you aren't paying for them to protect me.  I am.



Nik said:


> Hospitals, and doctors, are also of "of direct and personal use and benefit to the people who pay for them."  However, your safety is of interest to nobody but yourself.  So please do try to explain the difference between healthcare and the cops again?



The existence of hospitals is a public benefit.  Paying for your treatment isn't.  And yes, my safety IS actually of interest to the rest of the public, for several reasons.  You ever try to sell a house in a high crime rate area?  But I've never noticed property values going down because the neighbors down the street have cancer.



Nik said:


> And next time, try to avoid assuming asinine shit about my personal life and my own healthcare status.  Do try and keep the debate at least somewhat coherent, although I know it must be hard for you.



I didn't assume anything.  All the asinine shit I commented on came from your posts.  I neither know nor care about your life.  What I know is that you want to take money from my pocket, away from my family, to pay for your health care.

I'd like to say this was a nice attempt at being lofty and condescending, but it wasn't.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



That's like saying I won't be eating the food in your house, but I do eat food, so that means I should contribute to your groceries.

Yeah, I go to the doctor.  I pay for it.  I don't go next door and ask my neighbor to pony up because the baby needs his vaccinations.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Oh, Christ, are you really this fucking stupid?  How do you find the ON button to even GET on the computer, flatliner?

"The Constitution decides."  What, the Constitution is a sentient being now, is it, rather than a piece of sheepskin?  The PEOPLE decide what's legitimate, you mouthbreather.  "The government rules at the consent of the governed."  Ring a bell?  The fact that you figured out that what's legitimate is written down apparently didn't extend to figuring out how it got there, or applying it to anything, since you seem to have forgotten to mention that what you want the government to do ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION.  That's where my "asinine views" on legitimacy come from.  Have someone read it to you sometime.  Sorry it's not available in a crayon version.

Nobody gives a fuck?  Where do you get THAT little gem?  The fact that everyone agrees with you, and there's no debate on the subject?  Oh, whoops.  I guess there is.  So gee, I guess there ARE people who care that you want to wipe your ass on the Constitution.  So much for THAT theory.



Nik said:


> And the government isn't "ignoring people".  2/3rds of the American public want a government sponsored healthcare plan.  What it is doing is ignoring radical fringe elements like you who just assume your views are always in the majority and that you get to decide for everyone else what is legitimate and whats not.



Two-thirds of the American public?  Really?  And where do you get THAT figure?  Out of the same ass you're wiping with the Constitution?


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



your getting off course here Nic....we were not talking about someone who has a heart attack or gets hit by a car.....as far as i know non-citizens will be treated at an ER anywhere in the country,by law,ins. or not for an emergency....nat. health care is about you going to a doc.just as if you had a private policy,for a check up or you got something you need checked out....and a NON-citizen should not be a part of this "FREE" health care UNLESS they are paying into the system,if not then they pay out of their own pocket....

and as far as Diabetes being NOT EXPENSIVE.....the test strips are not that cheap,nor is a supply of insulin....some people who have other diseases,their meds are not cheap either.....going for blood work every 3-4 months for diabetics and others, not cheap.....seeing a specialist...not cheap....some of the tests some people need,MRI's CATSCANS etc. not cheap....

and an UNINSURED AMERICAN CITIZEN is IMO different than an UNINSURED ILLEGAL....the American i wont mind going to see a doctor for what ails him....he/she has maybe contributed to the system before being unemployed,and at the very least,they are citizens of the country.... the Illegal i have a problem with he/she going on my tax dollar.....if they want to be a part...contribute to the pot....if not TOUGH SHIT....


----------



## HUGGY (May 11, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



You pin dick weasle.  It was an example and you know it.  Fuck your rep.  And you showed your true colors ...fuck you.. I don't do pathetic reps.  I leave that up to you juvenile ass clowns.


----------



## rayboyusmc (May 11, 2009)

We spend more, we get less and 45 million have no coverage.

Great system.  

Let's keep up the high salaries for the Managed Care CEOs and deny care for those who need it.

P.S.  I don't hear our elected officials complaining about government coverage.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 11, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



It must be nice going through life believing you and your family will always have the ability to take care of yourselves, never unexpectedly being unemployed, retirement savings wiped out by others just like you who thought only of themselves, a health insurance policy that suddenly denies urgent care because the insurer decides you had a hangnail 10 years ago and so that we a "preexisting" condition to your current problem.

Ah yes, "compassionate conservatism" speaks to what the spirit of America is all about:
ME ME ME !!


----------



## MaggieMae (May 11, 2009)

Annie said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



For one thing, the practice of medicine isn't something that's about to to away. Even during this time of high unemployment, health care continues to be at the top of where good jobs can be found.

It is true, however, that many doc wannabes opt to take their talents where the big bucks are guaranteed, like K Street, rather than dedicating their profession to sick folk. Yuk. How boring and unrewarding is THAT?


----------



## DiamondDave (May 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



We may not always have the ability.. but nothing is certain in life... but what we strive for is the preservation of that freedom to strive to do what we can for ourselves, success or failure

I have been laid off a few times.. had some procedures not covered by insurance... so?? Suck it up and drive on....


----------



## MaggieMae (May 11, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Even a "Constitutional Republic" is only as good as its citizens are able to contribute. PI's has got to be the dumbest of the dumb arguments. No country, whether a Republic, a Democracy, or a Monarchy, can possibly survive and expect the lifestyle we enjoy if its citizens are unhealthy (and uneducated, while we're at it).


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> It must be nice going through life believing you and your family will always have the ability to take care of yourselves, never unexpectedly being unemployed, retirement savings wiped out by others just like you who thought only of themselves, a health insurance policy that suddenly denies urgent care because the insurer decides you had a hangnail 10 years ago and so that we a "preexisting" condition to your current problem.



now Maggie according to the discussion i have been having with Nic....Nic said that the powers that be in the National H.C. system will be able to deny you coverage if what you have is too expensive to treat.....now will they also deny coverage if you have a pre-existing condition if this national system thing starts up?


----------



## MaggieMae (May 11, 2009)

ScreamingEagle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



Even reducing the number by some unknown percentage of illegals, that still leaves an enormous percentage of people without health insurance, and more falling through the cracks every day and joining the ranks of uninsured. However, illegals will NOT have health insurance subsidized if they cannot afford it, as rumor has it. For one thing, it would require them to come forward and declare that they are not legal citizens, and I don't see that happening.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 11, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > And?  Whether someone is a citizen or not in this country, if they are here legally, they have rights.
> ...



There are lots of "diseases" that can be controlled by lifestyle changes and medication. Emphysema is controlled by quiting smoking, and if it has progressed, an oxygen regimen.


----------



## Ame®icano (May 11, 2009)

Seraega said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The lack of a single payer healthcare system is killing American business.
> ...



Exactly, unionized (GM version of universal) healthcare drove GM near banktuptcy. Why would I want the same for whole country?


----------



## MaggieMae (May 11, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...



According to your logic, the U.S. government has been operating unconstitutionally forever. What?

Section 8 of the Constitution states: 
_To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay th debts and provide for the common defense *and general wel*fare..._

You may be confused with Section 9 which states:
_No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law._

The 16th Amendment instituted the tax on income.
_The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the states and without regard to any census or enumeration._


----------



## MaggieMae (May 11, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Statistics are posted everywhere, even here. Since you and your ilk refuse to accept the facts, people tire of providing you with them.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



You're _GOOD_, Nik -- stick around.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 11, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



Funny you should use the hip replacement example.

Health Care Organizational Ethics: President Obama's Grandmother and the Ethics of Health Care Reform

This same kind of dilemma faces legitimate _existing_ government health care, Medicare in particular. It will always be one of those gray areas that will probably be determined case by case. To project that there will be specific treatments unavailable for certain age groups is a stretch, and it's an example of the hysteria over this subject by the right.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 11, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



The "welfare state" has diminished in the past decade by around 70%. Next?


----------



## MaggieMae (May 11, 2009)

DiamondDave said:
			
		

> And let us welcome the newest member to the troll crew that is ignorant enough to be worthy of going on the ignore list.... Iriemon
> The ignore list keeps growing with a growing number of trolls and idiots:
> Bobo the assclown, Chris/Kirkybot, Orange_Juice, Sunni Man, Agitate the Prostate, KMAN, Truth Don't Matter, DevNell, Yukon, Iriemon, and AmericaFirst...
> Join the cause and add these posters to your ignore list as well..



Your ignorant signature says it all. (I feel "left" out, however.) Blinders on, cotton in the ears, dissent not allowed on this board. We get it. And you wonder why you've become the new minority.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 11, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > It must be nice going through life believing you and your family will always have the ability to take care of yourselves, never unexpectedly being unemployed, retirement savings wiped out by others just like you who thought only of themselves, a health insurance policy that suddenly denies urgent care because the insurer decides you had a hangnail 10 years ago and so that we a "preexisting" condition to your current problem.
> ...



Probably, if it's legitimate. But seeing a doctor for a strained back 10 years ago isn't enough reason to deny back surgery required from a bad fall a week ago, which is the most recent example I've seen.


----------



## Gurdari (May 11, 2009)

Annie said:


> Faces of government healthcare:
> 
> Faces of Government Healthcare



...nice site, lol.
I read about the Conservatives for patient's rights website the other day, which it seems most of this site's links go to.
Didn't see the parts about what is great about SOCIALIZED (insert scary flame graphic) medicine... or much mention of what is bad about free-market medicine .

I guess if the free-market is working, don't change a thing. Too bad that chorus of dying, frustrated Canadians never seem to want to change our system... not that we don't all hate and despise bureaucratic government run things like the police and education systems.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 11, 2009)

Ame®icano;1208367 said:
			
		

> Seraega said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Their benefit package was obviously hefty and drove up their costs, but it was the legacy benefits to retirees that became hard to sustain. That said, GM wasn't in major trouble financially, in spite of high employee costs, until management started making poor decisions. The combination is what has driven them to bankruptcy.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 11, 2009)

Gurdari said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Faces of government healthcare:
> ...



Didn't you mean "never seem to want to change THEIR system"??


----------



## ScreamingEagle (May 11, 2009)

The only way we are ever going to get back to decent health care at reasonable prices is to go back to the free market system where YOU THE CONSUMER control things with cash payments only....just like you go to the grocery store to buy your food.  This means getting RID of all the middlemen who are controling and "managing" your health care for you at exhorbitant prices...

Employers = MIDDLEMEN
Insurance carriers = MIDDLEMEN
Government = MIDDLEMEN

Once the middlemen are gone it is between YOU and your DOCTOR or LOCAL CLINIC.  Prices will drop as competition for your health dollar is able to flourish without middlemen creating huge bureacracies that cost an arm and a leg.....(literally sometimes)...

The only exception should be health insurance coverage for MAJOR MEDICAL policies which typically cost very little if one buys them while still young and healthy enough.   Perhaps that should be a requirement like car insurance is a requirement.   Small operations and regular health care should be on a cash basis.....just like buying food or clothing or housing.....the necessities of life....


----------



## Nik (May 11, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Like, maybe, police protection?  Like maybe the individual need to drive to work?  Your asinine distinction between public and private is just made up gibberish.  



> You don't have to give a shit if I get robbed.  You give a shit if YOU do.  You pay for the police because of that, as do I, and they protect both of us.  And by the way, fucknut, I also pay for the police.  So you aren't paying for them to protect me.  I am.



Just like I would pay for healthcare in case I get sick, just like you would pay for healthcare in case you got sick.  Hence we would all pay taxes in case any of us got sick.  Voila.  The exact same thing as the cops.  



> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Hospitals, and doctors, are also of "of direct and personal use and benefit to the people who pay for them."  However, your safety is of interest to nobody but yourself.  So please do try to explain the difference between healthcare and the cops again?
> ...



Umm, so hospitals existing are a public benefit...but them being used isn't?  So looking at the pretty buildings benefits us, but paying for them isn't?  What?  You aren't even making basic sense now.

As for health not being in the public interest...its called a contagious disease, shithead.  



> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > And next time, try to avoid assuming asinine shit about my personal life and my own healthcare status.  Do try and keep the debate at least somewhat coherent, although I know it must be hard for you.
> ...


[/quote]

No, actually you don't know that.  I want to take money from your (and my) pockets to pay for the poors healthcare.  Because peoples lives>you getting a second car.  I have healthcare.  I still have a high paying job thats not going to go away anytime soon.  I have what is essentially a recession proof job.  Yay me.  I'm just not one of those assholes who only gives a fuck about themselves.  My beliefs aren't so I can do better in life.  I really don't need help from the government.  But some do, and its those people that I am arguing for.


----------



## Nik (May 11, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Right...because once you see a doctor, the doctor disappears and can't be used by anyone else.  Analogy fail.  Try again?


----------



## Nik (May 11, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Learn just a little bit about the US government.  60% of the people can vote for something, and if its Unconstitutional, it fails.  So yeah, the Constitution is greater than the people.  If enough people want to change the Constitution they can but until they do that, the Constitution wins.  And the Constitution isn't sentient, but it does have words on it, and those words have meanings and the meanings trump whatever bullshit you want.  

Actually it is in the US Constitution that the government can tax.  As for giving it the right to deal with healthcare, its not infringing on anyones rights.  As long as the government isn't preventing anyone from doing anything, it can do pretty much whatever it wants.  



> Nobody gives a fuck?  Where do you get THAT little gem?  The fact that everyone agrees with you, and there's no debate on the subject?  Oh, whoops.  I guess there is.  So gee, I guess there ARE people who care that you want to wipe your ass on the Constitution.  So much for THAT theory.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, really.

Pew Research Center: Most Support Health Care Overhaul -- But its Not 1993

And thats just for universal healthcare.  When you go lesser, to just a public plan...

CR Poll: 66% support a public health care plan

Bang, bitch.  Do your research first before spewing next time.


----------



## jeffrockit (May 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Keep telling yourself that. Nothing hysterical about it, nothing is ever free but that is what the masses believe. The use of the word hysteria and fear and fair are frequently used by the left when the right takes a stand in opposition because most people react to the hyperbole.   There will be no way to consistently fund a project on this scale as the money pool is not endless. If you want to trust the government to take care of you, that's up to you. I hold very little trust, especially when to comes to the heath care of me and my family. It is funny to see the left blindly trusting something as important as their health care, to the government, when their guy is in charge. I don't think that most would be arguing for UHC if Bush and Cheney was trying to make it happen. If you think the politicians truly care about the people (both parties), you are being foolish. With the many government corruption examples in so many areas, this will be yet another. 
With no competition, the quality in the care will decrease and in the doctors and nurses too. Think about other government run businesses such as the TSA, Social Security office, unemployment and etc. Not exactly speed oriented models which is necessary in many health care cases. This is not hysteria but fact. Why would  heath care be run much differently? Just being a realist based on the many gov. run operations.


----------



## jeffrockit (May 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



That is just because they renamed it. You are saying that there is less of the population living off the government now than 10 years ago...riiiiight


----------



## Said1 (May 12, 2009)

Gurdari said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Faces of government healthcare:
> ...



Who are you kidding? Canadians love government intervention.


----------



## Gunny (May 12, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> What a piece of propoganda.
> 
> If you guys were right about this, or the economy, or the war, why are you approaching this problem the same way you approach every problem?  Deny there is a problem for as long as you can, do nothing about it when you are in charge, Have prices go up 101% after you get into office, and then lie and scare people into thinking the liberal approach will cause the exact problems your own status quo is guilty of?
> 
> ...



You're a moron.  Shut up.  Your crap doesn't debunk anything, nor does your as-usual, baseless projecting.


----------



## Gunny (May 12, 2009)

wihosa said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



Ignorance at its finest.


----------



## Gunny (May 12, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Take care of yourself?    Not when I can get some one-size-fits-all mediocrity from clock punchers.


----------



## Gunny (May 12, 2009)

wihosa said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Ah yes, the "I can't wipe my own ass" argument.  Not to mention the backwards-ass logic and "you don't understand I know what's best for you argument.

If "we" DON'T want to pool our resources to provide mediocre health care "we" can do THAT.

However, that argument of yours is based on the logical fallacies that a), we actually have a say how our tax dollars are spent and b), that we have any resources at all since our tax dollars are tied up for the next 50 years paying off the government's bailout debts.  

The government has fucked our budget up royally; yet, sheeple like you think they will somehow get Nationalized healthcare right?  Tell me, what's next on the agenda for nationalization?  We already own a car company and an insurance company.  We subsidize farmers to NOT grow shit.  

Personally, I think the government should own my lawnmower and come cut my yard every damned week.  Or at least run behind me with an umbrella and fan to bail me out from the heat.


----------



## Nik (May 12, 2009)

Gunny said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Nationalized healthcare is CHEAPER than what we currently spend on healthcare.  We spend, by far, the most per capita and healthcare and don't even get the best results.


----------



## Annie (May 13, 2009)

another voice of experience:

UnionLeader.com - New Hampshire news, business and sports - Karol Sikora: This health care 'reform' will kill thousands - Tuesday, May. 12, 2009



> Karol Sikora: This health care 'reform' will kill thousands
> 
> Tuesday, May. 12, 2009
> 
> ...


----------



## Annie (May 13, 2009)

Considering the news yesterday regarding SSI and Medicare, can anyone see a reason this should be rushed through?

How ObamaCare Will Affect Your Doctor - WSJ.com



> How ObamaCare Will Affect Your Doctor
> Expect longer waits for appointments as physicians get pinched on reimbursements.
> By SCOTT GOTTLIEB
> 
> ...


----------



## Bfgrn (May 13, 2009)

Hey Annie...what are YOUR solutions? Do nothing, or do WHAT?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 13, 2009)

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org

2008 is shaping up to be the election year that we finally get to have the Great American Healthcare Debate again. Harry and Louise are back with a vengeance. Conservatives are rumbling around the talk show circuit bellowing about the socialist threat to the (literal) American body politic. And, as usual, Canada is once again getting dragged into the fracas, shoved around by both sides as either an exemplar or a warning -- and, along the way, getting coated with the obfuscating dust of so many willful misconceptions that the actual facts about How Canada Does It are completely lost in the melee.

I'm both a health-care-card-carrying Canadian resident and an uninsured American citizen who regularly sees doctors on both sides of the border. As such, I'm in a unique position to address the pros and cons of both systems first-hand. If we're going to have this conversation, it would be great if we could start out (for once) with actual facts, instead of ideological posturing, wishful thinking, hearsay, and random guessing about how things get done up here. 

To that end, here's the first of a two-part series aimed at busting the common myths Americans routinely tell each other about Canadian health care. When the right-wing hysterics drag out these hoary old bogeymen, this time, we need to be armed and ready to blast them into straw. Because, mostly, straw is all they're made of.

1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly for the state. In Canada (and many other countries with universal care), doctors run their own private practices, just like they do in the US. The only difference is that every doctor deals with one insurer, instead of 150. And that insurer is the provincial government, which is accountable to the legislature and the voters if the quality of coverage is allowed to slide.

The proper term for this is "single-payer insurance." In talking to Americans about it, the better phrase is "Medicare for all."


----------



## Old Rocks (May 13, 2009)

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care, Part II: Debunking the Free Marketeers | OurFuture.org
May 12, 2009
more»  
In the previous post, I looked at ten of the most common myths that get bandied about whenever Americans drag Canada into their ongoing discussions about healthcare. In this follow-up, I'd like to address a few of the larger assumptions that Americans make about health care that are contradicted by the Canadian example; and in the process offer some more general thinking (and perhaps talking) points that may be useful in the debates ahead.

Government-run health care is inherently less efficient -- because governments themselves are inherently less efficient.
If anything could finally put the lie to this old conservative canard, the disaster that is our health care system is Exhibit A.

America spends about 15% of its GDP on health care. Most other industrialized countries (all of whom have some form of universal care) spend about 11-12%. According to the WHO, Canada spends a bit over 9% -- and most of the problems within their system come out of the fact that it's chronically underfunded compared to the international average. 

Any system that has people spending more and getting less is, by definition, not efficient. And these efficiency leaks are, almost entirely, due to private greed. There is no logical way that a private system can pay eight-figure CEO compensation packages, turn a handsome a profit for shareholders, and still be "efficient." In fact, in order to deliver those profits and salaries, the American system has built up a vast, Kafkaesque administrative machinery of approval, denial, and fraud management, which inflates the US system's administrative costs to well over double that seen in other countries -- or even in our own public systems, including Medicare and the VA system.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 13, 2009)

Simple facts. The health care systems of the other industrialized nations cost from one half to two thirds, per capita, of what the health care system of the US does. Their citizens live longer, have healthier old age, and they all have a far lower infant mortality than does the US. They have no families going bankrupt because of medical bill, we have 700,000 annually. All of their citizens have access to preventive health care, rather than those without health care insurance having to wait until a situation qualifies for emergency room assistance.

It is time that we create a real health care system in this nation. One whose purpose is the maintanance of the health of our citizens, rather than the creation of wealth for HMO CEOs. If the majority of our citizens get behind that idea, then the rest of you can move off to Outer Slobovia. Time for the US to leave the 19th century, and join the 21st.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 13, 2009)

Annie said:


> Considering the news yesterday regarding SSI and Medicare, can anyone see a reason this should be rushed through?
> 
> How ObamaCare Will Affect Your Doctor - WSJ.com
> 
> ...



Really? Is that the experiance of Canada? I think that this peice of propaganda is a tissue of fabrications.


----------



## sealybobo (May 13, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Simple facts. The health care systems of the other industrialized nations cost from one half to two thirds, per capita, of what the health care system of the US does. Their citizens live longer, have healthier old age, and they all have a far lower infant mortality than does the US. They have no families going bankrupt because of medical bill, we have 700,000 annually. All of their citizens have access to preventive health care, rather than those without health care insurance having to wait until a situation qualifies for emergency room assistance.
> 
> It is time that we create a real health care system in this nation. One whose purpose is the maintanance of the health of our citizens, rather than the creation of wealth for HMO CEOs. If the majority of our citizens get behind that idea, then the rest of you can move off to Outer Slobovia. Time for the US to leave the 19th century, and join the 21st.



Isn't it obvious?  But this is a tough issue because people are afraid they'll be giving up something or that their healthcare will get worse. 

They don't want government in between them and their doctor, so they don't realize they have a bean counter who's more worried about profit than they are fixing what ails you.  

And the same guy who Swift Boated Kerry is leading the way on this cause.  So you know they are just lying every step of the way.

This country has come a long way on many issues.  On this issue, we have taken some major steps backward.

Why is it MANDATORY that every child go to school but not mandatory that we give every American healthcare?


----------



## Care4all (May 13, 2009)

Well, I do not believe it will be any better with our own government running it when it comes to tests they allow or don't allow for whatever reasons...our government will have to be the ones making these decisions if they are the single payer and our insurance company is the one making it if they are the one paying...

Our health care HAS BEEN out of our own hands for quite some time...., when insurance companies came in to the picture, especially HMO's, and PPO's...they have been determining what kind of health care you are allowed to get.

My sister had surgery a couple of years ago...after about a week out of the hospital, she became violently ill and returned to being hospitalized with a severe infection, regular antibiotics were not fighting it, so the doctor prescribed the strongest new antibiotic out there that he felt would save her from dying...

The INSURANCE COMPANY REFUSED to pay the $750 bucks for a week of this antibiotic...my sister put it on one of her credit cards in order to get this drug that could save her own life....she got the drug, it fought her infection and she was out of the hospital 2 days later...she had been in the hospital for 5 days before she finally got the medicine she needed....in order to LIVE....

(Amazing that the Insurance company would pay for every day they had her hospitalized, thousands of dollars a day to keep her there, but refused to pay the $750 bucks for the antibiotic that brought her home from the hospital 2 days later?  Sheesh!!!)

She works 2 jobs, teacher at public school during the day and then teaches English at Night School 3 times a week for extra bucks so she was able to pay her credit card off...BUT OTHERS MAY NOT HAVE HAD A CREDIT CARD, AND WOULD BE DEAD as a door nail without this NEW antibiotic.

I am battling an $1850 buck insurance claim myself, over a year now, that my own insurance company refuses to pay....and we paid them $600 amonth for the policy???

Life is not grand, either way you look at it....in my opinion... from personal experiences...

care


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 13, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Sorry, just can't help myself.
> 3-4 treatments and your done?  Then why the fuck are you still seeing him after 26 years?  Are the treatments 8-9 years apart?



for other back ailments dipshit....im a mailman....you get plenty of back and knee problems and they do have tendency to return.....been hanging with Bobo lately....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 13, 2009)

Nik said:


> Ah yes, legitimately.  And tell me, dear moron,  who decides whether its legitimate or not?  I'll tell you, since you seem to be too stupid to know:  The Constitution decides, which is what I referenced.  Your asinine views on whether its legitimate or not really doesn't matter.  So you think its illegitimate?  Nobody gives a fuck.  What the Constitution says matters.  What you decide in your little fantasy land is legitimate or not doesn't.
> 
> And the government isn't "ignoring people".  2/3rds of the American public want a government sponsored healthcare plan.  What it is doing is ignoring radical fringe elements like you who just assume your views are always in the majority and that you get to decide for everyone else what is legitimate and whats not.



who decides if the disease you have is covered under your national plan Nik?....you yourself in a previous thread said you did not know,BUT they can,just like the private plans.....turn you down.....so how is that different than what is out there now?....i have a disease....oh sorry we dont cover it....doesnt do me any good does it.....&#9824;


----------



## HUGGY (May 13, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, just can't help myself.
> ...



You owe me.  Who do you think made it possible for you to wear good walking shoes?  Comfortable short sleeves and shorts.  Me that's who.  Guess how I did it?...The union dipshit.  How do you think your back would be doing if you had to wear the patton leather dress shoes I had to wear as a letter carrier in 68.  Quit whinin about your damn back..it could be worse.


----------



## Nik (May 13, 2009)

Annie said:


> another voice of experience:
> 
> UnionLeader.com - New Hampshire news, business and sports - Karol Sikora: This health care 'reform' will kill thousands - Tuesday, May. 12, 2009
> 
> ...



Comparative effectiveness research is merely to figure out which medicines are...more effective.  Horrible, I know, that we only want to use more effective medicines.


----------



## Nik (May 13, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Ah yes, legitimately.  And tell me, dear moron,  who decides whether its legitimate or not?  I'll tell you, since you seem to be too stupid to know:  The Constitution decides, which is what I referenced.  Your asinine views on whether its legitimate or not really doesn't matter.  So you think its illegitimate?  Nobody gives a fuck.  What the Constitution says matters.  What you decide in your little fantasy land is legitimate or not doesn't.
> ...



It is different in that the millions of people who are not now covered, would be covered.  Besides the fact that that 2 organizations that do exactly the same thing, the one that is profit-neutral might just cover more things than the organization that makes billions in profits.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (May 13, 2009)

Nik said:
			
		

> It is different in that the millions of people who are not now covered, would be covered. Besides the fact that that 2 organizations that do exactly the same thing, the one that is profit-neutral might just cover more things than the organization that makes billions in profits.



As I said before...if we got rid of the ILLEGALS in this country we could get back to reasonably priced health care.

I know you claimed before that a lot of the "non-citizens" have green cards and therefore have some "right" to healthcare.....but our lottery system only allows for about 55,000 green cards per year....otherwise they must be sponsored by an employer or get married or whatever.....

There are at least 2 to 3 MILLION illegals coming across our borders _every year_ yet only about 1 million or less have been receiving green cards in total......the excess MILLIONS of ILLEGALS that have been coming in for YEARS are breaking down our formerly adequate health system....converting to a government program is not going to fix the main problem....

How many people are given green cards each year in the United States?


----------



## Nik (May 13, 2009)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great.  Throw out the illegals, and we save money on healthcare.  And then food skyrockets, construction costs skyrocket, and god knows how many things.  Consumer spending dips dramatically, because suddenly there are 5 million less people spending.  Awesoime, awesome idea.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 13, 2009)

Seraega said:


> I bet you believe that the average UAW worker makes $75 an hour don't you?  That's what Fox and Rush told you so it must be true.  The number has been debunked.  The fact is that UAW employees in Michigan make almost exactly the same wages and benefits ($47-50/hr) as employees for Honda and Toyota make in the south.  The difference is those foreign companies don't have legacy costs... yet.
> 
> Learn to tell truth from fiction.  It will help you get along in this world.




that figure takes in benifits too.....the post office does that to us every time contract talks come around....the actual hourly wage is much less.....and if they actually make 50 bucks an hour...they should never complain about their pay ever again...


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 13, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



not what i asked Maggie.....the people who are picked to make the determination may think type 1 diabetes is a "cheap disease" and wont cover the things it can lead too...


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 13, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> This same kind of dilemma faces legitimate _existing_ government health care, Medicare in particular. It will always be one of those gray areas that will probably be determined case by case. To project that there will be specific treatments unavailable for certain age groups is a stretch, and it's an example of the hysteria over this subject by the right.



do you live in a cave or something?....are you now telling us that NOBODY on the left gets their feathers in a ruffle over this?.....only hysteria on the RIGHT?.....you got a lot to learn Maggie.....


----------



## Chris (May 13, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > This same kind of dilemma faces legitimate _existing_ government health care, Medicare in particular. It will always be one of those gray areas that will probably be determined case by case. To project that there will be specific treatments unavailable for certain age groups is a stretch, and it's an example of the hysteria over this subject by the right.
> ...



The right is all about FEAR.

Mostly fear of brown men with beards.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 13, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Probably, if it's legitimate. But seeing a doctor for a strained back 10 years ago isn't enough reason to deny back surgery required from a bad fall a week ago, which is the most recent example I've seen.



ok....what if they decide since you have diabetes you will not be covered for it...Cancer,Rheumatoid Arthritis....to the basterds deciding.....all these can be legitimate.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 13, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...


what the fuck are you rambling about?.....when did i EVER say anything about my Union or anyone elses?......and i wasnt whining about my back ....if you got all of that out of what i said in that sentence then i have only one thing to say......READ what we are debating instead of just jumping in....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 13, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...




you are not answering the question Nic....you are doing exactly what the pro universal health people do.....you dance around the questions,and try to throw some "other" good stuff at me,hoping i will go away satisfied,question not answered,but satisfied....well it aint gonna work.....bottom line WILL they or will they not cover ALL diseases, existing ones you may have and all those you may get....YES or NO.....&#9824;


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> The right is all about FEAR.
> 
> Mostly fear of brown men with beards.....



LOL....oh thank you Chris....you and Bobo never fail to put a smile on my face....and i know about 6-7 other people posting here,they like it too when you guys and your posse show up.....is the "FEAR" that the right throws at ya,any different then the "FEAR" the left throws?......you know Al Gore,Nancy Pelosi,Harry Reid....every election the old people are told they are going to lose their SS.....that kinda fear......ya wanna see some thing to FEAR Chris?.....check out my Avitar.....now that is something to FEAR.....


----------



## Nik (May 13, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > This same kind of dilemma faces legitimate _existing_ government health care, Medicare in particular. It will always be one of those gray areas that will probably be determined case by case. To project that there will be specific treatments unavailable for certain age groups is a stretch, and it's an example of the hysteria over this subject by the right.
> ...



The left has discussions about it, yes.  But there isn't hysteria as if people not dying of easily cured disease is somehow the end of society as we know it.


----------



## Nik (May 13, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Jesus fuck, you are dense.

You asked me what would be different.  The difference is that it would be affordable, and everyone could be covered.   Will they cover everything, always and forever?  Probably not.  But neither do current insurance companies.  I've said all of this shit before.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (May 13, 2009)

Nik said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Yes it is thankyouverymuch.....what you really should be getting in a sweat about is what is going to happen when the 30million illegals bring in their 90million relatives....then you will for sure see the economic doom you fear...not to mention a host of other problems....

We really dont need to throw them out as you say.we need to stop any more from entering the country and adding to the existing problems.we need to require green cards of all foreign workers.....AND we need to stop giving away free heatlth care and free food stamps and free welfare and free schooling and free housing and free you name it and many of the freeloaders will just leave on their own and go back home to live in socialist Mexico... 

....only when we STOP trying to absorb the Mexican poor and other foreigners and let Mexico and other countries take care of their own will we begin to see daylight in our overswamped health care system....we just plain _cannot afford _to take on millions of indigents from other countries....


----------



## Chris (May 13, 2009)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



Like the Pilgrims?


----------



## Seraega (May 13, 2009)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Yes it is thankyouverymuch.....what you really should be getting in a sweat about is what is going to happen when the 30million illegals bring in their 90million relatives....then you will for sure see the economic doom you fear...not to mention a host of other problems....
> 
> We really dont need to throw them out as you say.we need to stop any more from entering the country and adding to the existing problems.we need to require green cards of all foreign workers.....AND we need to stop giving away free heatlth care and free food stamps and free welfare and free schooling and free housing and free you name it and many of the freeloaders will just leave on their own and go back home to live in socialist Mexico...
> 
> ....only when we STOP trying to absorb the Mexican poor and other foreigners and let Mexico and other countries take care of their own will we begin to see daylight in our overswamped health care system....we just plain _cannot afford _to take on millions of indigents from other countries....



I absolutely agree with this immigration policy.  There is absolutely no industrialized nation that takes in the number of poor people that we do.  Try to legally move to canada - good freaking luck.  Unless you have a BA/BS in a field that they desperately need workers you're not getting in.  They're not taking onion farmers.  They're taking civil engineers and doctors.  Of all the arguments about how America doesn't fit the mold with the rest of the socialized developed world, this is the one argument that sways me a little bit.  Our immigration problem is absolutely astronomical.  I propose a real easy solution, first deport any illegal that shows up to register their kids at school, or at a hospital.  Second, put snipers randomly on the border and invoke castle law.  You're an intruder, you deserve to die no questions asked.  Third, ABSOLUTELY eliminate the policy that illegal children born here get citizenship.  This is retarded.  if the parents aren't citizens, the children shouldn't get it just because they were born here. 

Fix immigration and it becomes much easier to fix a lot of other problems.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 13, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



once again Nik your lost.....not what the conversation was about in this little segment....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 13, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



no Nik ....i think you have problems following conversations,and you do avoid answering questions when asked.......i asked if they will cover any existing diseases people already have and will they pick and choose which ones you are allowed to have....and you said "well the good thing is many who are uninsured will now be covered".....did you answer the question?.....no asswipe you didnt.....basically dildo your telling me there will be NO CHANGE in how things operate in terms of your health management....but more people will be covered.....but those with serious needs will still get the short end of the stick.....i guess to you thats called CHANGE....


----------



## Nik (May 13, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



I'm lost?  I had to say the same damn thing to you about 6 times before you finally got it.  I know exactly whats going on here.


----------



## Nik (May 13, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



No.  This is what you said.



> who decides if the disease you have is covered under your national plan Nik?....you yourself in a previous thread said you did not know,BUT they can,just like the private plans.....turn you down.....*so how is that different than what is out there now?.*...i have a disease....oh sorry we dont cover it....doesnt do me any good does it.....&#9824;



And I answered how it is different than what is out there now.  As to your repeated questions about whats the difference as far as what will be covered see my answers when I said in response to your question


> is this national ins. going to also deny coverage if they deem it to expensive?.





> Yes, just like private insurance companies do.



Then I said this


> You thought wrong, and nobody ever claimed that. Some treatments are just too expensive. But there is no reason for people who have treatable, fairly cheap diseases being not treated because they don't have the money. And then we all get to pay lots and lots when they go into the ER because the longer you wait before treating a disease, the worse it gets.
> 
> Thats besides the fact that just because you have money you don't have more of a right to life than anyone else.



And then this:



> But, of course, you had trouble comprehending. What you are trying to get at is what diseases will a national health insurance not cover because they are too expensive, and who makes the determination. The answer is, I don't know, and the government makes the determination. But right now the answer is, I don't know, and private for-profit businesses are making the determination. If I have to trust my health to one of two different organizations, one of whose goal is to improve my health, and one whose goal is to profit, its pretty obvious which one I should pick, the wailing and gnashing of teeth about governments many failures notwithstanding.



In conclusion, what you seem to be misunderstanding is that I don't have a magic fucking ball that will tell me exactly what diseases will be covered and which won't.  It may not be that much different from private health insurance, I don't know.  But there are two things that make a public plan option extremely important.  Cost, and who its available too.  Merely because those two things might not effect you, or they aren't important to you, doesn't mean they aren't things that are a HUGE change.  And yes, insuring the tens of millions of people who currently don't have health insurance IS change.  Its a huge, massive change.  Its just one that might not benefit you.  But I don't base my opinion on policy on how much it will help you Harry.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 14, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


if they can pick and choose Nik and can still deny coverage.....then there aint no difference in private HC.....this is one of the big complaints about what is out there now.....so WHY would i wanna go for this?....the people with those diseases are still shit out of luck....how will it change for them?....answer IT WONT....


----------



## sealybobo (May 14, 2009)

Annie said:


> Faces of government healthcare:
> 
> Faces of Government Healthcare



Why do people think that theyre better off with a private system for healthcare delivery?  All private healthcare providers have one very important thing on their minds that is not conducive to good healthcare: profit.  

Yes, yes, I know the argument  the profit motive is a good thing because it encourages competition.  But among health insurers, that competition takes the form of refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions and trying to slough off all high-cost insureds. More importantly, the supposed benefits of the profit motive, for whatever reason, don't operate in the healthcare sector.  As study after study demonstrates, we spend far more money than any other developed nation on healthcare for worse outcomes.

I think its really sad that we let the mindless free-market for everything crowd dominate the healthcare debate when their arguments so plainly make no sense in this context.

Daily Kos: Public v. Private Healthcare


----------



## Nik (May 14, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Then support UHC that will cover everything for everyone.  Then blame the Republicans when they have a shitfit over it.  And, as I said before, this will likely cover more things (although because I am not prescient, I don't actually know), because a system that runs revenue-neutral should be better at coverage than one that runs at billions of dollars in profit.

Oh, that, and all the uninsured people being insured now.  Which I know you don't give a flying fuck about, but it actually matters.  As I said before, I am concerned how the plan will protect the public as a whole, not its effects on one Harry Dresden.


----------



## Gunny (May 14, 2009)

I've never seen a bigger bunch of idiots so determined to march over the cliff of mediocrity.  Well, except for the last Presidential election.


----------



## HUGGY (May 14, 2009)

Gunny said:


> I've never seen a bigger bunch of idiots so determined to march over the cliff of mediocrity.  Well, except for the last Presidential election.



Except for that one or two square feet you occupy when standing up you really don't care about america do you?

50-60 million americans have been left behind in this insane race to steal as much as the insurance companies can in the transaction between suffering and healing..

If you do not care about those you faught for, in my opinion,  your medals don't mean shit.  You should have just become a mercinary.


----------



## Gurdari (May 14, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Guess what, everyone stands in line to get health care. *I had to wait 6 weeks* to get an injection in my back to relieve extreme pain and I have Kaiser.
> ...



I had a similar situation - back issues - told my doctor, and she referred me to a specialist, I call him when I need to and go see him. SImple. Easy. No money needed.

 That's under the Canadian system, so likely he's some quack witch-doctor not good enough to move to the US to be a *real* doctor ...but at least he has a white coat and a receptionist. (I have low standards)


----------



## sealybobo (May 14, 2009)

Gunny said:


> I've never seen a bigger bunch of idiots so determined to march over the cliff of mediocrity.  Well, except for the last Presidential election.



We have seen our healthcare get worse and worse over 20 years to the point it is unacceptable.

As for me, I just want the same healthcare that John McCain gets.  Look at what he gets and that is what i want for every American.  He doesn't seem to complain.  

For every $100 that passes through the hands of the government-administered Medicare programs, between $2 and $3 is spent on administration, leaving $97 to $98 to pay for medical services and drugs. But of every $100 that flows through corporate insurance programs and HMOs, $10 to $24 sticks to corporate fingers along the way. After all, Medicare doesn't have lavish corporate headquarters, corporate jets, or pay expensive lobbying firms in Washington to work on its behalf. It doesn't "donate" millions to politicians and their parties. It doesn't pay profits in the form of dividends to its shareholders. And it doesn't compensate its top executive with over a million dollars a year, as do each of the largest of the American insurance companies. Medicare has one primary mandate: serve the public. Private corporations also have one primary mandate: generate profit.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (May 14, 2009)

Chris said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



And did the Indians give the Pilgrims free health care?    You bleeding heart liberals crack me up with your stupidity....


----------



## ScreamingEagle (May 14, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > I've never seen a bigger bunch of idiots so determined to march over the cliff of mediocrity.  Well, except for the last Presidential election.
> ...



If the Govt. only pays $2-$3 administration.....why is Medicare going broke?


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 14, 2009)

Nik said:


> Oh, that, and all the uninsured people being insured now.  Which I know you don't give a flying fuck about, but it actually matters.  As I said before, I am concerned how the plan will protect the public as a whole, not its effects on one Harry Dresden.




see Nik this is why i said earlier that you dont follow what is going here.....as soon as you said this...."not its effects on one Harry Dresden."....this proved it without a doubt....im sitting here talking about the thousands of people out there with a disease that their Ins. wont cover or wont pay for treatment etc.etc......one of the big 3 gripes about this system.....and you infer that all im thinking about is me.....Bottom line Nik....you dont know jack about the stuff being proposed,AND you can give a rats ass about all those who STILL wont be covered.....as long as Nik is covered FUCK all the others....which is it Nik?...are you a lefty or a righty?....you have the attitude of both....as long as im covered,im happy......and those who dont make it....fuck em..should not have gotten that bad disease.....even Bobo is more consistant than you...at least you know where he is coming from....you it seems its "just what i have been told".....&#9824;&#9824;


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 14, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Yes, yes, I know the argument  the profit motive is a good thing because it encourages competition.  But among health insurers, that competition takes the form of refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions and trying to slough off all high-cost insureds.



you had better talk to Nik Bobo.....the National System will be no different.....you can only get the diseases on their "cheap affordable disease" list....other wise......YOUR FUCKED....


----------



## Chris (May 14, 2009)

Gunny said:


> I've never seen a bigger bunch of idiots so determined to march over the cliff of mediocrity.  Well, except for the last Presidential election.



Sorry. 

For profit healthcare is killing American industry.


----------



## Chris (May 14, 2009)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



You are the one who is stupid.

We already have universal healthcare, a really bad, expensive version of it. 

It's called the emergency room.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (May 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Not to mention our _socialistic _plan called Medicare we founded years ago....which is ALSO going broke.....what makes you think MORE socialistic health care is going to be any better....when the current one is failing right before your very eyes....?

Things would improve greatly if we got rid of the illegals using our emergency rooms for their free health care.


----------



## Nik (May 15, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, yes, I know the argument  the profit motive is a good thing because it encourages competition.  But among health insurers, that competition takes the form of refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions and trying to slough off all high-cost insureds.
> ...



Oy.  I didn't say it would be no different, I said I didn't know.  Neither do you.  But as usual you are just making shit up.


----------



## sealybobo (May 15, 2009)

ScreamingEagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



Maybe because they are stealing from the funds to pay for other things?  

Maybe because the rich aren't paying into the system so the treasury is empty?  

Maybe because Bush took a surplus and turned it into a deficit?


----------



## sealybobo (May 15, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, yes, I know the argument  the profit motive is a good thing because it encourages competition.  But among health insurers, that competition takes the form of refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions and trying to slough off all high-cost insureds.
> ...



Is that what the private insurers told you?  

Is that why the private insurers are so afraid of single payer?

Healthcare companies make their money denying you healthcare.  No matter what you say about the government, putting for profits in charge of this makes even worse sense.

Why do we have government provided K-12?  Fuck it!  Make it all private schools that you have to pay to go!!!  And make them really expensive too!!!  

I don't see John McCain complaining about his healthcare.  I want exactly what he has.  

Seniors have it.  Children have it now with SCHIP.  Hell, about 25% of our population is already on it.  All we have to do is give people who don't have insurance the option to join.  And if you lose your job, you can join too.

But if you want to keep your crappy healthcare, you can do that too.  

And the government program will compete with your provider and it will force them to care about you more.  

Competition is good, no?  

No one is going to force you to take this insurance.

People paying $12000 a year could easily get great coverage for $6000 a month.  That would put $6K more in everyones bottom line.  I see no problem with that.  

Are your healthcare monopolies afraid of competition?


----------



## sealybobo (May 15, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Of course he's making shit up.  He's listening to the healthcare lobbyists who are working overtime.

He also fears that his insurance is going to get worse and/or he's going to have to pay more for it.  

The more they fight this, the more I know its a good idea.

I found this:

The health care delivery system remains private. As opposed to a national health service, where the government employs doctors, in a national health insurance system, the government is billed, but doctors remain in private 
practice.

A national health insurance program could save approximately $150 billion on paperwork alone. Because of the administrative complexities in our current system, over 25% of every health care dollar goes to marketing, billing, 
utilization review, and other forms of waste. A single-payer system could reduce administrative costs greatly.

Most businesses would save money. Because a single-payer system is more efficient than our current system, health care costs are less, and therefore, businesses save money. In Canada, the three major auto manufacturers (Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler) have all publicly endorsed Canada&#8217;s single-payer health system from a business and financial standpoint. In the United States, Ford pays more for its workers health insurance than it does for the steel to make its cars.

Under NHI, your insurance doesn&#8217;t depend on your job. Whether you&#8217;re a student, professor, or working part-time raising children, you&#8217;re provided with care. Not only does this lead to a healthier population, but it&#8217;s also beneficial from an economic standpoint: workers are less-tied to their 
employers, and those that dislike their current positions can find new work 
(where they would be happier and most likely more productive and efficient).

Myths about National Health Insurance (NHI) 

The government would dictate how physicians practice medicine. 
In countries with a national health insurance system, physicians are rarely questioned about their medical practices (and usually only in cases of expected fraud). Compare it to today&#8217;s system, where doctors routinely have to ask an insurance company permission to perform procedures, prescribe certain medications, or run certain tests to help their patients.

Waits for services would be extremely long. 
Again, in countries with NHI, urgent care is always provided immediately. Other countries do experience some waits for elective procedures (like cataract removal), but maintaining the US&#8217;s same level of health expenditures (twice as much as the next-highest country), waits would be much shorter or even non-existent.

People will overutilize the system. 
Most estimates do indicate that there would be some increased utilization of the system (mostly from the 42 million people that are currently uninsured and therefore not receiving adequate health care), however the staggering savings from a single-payer system would easily compensate for this. (And remember, doctors still control most health care utilization. Patients don&#8217;t receive prescriptions or tests because they want them; they receive them because their doctors have deemed them appropriate.)

Government programs are wasteful and inefficient. 
Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and Social Security. Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.

Single-Payer Myths; Single-Payer Facts | Physicians for a National Health Program

Absolutely no reason to believe the private companies.  They have been proven to be liars.  But the right wingers on these boards like to distract us and say that politicians, specifically LIBERALS are the problem.

Whether its liberals or Republicans, corporate lobbyists are always at the root of the problem.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 15, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


your a fucking moron Nik....your the one talking about "AFFORDABLE CHEAP DISEASES"...and you said that they PROBABLY WILL pick and choose...your no dam different then those making the rules now....if its cheap we will cover it,if not oh well.....sorry.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 15, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



no Bobo 3-4 of your leftist buddies told me this......my ins is great,covers everything me and the wife need.....they even gave her back 10,000 dollars of 15,000 from an ins claim....she was in a car accident,the at faults party paid 15,000 to ours for the treatments given( that was all they had to pay)...total treatments including surgery 22,500.00....they gave my wife 10 grand out of the 15 paid by the guys ins co. because they said she was the one who suffered the pain in all this,and deserved the cash.... and they ate the rest.....not bad for a private dont give a dam all out for profit private ins co......yea cant wait for that national plan....


----------



## ScreamingEagle (May 16, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



So the government is stealing Medicare funds.wow.I can hardly wait to put my health care under their management.

The rich aren't paying?....get real..you should know by now that the rich already pay the biggest chunk of taxes.

Bushs faultBushs faultthe same old sing-song excuse you libs have for everything.when in _actuality _Bush assisted you libs in your desire to add prescription drugs to the mixwhich only made the financial problems worse...

The fact is..... the Govt. is already a PROVEN FLOP in the health care businessbut you libs think turning your health care completely over to government control is somehow going to make things better and more progressive.wake up buddy and smell the coffee



> In 1965, Medicare was predicted to cost $26 billion in 2003; the actual cost that year was $245 billion. Medicare's unfunded liability currently hovers around $40 trillion.
> 
> *Medicare Will Be Bankrupt by 2019*
> Medicare Will Be Bankrupt by 2019 - by Tom Schatz - Budget & Tax News


----------



## ScreamingEagle (May 16, 2009)

5  MYTHS About Socialized Medicine:

1.  A right to health care

2.  Higher quality

3.  More bang for the buck

4.  Equal access

5.  Less red tape

Read here why they are MYTHS:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf


----------



## Red Dawn (May 16, 2009)

here's the deal, and everyone know it. 

rightwingers, deep in their black little hearts know it. 

If we had government financed healthcare, it would outcompete most private plans.


Government financed healthcare offers essentially the same benefits as private insurance companies, with lower costs.   

Its the reason John Boehner, Dick Cheney, and Eric Cantor love their government financed health care, and wouldn't dream in a million years of giving it up to shop for an individual policy in the free market.


----------



## driveby (May 16, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...




You forgot the biggest lobbyist of all, GE. They will benefit HUGE from Universal Healthcare (along with other dem policies), but you, "your party" and "your boyz" over at NBC are trying to keep a lid on that fact .........


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2009)

Every business will benefit from Universal Health Care. Simple fact. Puts us on a level playing field as the rest of the industrialized nations.


----------



## driveby (May 16, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Every business will benefit from Universal Health Care. Simple fact. Puts us on a level playing field as the rest of the industrialized nations.



Our healthcare is already better, and NO company will benefit directly like GE. Kinda explains why NBC is so pro Obama huh ?


----------



## Chris (May 16, 2009)

driveby said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Every business will benefit from Universal Health Care. Simple fact. Puts us on a level playing field as the rest of the industrialized nations.
> ...



We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!

With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company, and that would be the government.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



but that government can still say ....sorry we are not going to cover your disease...treatment is to expensive....


----------



## driveby (May 17, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...



Yep, wouldn't want that GE stock to drop 1/100th of a point to save a few lives.....


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...



Wrong. NO ONE CAN BE TURNED AWAY FROM THE EMERGENCY ROOM. 

And you know what the most expensive kind of healthcare is?

THE EMERGENCY ROOM!!!

The other Western democracies are much smarter than we are on this issue. A society that tries to make money off of sick people is totally fucked up.


----------



## driveby (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Ask Natasha Richardson what she thinks of it ........


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

driveby said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Oh, please...

She refused to go to the hospital.


----------



## driveby (May 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



When she decided to go, how long did it take her to get there and why did it take that long ?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 17, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



It must be nice, going through life believing that someone else should take responsibility for you.  I remember feeling like that once.  Then I became an adult and moved out of my parents' house.

I realize this is a shocking concept to you, but if a catastrophe hits my life, I'm going to turn to my family and friends, people who actually know me and have reason to inconvenience themselves for me, for help.  I might even possibly go to private charities, where people have chosen, out of the goodness of their hearst, to VOLUNTARILY help me.  I won't be turning to the government to have them rob complete strangers for me.  

And unlike you, I won't EVER have the sheer gall to swan around, touting my compassion and great moral virtue for supporting that robbery.  Am I supposed to be impressed by how generous you are with other people's money?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 17, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...



This is the stupidest fucking argument in the whole debate.  "A great nation needs healthy, educated people, so that means that the government should play nanny."  A great nation needs its people to be clothed, fed, and sheltered, too, but that doesn't make it the government's responsibility to give everyone a house, groceries, and a gift card to Macy's.  It's the government's job to make sure people are able to get those things for themselves.  It's YOUR job to get up off your lazy ass and avail yourself of the opportunity.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 17, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



In other words, "I can't be bothered to have any facts.  I just know it's true because everyone says so, and how DARE you challenge the conventional wisdom and insist that I actually say something REAL?"

Thank you for admitting that you're full of shit.  Run along.


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



It must be nice going through life having never been so sick with cancer that you couldn't work to pay for your health insurance.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2009)

Proof is in the pudding. Europeans live longer, have a healthier life, and a far lower infant mortality rate than do the citizens of the US. They pay only about 1/2 of what we do for their far more successful system. In Taiwan, the overhead cost for their system is 2%. In the US, the direct overhead is 22%. In these nations doctors decide on your treatment. Here, in many of our private insurance systems, the bean counters do. Wonder why the single payer system clients have a longer average life span?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (May 18, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Proof is in the pudding. Europeans live longer, have a healthier life, and a far lower infant mortality rate than do the citizens of the US. They pay only about 1/2 of what we do for their far more successful system. In Taiwan, the overhead cost for their system is 2%. In the US, the direct overhead is 22%. In these nations doctors decide on your treatment. Here, in many of our private insurance systems, the bean counters do. Wonder why the single payer system clients have a longer average life span?



Most single-payer advocates point to life expectancy and infant mortality as evidence that single-payer systems produce better health outcomes than the U.S. And, indeed, the U.S. has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than many nations with a single-payer system. 

The problem is that life expectancy and infant mortality tell us very little about the quality of a health care system. Life expectancy is determined by a host of factors over which a health care system has little control, such as genetics, crime rate, gross domestic product per capita, diet, sanitation, and literacy rate. 

The primary reason is that the U.S. has lower life expectancy is that we are ethnically a far more diverse nation than most other industrialized nations. Factors associated with different ethnic backgrounds -- culture, diet, etc. -- can have a substantial impact on life expectancy. 

A good deal of the lower life expectancy rate in the U.S. is accounted for by the difference in life expectancy of African-Americans versus other populations in the United States. Life expectancy for African-Americans is about 72.3 years, while for whites it is about 77.7 years. What accounts for the difference? Numerous scholars have investigated this question. The most prevalent explanations are differences in income and personal risk factors. For example, one study found that about one-third of the difference between white and African-American life expectancies in the United States was accounted for by income; another third was accounted for by personal risk factors such as obesity, blood pressure, alcohol intake, diabetes, cholesterol concentration, and smoking and the final third was due to unexplained factors. 

Infant mortality is also impacted by many of the same factors that affect life expectancy -- genetics, GDP per capita, diet, etc. -- all of which are factors beyond the control of a health care system. Another factor that makes U.S. infant mortality rates higher than other nations is that we have far more pregnant women living alone; in other nations pregnant women are more likely to be either be married or living with a partner. Pregnant women in such households are more likely to receive prenatal care than pregnant women living on their own. 

Perhaps the biggest drawback of infant mortality is that it is measured too inconsistently across nations to be a useful measure. Under United Nations' guidelines, countries are supposed to count any infant showing any sign of life as a "live birth." While the United States follows that guideline, many other nations do not. For example, Switzerland does not count any infant born measuring less than 12 inches, while France and Belgium do not count any infant born prior to 26 weeks. In short, many other nations exclude many high-risk infants from their infant mortality statistics, making their infant mortality numbers look better than they really are. 

In areas where a health care system does have an impact, such as treating disease, the U.S. outperforms single-payer systems. For example, the U.S. has a higher five-year survival rate for victims of heart attacks than Canada, due to the fact that we do more bypass surgeries and angioplasties in the U.S. Hospitals in the U.S. also commit fewer errors than hospitals in countries with single-payer systems like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom

Free Market Cure - The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care


----------



## AllieBaba (May 18, 2009)

The Netherlands kills live babies and old people all the time. I wonder if they count those as "infant mortalities"?


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> Wrong. NO ONE CAN BE TURNED AWAY FROM THE EMERGENCY ROOM.
> 
> And you know what the most expensive kind of healthcare is?
> 
> ...



Chris you dont go into emergency rooms to get treatments for your chronic diseases.....you go for EMERGENCIES....you dont go in there for weekly dialysis treatments....there is a difference between an EMERGENCY and CHRONIC ONGOING DISEASE's.......


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 18, 2009)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Proof is in the pudding. Europeans live longer, have a healthier life, and a far lower infant mortality rate than do the citizens of the US. They pay only about 1/2 of what we do for their far more successful system. In Taiwan, the overhead cost for their system is 2%. In the US, the direct overhead is 22%. In these nations doctors decide on your treatment. Here, in many of our private insurance systems, the bean counters do. Wonder why the single payer system clients have a longer average life span?
> ...


your wasting your time....SE.....to some of the posters here, this is the worst system around, and thats it..... dont wanna hear any positives about the US system and definitely dont want to hear any negatives about the other systems....because to certain posters here....they dont exist....


----------



## Yukon (May 18, 2009)

My God but you people are so sad.


----------



## elvis (May 18, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Proof is in the pudding. Europeans live longer, have a healthier life, and a far lower infant mortality rate than do the citizens of the US. They pay only about 1/2 of what we do for their far more successful system. In Taiwan, the overhead cost for their system is 2%. In the US, the direct overhead is 22%. In these nations doctors decide on your treatment. Here, in many of our private insurance systems, the bean counters do. Wonder why the single payer system clients have a longer average life span?



Why don't you move there, then?


----------



## elvis (May 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



then there's you who's such a too much of a shit stain to pay for his own insurance when you can afford it.  Have fun going broke when you need an operation, fuckhead.


----------



## elvis (May 18, 2009)

Yukon said:


> My God but you people are so sad.



Yes we are so sad that you continue to pollute the board with your presence.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 18, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> The Netherlands kills live babies and old people all the time. I wonder if they count those as "infant mortalities"?



If they're newborns with birth defects, no.  I believe they count them as stillborn.  I know at least one European country - I believe it's Sweden, but I won't swear to it - counts as stillborn any newborn child who doesn't live for a certain number of days after birth.  The US, on the other hand, counts as a live birth any child who actually takes a breath outside the womb, even if he dies in the next instant.


----------



## Yukon (May 19, 2009)

The Dutch do permit euthanasia on demand. However they are a week cowardly drug crazed people. Like the rest of Europe they would be better served if Germany were to once again take control of their government and civilize them.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 19, 2009)

Yukon said:


> The Dutch do permit euthanasia on demand. However they are a week cowardly drug crazed people. Like the rest of Europe they would be better served if Germany were to once again take control of their government and civilize them.



hey Yuke you got friends?....your in the green now.....


----------



## mskafka (May 31, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Yeah.  By Gawd yer raht!  God helps those that help themselves, raht.  
If you've got juvenile-onset diabetes, a congenital heart defect, cancer, or any range of medical problems and you lose your job and health benefits from outsourcing....and THEN, your Cobra runs out!  You find a new job that doesn't have health benefits, so you try to seek out your own insurance coverage and BCBS or whoever doesn't want you because you have a pre-existing condition.  Medicaid is an option, but these deadbeats don't need to be looking for a handout....RIGHT?

So what do you do?  You die.  You're an adult right?  And you just need to suck it up and be a man.  

What a bunch of bull****.  Those of you that believe this, I just hope that you don't ever have to experience this.  Your complacency in life will disappear overnight.


----------

