# 72% of Americans support government run healthcare



## Chris (Jun 21, 2009)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters


----------



## ba1614 (Jun 21, 2009)

Doesn't matter what the polls say or what the people want, you're getting it anyway.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 21, 2009)

a total of *895* adults participated in the telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.... 


So this 72% consists of 895 people? out of what over 250 million who would be impacted by this,? thats hardly what I would call a ringing endorsement of  this plan.


----------



## Toro (Jun 21, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> a total of *895* adults participated in the telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points....
> 
> 
> So this 72% consists of 895 people? out of what over 250 million who would be impacted by this,? thats hardly what I would call a ringing endorsement of  this plan.



In terms of the efficacy of polls, yeah, that's about right.

As long as the statistical sample is a broad cross-sample of Americans, the poll will be accurate to within 3% of the mean 19 times out of 20.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 21, 2009)

So the assumption is that in this  broad cross section, a contruction worker represents the  interests of ALL contruction workers, a  soldier a soldier, a  Doctor a Doctor, a housewife a housewife? That is why the data in flawed from the start in such a low number of people questioned, because it makes assumptions based on the person(s) taking the poll. In order for this poll to be accurate it has to contain a much larger number of people to have a true reflection as to the feelings of  most Americans.  Let me cite you an example, I can during an election cycle poll 895 people and come out with an opinion that will tell me  mickey mouse will be the next president of the United States  if I question the right people and use a low enough number of people to represent the  intentions of  ALL the voters. In short this poll is flawed based on the following, the poll sample represents the intentions of exactly .00000385ths of Americans  and even if you used a factor of 20 or 19 the data is still flawed because the poll sample number is too low.  This poll while  interesting is meaningless, because it represents the interests of less than 1% of the people  that need, want, or have healthcare.


----------



## Toro (Jun 21, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> So the assumption is that in this  broad cross section, a contruction worker represents the  interests of ALL contruction workers, a  soldier a soldier, a  Doctor a Doctor, a housewife a housewife? That is why the data in flawed from the start in such a low number of people questioned, because it makes assumptions based on the person(s) taking the poll. In order for this poll to be accurate it has to contain a much larger number of people to have a true reflection as to the feelings of  most Americans.  Let me cite you an example, I can during an election cycle poll 895 people and come out with an opinion that will tell me  mickey mouse will be the next president of the United States  if I question the right people and use a low enough number of people to represent the  intentions of  ALL the voters. In short this poll is flawed based on the following, the poll sample represents the intentions of exactly .00000385ths of Americans  and even if you used a factor of 20 or 19 the data is still flawed because the poll sample number is too low.  This poll while  interesting is meaningless, because it represents the interests of less than 1% of the people  that need, want, or have healthcare.



Most national polls have a sample of around 1,000 people that are accurate within 3% of the sample and a confidence interval of 95%.  In English, that means given any specific poll at any given time, we expect it to be accurate within 3% 19 times out of 20.

Let's look at the last Presidential election.  The final results for the popular vote was Obama 53%, McCain 46%.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - General Election: McCain vs. Obama

So, the confidence interval tells us we would expect Obama to receive 50% to 56% of the vote 19 times out of 20 and McCain to receive between 49% and 43% 19 times out of 20.  

What actually happened in the election?  Here are the polls on the last days of the election.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Latest Polls

There were 15 polls on the last weekend of the election.  Every poll had Obama between 50% and 55%.  Every poll had McCain between 48% and 42%.  So the polls were pretty accurate even though the typical poll had about 1,000 respondents.  

If you averaged out the polls, Obama was at 52.1% but received 52.9% while McCain was at 44.5% and received 45.6%.  We would expect the average to be closer given that the 15 polls account for a population sample of around 20,000 (out of 300 million).

So, yeah, 1,000 people is usually a pretty fair assessment of the national mood.  Political parties don't pay pollsters millions of dollars for nothing.  There are many reasons to be skeptical about this poll, but generally, the methodological construction is probably not one of them.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 21, 2009)

Chris said:


> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> 
> The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.
> 
> ...



Yeah, they support it until they find out how much it will cost them.  In a few years, Medicare will go broke and by some counts Medicare now has $30 trillion in future unfunded liabilities and this is a result of government mismanagement and allowing politics and not economic reality determine what the taxes, premiums, that are supposed to pay for Medicare should be.  In a few years, to keep Medicare afloat, voters will either have to pay higher taxes, see larger deficits or suffer reduced coverage.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 21, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> So the assumption is that in this  broad cross section, a contruction worker represents the  interests of ALL contruction workers, a  soldier a soldier, a  Doctor a Doctor, a housewife a housewife? That is why the data in flawed from the start in such a low number of people questioned, because it makes assumptions based on the person(s) taking the poll. In order for this poll to be accurate it has to contain a much larger number of people to have a true reflection as to the feelings of  most Americans.  Let me cite you an example, I can during an election cycle poll 895 people and come out with an opinion that will tell me  mickey mouse will be the next president of the United States  if I question the right people and use a low enough number of people to represent the  intentions of  ALL the voters. In short this poll is flawed based on the following, the poll sample represents the intentions of exactly .00000385ths of Americans  and even if you used a factor of 20 or 19 the data is still flawed because the poll sample number is too low.  This poll while  interesting is meaningless, because it represents the interests of less than 1% of the people  that need, want, or have healthcare.


It's pathetic to see republicans still questioning how polling is done. They don't seem to be so dubious about polls that lean toward how they feel.


----------



## ReillyT (Jun 21, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> ...



How is Medicare mismanaged?  Its overhead costs are very low vis-a-vis private insurers and it's participants consistently rate higher levels of satisfaction than the privately insured.

Whatever else one may choose to say about it, it doesn't appear to be mismanaged.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 21, 2009)

ReillyT said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Medicare is mismanaged because it does not charge enough to cover its expenses.  In a few years, the Medicare trust will be empty and Medicare will not be able to pay its bills unless the government raises your taxes, increases the deficit or reduces coverage.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 21, 2009)

ReillyT said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


hey reilly
some of the private sector rips medicare off....like clinics or doctors charging medicare for services or tests never rendered.  They are crooks and rip off insurance companies as well, though so this wouldn't diminish medicare's efficiency, any more than it would for the insurance companies....

and now PHARMA is agreeing this past week, to negotiate bulk discounts for medicare prescriptions, so this should give some cost savings....

care


----------



## driveby (Jun 21, 2009)

Chris said:


> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> 
> The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.
> 
> ...



ok corky ....


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 21, 2009)

If public insurance has to compete with private insurance, will this not keep both bureaucracies a bit more honest?  If the private insurance companies can drive the public one out of business with better service, what's the loss?  

-Joe


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 21, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> If public insurance has to compete with private insurance, will this not keep both bureaucracies a bit more honest?  If the private insurance companies can drive the public one out of business with better service, what's the loss?
> 
> -Joe



Fair enough if the government plan has to manage of what it collects through its premiums and interest on its reserves, but if it allowed, as Medicare is, to charge artificially low rates and then get bailed out with higher taxes or larger deficits, then that is not competition but a plan to establish a government monopoly on health insurance.


----------



## jan (Jun 21, 2009)

There's a lot of reason's for a National Health Care plan, not the least of which is industries inability to compete with other countries who offer it.  The cost of doing business in the U.S. is higher when the employer pays for health care.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 21, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > If public insurance has to compete with private insurance, will this not keep both bureaucracies a bit more honest?  If the private insurance companies can drive the public one out of business with better service, what's the loss?
> ...



As it is, Medicare is funded 100% from the Medicare Trust Fund which is funded by a separate tax which is so small most people don't even know that they pay it and Medicare premiums paid by retirees from their social security benefits.  Medicare does not receive any general tax revenues.  

Knowing the shit-pile of money We, The People were able to accumulate and stash between 1935 and now for Social Security using the FICA tax (compare that to your Federal Withholding), I can only imagine the trust fund We could establish if we were to pool the health-care premiums that we and our employers pay into a similar fund.  

Take out of the equation the dollars skimmed off of our health-care spending used for profits, executive bonuses, advertising and government lobbying efforts and it is no wonder the owners of the private insurance bureaucracies are spending a few billion to keep that gravy train to themselves.

-Joe


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 21, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



The last report I saw showed the Medicare trust would be empty in eight years and the Medicare taxes and premiums would then be insufficient to pay Medicare's bills.  At that time Medicare can only be saved by either raising taxes/premiums, incurring larger deficits every year or by reducing coverage.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 21, 2009)

Care4all said:


> ReillyT said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


It's about time they negotiated for drug prices in Medicare D. That program was written by Big Pharma and passed by congressmen on the take from them.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 21, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



I never said it didn't need help, I said it was self funded - meaning it did not rely on the general tax revenues.

On a side note, speaking of re-building Medicare (or building a new system), the first step in making it fair and reasonable for all of us is for YOU to write YOUR CongressCritters and DEMAND that Federal Employees (including all CongressCritters) be participants in what ever health insurance system that they lay on the rest of us.

United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session

U.S. Senate

-Joe


----------



## Meister (Jun 21, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> ...



Exactly


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 21, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



In fact, it doesn't depend on revenues from its special tax, either.  It has been charging artificially low taxes and premiums knowing that no matter how badly it mismanaged its finances, taxpayers would bail it out.  

For most Americans the point is not to have a public plan regardless of how badly it will be mismanaged or how much it will ultimately cost.  If they support it at all, it is because they believe they will get more for their money from it.  But if a new public plan is configured as Medicare is, all of our experience tells us that it will be the beginning of a government monopoly on health insurance that will either raise our health insurance premiums, raise our taxes, increase our deficits every year or reduce our coverage.


----------



## Meister (Jun 21, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



That will never happen Joe. They know they would have to step down from an excellent coverage program to a so-so one that is going to be shoved on us.  Do you really believe Ted Kennedy would be getting state of the art, cutting edge treatment on his terminal brain cancer he is getting now under the coverage that will be proposed for us?  People need to be awake on this healthcare system that we're going to end up with.


----------



## Meister (Jun 21, 2009)

Chris said:


> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> 
> The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.
> 
> ...



Congressional Budget Office projection
Democratic health bill would leave 37 million uninsured in 2019
By Kate Randall 
17 June 2009

The Obama administration responded Tuesday to a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which estimates that health care legislation being drafted by a *Senate committee would leave 37 million Americans uninsured while costing $1 trillion over 10 years.*
Democratic health bill would leave 37 million uninsured in 2019

Chrissy...it's not all what it's cracked up to be.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 21, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



I'm not following you regarding the "taxpayers will bail it out" thing.  

If it is a program that is funded by a special tax, then that is what it is - tax payers pay for it because its a tax.  We are not going to raise general revenue tax on ourselves to 'bail out' a program funded by a dedicated tax... if needed we would just raise the special tax that funds the program in the first place.

Please be careful how you throw around phrases like "all of our experience tells us that it will be the beginning of a government monopoly" without backing that up with a few examples of those experiences.  As far as I can ascertain, we are in fairly uncharted water here, with the possible exception of Social Security, and that program is extremely efficiently run at less than 1% of FICA taxes being spent on all overhead, and by no means can it be spun as a 'monopoly' on retirement and disability programs.

-Joe


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 21, 2009)

Meister said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



Starting in 1984 all newly hired Federal Employees, including CongressCritters, were covered by Social Security and the 'special' program for  federal public servants, Civil Service, began to be grandfathered out.  As the Ted Kennedys on the payroll are replaced by younger public servants, repair of Social Security will gravitate toward the front burner.

If We, The People don't demand it, shame on us for being lazy.

-Joe


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 21, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> ...



Don't blame Chris... Blame the Insurance Lobby and WRITE TO YOUR LEGISLATORS and demand better.

If you don't like what's happening in this country, it's your own fucking fault.  Quit your bitching and discuss solutions _that you *would* be willing to pay for._

-Joe


----------



## IHL (Jun 21, 2009)

I'll tell you why 72% of Americans approve of Government run health Care.  It's because 
72% of Americans want something for free and feel entitled to things other people work for. This is the new America that will go no where but down hill. Guilty white elitist liberals are the origin of this ideology. It will work but only for the very few connected government officials and leaders. Thats how socialism always turns out.


----------



## IHL (Jun 21, 2009)

I'll tell you why 72% of Americans approve of Government run health Care.  It's because 
72% of Americans want something for free and feel entitled to things other people work for. This is the new America that will go no where but down hill. Guilty white elitist liberals are the origin of this ideology.


----------



## Meister (Jun 21, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Joe...take a damn chill pill.  What makes you think I don't write my senators, and congressman?  Don't tell me not to bitch...I will bitch whenever I feel like it, and at who I feel like...until your Obama changes that part of the amendments.  Problem is we have a thing called lobbyists that have a lot more say, and bend a lot more ears than you and I do. I was hammering on Chris, because he thinks as long as obama gets something passed, it will be a good thing.  It's not, and I"M BITCHING about it.  When are people like YOU going to figure out that the politicians don't give a damn so much about us, but more about the power of the government????  WAKE UP JOE!!!!!!!

Just a side note Joe....I don't want people to pay for my insurance, and I don't want to pay for theirs.  That's my solution.


----------



## IHL (Jun 21, 2009)

The solution is to live clean and sober lives. Put down the hamburgers, sugar, beer and the carnitas and join the gym. This will keep most people out of the Dr's office and the hospital consuming the resource and making it scarcer raising the cost for the other unavoidable sickness. Everyone wants the government to solve this problem but if we just do the above this problem would be greatly mitigated.


----------



## Meister (Jun 21, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



You do realize that the healthcare won't be the same for the politicians as it will for us don't you?  They get and will get in the future the Bentley of healthcare, while we get the Jetta of healthcare.  Write all you want to your politicians.....DEMAND all you want from your politicians....it ain't going to change.
The politicians of this country are not servants to us....they are in the business of reelection.  The government has raided the SS kitty so much, that it's in the sick state as it is.  Kennedy answer to the problem is that in 2045 people will get about 75% of what they're getting now.  That's the solution that they have, and your dreaming about it getting on the front burner....it's not going to happen.


----------



## Meister (Jun 22, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...


 
That is skewed as far as how they audit Social Security.  Having said that, SS is in a big mess....and it's run by the government, and they don't have a clue on how to repair it.  The government screws up anything that it touches....except for the military.  That's the bottom line.


----------



## Meister (Jun 22, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



If this happens, and very well could...it would be considered a monopoly.

But the insurance industry and others wary of too much government intervention vehemently oppose the idea. *They say the heavy hand of the government will eventually push out the private insurers, leaving the government option as the only option.* That is why the industry seems unwilling to give ground on the issue, even while making other concessions to national health reform  like the industrys announcement on Tuesday that it might be willing to stop charging sick people higher rates than healthy customers

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/health/policy/25medicare.html?fta=y


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 22, 2009)

Meister said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


If the private companies can't, or won't compete with a public plan then let them go under.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 22, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > So the assumption is that in this  broad cross section, a contruction worker represents the  interests of ALL contruction workers, a  soldier a soldier, a  Doctor a Doctor, a housewife a housewife? That is why the data in flawed from the start in such a low number of people questioned, because it makes assumptions based on the person(s) taking the poll. In order for this poll to be accurate it has to contain a much larger number of people to have a true reflection as to the feelings of  most Americans.  Let me cite you an example, I can during an election cycle poll 895 people and come out with an opinion that will tell me  mickey mouse will be the next president of the United States  if I question the right people and use a low enough number of people to represent the  intentions of  ALL the voters. In short this poll is flawed based on the following, the poll sample represents the intentions of exactly .00000385ths of Americans  and even if you used a factor of 20 or 19 the data is still flawed because the poll sample number is too low.  This poll while  interesting is meaningless, because it represents the interests of less than 1% of the people  that need, want, or have healthcare.
> ...



It's pathetic to see leftists so blindly hypocritical about responses to polls.  They don't seem to notice how dubious THEY are about polls that lean away from what they want.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 22, 2009)

Actually, it sounds to me like whoever wrote that headline (and the OP of this thread) deliberately misinterpreted the poll results, and I would be VERY interested to find out exactly what the questions were, word for word.  If you read the entire article, it sounds more like what these people were saying was that they wanted to increase current government programs to help the poor and elderly, rather than wanting the government to simply take over providing healthcare to everyone.  And I'm guessing they only feel that way at all because they've been filled up on misinformation about scads of apocryphal people twisting in the wind with no way of getting health care.


----------



## editec (Jun 22, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> So the assumption is that in this broad cross section, a contruction worker represents the interests of ALL contruction workers, a soldier a soldier, a Doctor a Doctor, a housewife a housewife? That is why the data in flawed from the start in such a low number of people questioned, because it makes assumptions based on the person(s) taking the poll. In order for this poll to be accurate it has to contain a much larger number of people to have a true reflection as to the feelings of most Americans. Let me cite you an example, I can during an election cycle poll 895 people and come out with an opinion that will tell me mickey mouse will be the next president of the United States if I question the right people and use a low enough number of people to represent the intentions of ALL the voters. In short this poll is flawed based on the following, the poll sample represents the intentions of exactly .00000385ths of Americans and even if you used a factor of 20 or 19 the data is still flawed because the poll sample number is too low. This poll while interesting is meaningless, because it represents the interests of less than 1% of the people that need, want, or have healthcare.


 
Hard to believe that one can fathom American public opinion by polling such a small number of people, isn't it?

Nevertheless that's the way that math works, not just for this poll, but for all polls.


----------



## editec (Jun 22, 2009)

FYI, of the private HC insurance premiums paid, 25% of it goes to profits, and expenses including advertising and amdinistration. 

That means about 75% of those premiums goes to paying HC providers.

FYI, of Medicade dollars, 98% goes to Hc providers and about 2% goes to administrative costs. Obviously there are no profits or advertising costs associated with Medicare.

Anyone who automatically believes private insurers are _"more efficient"_ than government simply isn't looking at the _real _numbers.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> *An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.*



How many uninsured people need additional help from taxpayers? | KeithHennessey.com



> There were 45.7 million uninsured people in the U.S. in 2007.
> 
> * *Of that amount, 6.4 million are the Medicaid undercount. These are people who are on one of two government health insurance programs, Medicaid or S-CHIP, but mistakenly (intentionally or not) tell the Census taker that they are uninsured.* There is disagreement about the size of the Medicaid undercount. This figure is based on a 2005 analysis from the Department of Health and Human Services.
> 
> ...



So it seems to me that in 2007 there were only 10.6 million people who were actually uninsured because the rest were eligible for government aid or were earning enough to buy insurance if they chose to do so.

That 46 million figure is a flat out lie.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 22, 2009)

Meister said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Sorry dude.  You're right - you absolutely have the right to bitch whenever and however you want.  I just get frustrated when ALL I see is bitching and there seems to be no *discussion*, especially with regard to solutions.  All the back-stabbing, name calling, bitching, whining and finger pointing while the money behind the lobbying laughs at us is embarrassing.

When are we going to figure out that if the politicians don't give a damn so much about us, but more about the power of the government, it is OUR own fucking fault, because we are squandering the best tool democracy has had available since the printing press was invented whining about what weenies the idiots on the (right / left) are instead of using these message boards to discuss options and promote _solutions_???

You say you don't want to pay for other peoples insurance and you are not looking for anyone to pay for yours.  I appreciate that.  That is a start of a discussion.  I, too am self sufficient enough to pay for my own health-care, and not in a financial position to be of much help to anyone else.  

How do you feel about private insurance companies?  Is your position on the health-care debate that things are fine and you want them left just as they are?  Would you prefer  steep and deep regulation of the private bureaucracies to a Social Security styled public bureaucracy to track health-care payments?  I assume from your willingness to "pay for your own insurance", that you are not one of those guys who prefers to simply pay cash for the health-care you need when you need it, is that correct?

If you have read my posts you should know by now that I am a proponent of a public bureaucracy for tracking health-care payments, simply because I am VERY impressed with the efficient running of Social Security, in spite of congress' running of it.  I am open to private payment tracking bureaucracies in the American market place, but I wouldn't own stock in them should they have to compete against a public bureaucracy, even if the public one had the burden of covering the poor, especially if it were run like Social Security.

What would YOU like to see as a health-care payment tracking bureaucracy in America?

-Joe


----------



## Annie (Jun 22, 2009)

editec said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > So the assumption is that in this broad cross section, a contruction worker represents the interests of ALL contruction workers, a soldier a soldier, a Doctor a Doctor, a housewife a housewife? That is why the data in flawed from the start in such a low number of people questioned, because it makes assumptions based on the person(s) taking the poll. In order for this poll to be accurate it has to contain a much larger number of people to have a true reflection as to the feelings of most Americans. Let me cite you an example, I can during an election cycle poll 895 people and come out with an opinion that will tell me mickey mouse will be the next president of the United States if I question the right people and use a low enough number of people to represent the intentions of ALL the voters. In short this poll is flawed based on the following, the poll sample represents the intentions of exactly .00000385ths of Americans and even if you used a factor of 20 or 19 the data is still flawed because the poll sample number is too low. This poll while interesting is meaningless, because it represents the interests of less than 1% of the people that need, want, or have healthcare.
> ...



It's not the numbers that bother me, it's the skew of the sample that bothers me:

Latest New York Times/CBS News Poll on Health - The New York Times

Last question. What were the voting percentages? I think McCain garnered a tad over 25%. It's oversampling of the demographics that favor their desired outcome. 

So what the headline should have read was: "Most Obama voters support substantial changes to healthcare and are willing to pay higher taxes for a government run system."

Even with a sample that basically agrees with the outcome when one gets below the fold one finds:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss




> ...Yet the survey also revealed considerable unease about the impact of heightened government involvement, on both the economy and the quality of the respondents own medical care. While 85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt,* 77 percent said they were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their own care*....
> 
> ...It is not clear how fully the public understands the complexities of the government plan proposal, and the poll results indicate that *those who said they were following the debate were somewhat less supportive.*...



and there's this 'gem' which is reminiscent of the Iraq casualty numbers put out by Lancet:



> ...While the survey results depict a nation desperate for change, it also reveals a deep wariness of the possible consequences.* Half to two-thirds* of respondents said they worried that if the government guaranteed health coverage, they would see declines in the quality of their own care and in their ability to choose doctors and get needed treatment...


 Exactly what the hell does 50-66% mean? They couldn't figure out the percentage of 800 some people's response? 

If this poll was being held as reflective of a Bush driven policy, I think the reaction around these parts would be very different.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> 
> The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.
> 
> ...



They fear you Chris.  Keep up the good work.  It is so funny to read your posts/threads, know you are 100% on the button, and then see these right wing freaks attack you so hard.  You are the man.  And notice how they try to discredit people like you, Michael Moore & Al Franken.  I guess the truth frightens them.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 22, 2009)

Toro said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > So the assumption is that in this  broad cross section, a contruction worker represents the  interests of ALL contruction workers, a  soldier a soldier, a  Doctor a Doctor, a housewife a housewife? That is why the data in flawed from the start in such a low number of people questioned, because it makes assumptions based on the person(s) taking the poll. In order for this poll to be accurate it has to contain a much larger number of people to have a true reflection as to the feelings of  most Americans.  Let me cite you an example, I can during an election cycle poll 895 people and come out with an opinion that will tell me  mickey mouse will be the next president of the United States  if I question the right people and use a low enough number of people to represent the  intentions of  ALL the voters. In short this poll is flawed based on the following, the poll sample represents the intentions of exactly .00000385ths of Americans  and even if you used a factor of 20 or 19 the data is still flawed because the poll sample number is too low.  This poll while  interesting is meaningless, because it represents the interests of less than 1% of the people  that need, want, or have healthcare.
> ...



Indeed, it is the perceived power of the polls
that has in recent years prompted the
development of "advocacy polling," which is
the use of polls by interest groups to create an
aura of strong popular support for their
favored positions. Typically this is achieved
by the employment of unrepresentative
samples, leading questions, or selective
reporting of results. Such "findings" merely
add to the sense of cacophony in national
polls and surveys.

The usual 3% warning represents the rounded
evaluation of the confidence interval for a
population proportion (p) of 0.50, at a
probability value of 0.95, when the sample is
of the relatively conventional size of 1500
cases. With progressively smaller samples the
error margins may be widened to four or five
percentage points, for the chief governor
precision for such estimates, comparable to
the resolving power of telescopes, is indeed
sample size. A three percentage point warning
for a sample of 1500 cases may in one sense
be seen as conservative, since the unrounded
solution is only [plus-or-minus]2.53
percentage points, and even this value takes
the error at its maximum (where p = 0.5):
once past very even divisions of the
population, the calculated error margin drops
below [plus-or-minus]2.50%.
http://www.stevetoner.com/handouts/Assessing_the_Accuracy_of_Polls_and_Surveys.pdf

While I tend not to put much stock in polls in general for this very reason, as too often the sample data is too low and does not represent the true feelings of Americans within a poll.  It would seem that those who support an issue as long as the poll supports it would have no reason to doubt it's accuracy. However,  that does not mitigate the fact that this sample data is too low and  as a matter of fact I can cite you a numerous cases of  faulty polling data  used as gospel in the past... 

A new study on Californias Proposition 8 voting trends released Tuesday found that far fewer African-Americans voted to pass the gay marriage ban than the 70% suggested by exit polling and concluded that race was not the most significant factor affecting peoples vote for or against marriage equality.
Prop. 8 Exit Polling of African-Americans Way Off, Experts Say &#160;|&#160;News | Advocate.com

So regardless of these polling companies  stated missions, in order to have a true accurate picture, you would need an averaged sample done over the course of time, if you were to use such a low  number of people in a data pool and those people would have to be  different each time as a representatative of the whole.  Again,  on a personal level I could care less what a poll says one way or the other, however in this case Toro I have to disagree with you.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 22, 2009)

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Following an Election Day prediction that Democratic candidate John Kerry would win more than 300 electoral votes and the presidency, one of America's most well known polling firms continued the job Wednesday of explaining its flawed projection.

Shawnta Watson Walcott, communications director for Zogby International, joined a group of liberal Democrats at a faux congressional hearing focused on whether fraud influenced the Nov. 2 outcome. 

"... it has become increasingly clear that this election has produced unprecedented levels of suspicion regarding its outcome, and we join this panel discussion in an attempt to find a resolution to these issues," said Walcott, who represented the firm's president and long time political pollster John Zogby at the forum sponsored by Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee.
Zogby Polling Seeks Damage Control After Election Day Flub


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Following an Election Day prediction that Democratic candidate John Kerry would win more than 300 electoral votes and the presidency, one of America's most well known polling firms continued the job Wednesday of explaining its flawed projection.
> 
> Shawnta Watson Walcott, communications director for Zogby International, joined a group of liberal Democrats at a faux congressional hearing focused on whether fraud influenced the Nov. 2 outcome.
> 
> ...



In other words Zogby polls confirm our 2004 election was stolen. 

We should have protested.  And Iran should have stayed out of it.


----------



## Terral (Jun 22, 2009)

Hi Chris:



Chris said:


> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday . . .



Then 72% of Americans are idiots, so the numbers seem about right. The current healthcare costs are through the roof and Obama's form of Fascism is only going to make things FAR more expensive and the situation FAR worse. The Plan guarantees even more money to caregivers and someone MUST FOOT THE BILL, which means higher taxes for everybody and increased cost for everything; which drives down demand for American Goods and more JOBS go right out the window. 

The caregivers are charging more and more and more, because they can. Period. Imagine if everyone lost his insurance and caregivers had to service patients by what 'we can afford.' The wages of masons and carpenters and dry-wallers and painters and roofers and everyone working with their hands ARE GOING DOWN, so either the price of healthcare goes down too, OR those goods and services become what only the rich can afford. 

Since we cannot afford more taxes, and people without JOBS do not even pay taxes, then the escalating Healthcare Bubble will eventually burst like all the others . . . Watch and see . . . 

A majority of Americans are looking for a free healthcare lunch and no such thing exists . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Following an Election Day prediction that Democratic candidate John Kerry would win more than 300 electoral votes and the presidency, one of America's most well known polling firms continued the job Wednesday of explaining its flawed projection.
> ...



nice try sealy, and you understand the implication of the post. I don't have to explain it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Chris:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Obstruct progress much with misinformation?


----------



## Toro (Jun 22, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Indeed, it is the perceived power of the polls
> that has in recent years prompted the
> development of "advocacy polling," which is
> the use of polls by interest groups to create an
> ...



What this says is that a sample size of 1500 generates a mean such that two standard deviations are are within 2.5% of the mean at a confidence interval of 95%.  Generally, a sample size of 1000 generates two standard deviations of 3% from the mean.  We would expect this as the standard deviation around the mean narrows as the sample size increases.



> While I tend not to put much stock in polls in general for this very reason, as too often the sample data is too low and does not represent the true feelings of Americans within a poll.  It would seem that those who support an issue as long as the poll supports it would have no reason to doubt it's accuracy. However,  that does not mitigate the fact that this sample data is too low and  as a matter of fact I can cite you a numerous cases of  faulty polling data  used as gospel in the past...
> 
> A new study on California&#8217;s Proposition 8 voting trends released Tuesday found that far fewer African-Americans voted to pass the gay marriage ban than the 70% suggested by exit polling and concluded that race was not the most significant factor affecting people&#8217;s vote for or against marriage equality.
> Prop. 8 Exit Polling of African-Americans Way Off, Experts Say *|*News | Advocate.com
> ...



There are a few things.  First, any given poll may be wrong.  With a confidence interval of 95%, that means that there is a 5% that the true mean of the population will be greater than 2 standard deviations from the sample mean, which in our case, is a poll.  It may be that if the poll is statistically unbiased, then there is a 5% chance that it is inaccurate.

Second, polling assumes that the sample is unbiased.  If there are construction problems, then, obviously, the poll is not.  That is what happened with black voters in CA. That is what happened for the exit polls in 2004.  

Finally, political polls do not necessarily reflect what will actually happen on election day.  Elections are also driven by organization.  In the 2006 Canadian election, all the polls on the last weekend of the vote had the Conservatives winning 34% of the vote.  On the election, they won 38%.  It is generally thought that this was because the Tories were better organized to get their vote out.

However, it has usually been my experience that those who dispute a poll's accuracy do so because they disagree with the outcome and it contradicts what they believe.  That does not mean they are wrong, of course, but a person must ask themself that if it is the poll that is biased or if it is they who are unbiased.  Usually, it is the person that is biased.


----------



## editec (Jun 22, 2009)

Obviously a poll worded in such as way that it is designed to elite a certain response is worthless.

Nevertheless it doesn't take a huge population to get a valid poll if it is done correctly.

FWIW I seldom pay attention to polls since so many of them are designed not to really guage true sentiment, but designed to get an outcome so that its designers can make the 6 o'cock news with a bumpersticker headline.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

editec said:


> Obviously a poll worded in such as way that it is designed to elite a certain response is worthless.
> 
> Nevertheless it doesn't take a huge population to get a valid poll if it is done correctly.
> 
> FWIW I seldom pay attention to polls since so many of them are designed not to really guage true sentiment, but designed to get an outcome so that its designers can make the 6 o'cock news with a bumpersticker headline.



I just wonder why 28% want the status quo.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously a poll worded in such as way that it is designed to elite a certain response is worthless.
> ...


It is a puzzlement. Some of those are the super rich, but others just haven't been destroyed financially from hospital bills .. yet.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 22, 2009)

Toro said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, it is the perceived power of the polls
> ...



We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one Toro, while  I believe the opposite is true, that people tend to point to polls as a source of evidence to back up a particular  cause they happen to believe in even though that poll may be flawed , from the sample data, or perhaps the averaging, or based on any number of reasons.  I have ample evidence to support my contention that polls generally do not reflect the will of those who participate in them but rather are a by-product of the sample questions,  how many are in the  poll as compared to the total number of people it effects.  However, I will admit in the case of the healthcare debate I fall somewhere in the middle of debate, in that, I do not believe that Govt. is the best source for healthcare in this nation, but do believe that healthcare costs need to be brought under control in order to make it more affordable for those who need and want it. I say this only to be fair in this debate we are having as it applies to polls.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 22, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



In eight years the Medicare trust fund will be empty and the Medicare tax and the premiums those on Medicare pay will be far short of Medicare's current expenses.  All current expenses will have to be paid immediately from current revenues, and as our population continues to age, there will be fewer and fewer workers paying the medical costs of more and more seniors.  Politicians in Washington will be faced with the either large middle class tax increase, the Medicare tax, a large increase in the premiums seniors pay or funding a part of the cost through deficit spending or other taxes on the general public.  

Had Medicare been responsibly managed, in eight years, Medicare's current liabilities would have been funded over a period of years and the full weight of them would not have to fall on those who are then working - that was the purpose of the trust fund - but the politicians who now want us to trust them to run another public plan irresponsibly kept Medicare taxes artificially low for political reasons for years,  so that in eight years, Medicare won't be an insurance program at all; it will just be a tax on working Americans to pay the current healthcare costs of retired Americans.

If a new public plan is configured as Medicare is, where the government can simply pay for it with tax increases or deficit spending if it goes broke as Medicare is about to do, then it will likely charge artificially low rates to attract customers and that will drive all the private sector competition out of business; hence a government monopoly on health insurance.  

However if it is configured as a real insurance company is and has to live or die on its premiums and investment income, then not only won't it become a monopoly, it probably won't even survive, because to compete with private insurance companies, it will have to hire marketing and advertising executives and staffs and if they want good ones, they will have to pay salaries competitive with what private companies are paying, and that will drive their overhead costs up close to those of private companies.  In addition, if the plan invests its reserves in Treasuries, as other government trusts are in invested, it will earn less income that private companies earn and it will have to make the difference up with higher premiums.  On the other hand, if it invests its reserves in the private sector, it will have to hire portfolio managers, and if it wants good ones, it will have to pay what private insurance  companies pay, driving the plan's overhead costs up still further.  

So if the government is committed to allowing a public plan to fail if it charges too little to cover expenses, then its costs would be very similar to a private plan's costs, and few private insurance companies would worry about it.  On the other hand, if the government would bail it out if it charged too little to cover its expenses, as Medicare has, then it would charge artificially low rates and  drive private companies out of business, and there would be a government monopoly on health insurance.


----------



## alan1 (Jun 22, 2009)

Toro said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > So the assumption is that in this  broad cross section, a contruction worker represents the  interests of ALL contruction workers, a  soldier a soldier, a  Doctor a Doctor, a housewife a housewife? That is why the data in flawed from the start in such a low number of people questioned, because it makes assumptions based on the person(s) taking the poll. In order for this poll to be accurate it has to contain a much larger number of people to have a true reflection as to the feelings of  most Americans.  Let me cite you an example, I can during an election cycle poll 895 people and come out with an opinion that will tell me  mickey mouse will be the next president of the United States  if I question the right people and use a low enough number of people to represent the  intentions of  ALL the voters. In short this poll is flawed based on the following, the poll sample represents the intentions of exactly .00000385ths of Americans  and even if you used a factor of 20 or 19 the data is still flawed because the poll sample number is too low.  This poll while  interesting is meaningless, because it represents the interests of less than 1% of the people  that need, want, or have healthcare.
> ...



A few interesting things about this health care poll.

Only 24% of the people polled identified themselves as republican, yet McCain received 45.6% of the vote.  (MM note: Seems republicans were under-represented.  I think 36% of registered voters are registered as republicans)

Only 43% of the people said they would be willing to $500 more in taxes to provide this health care package to everybody.  (MM note: $500 is only about 1 month of health insurance for a single person)

77% of the people said that under their current medical plan, basic medical treatments are affordable.

72% of the people said they have health insurance through employment/union or self.

77% of the people are either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the health care they currently receive.

The entire poll can be found here, http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/CBSPOLL_June09a_health_care.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody


----------



## Chris (Jun 23, 2009)

Our current health insurance is a scam. I dropped mine long ago.

I am going to enjoy watching this awful system fail.


----------



## elvis (Jun 23, 2009)

Chris said:


> Our current health insurance is a scam. I dropped mine long ago.
> 
> I am going to enjoy watching this awful system fail.



You dropped yours?  Good, you little parasite.  I hope you need an operation and lose every Goddamned penny you've scammed out of those veterans you fucked over.


----------



## Chris (Jun 23, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Our current health insurance is a scam. I dropped mine long ago.
> ...



I am sorry for how you were abused as a child.

Seek help.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 23, 2009)

Chris said:


> Our current health insurance is a scam. I dropped mine long ago.
> 
> I am going to enjoy watching this awful system fail.



so in the inaccurate government figures you are one of the 46 million uninsured even though you chose to not buy health insurance.


----------



## editec (Jun 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously a poll worded in such as way that it is designed to elite a certain response is worthless.
> ...


 
Possibly because many of them have (or think they have until their insurance really gets tested) health care coverage they're satisfied with?


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 23, 2009)

Again, as I have indicated on this post before and has been seen for what it is, this poll is flawed for several reasons, one the data sample is too low, and the  data pool does not contain an accurate sampling. If I were to poll lets say 50% plus or minus. of Obama supporters and  , 28% plus or minus of  McCain supporters, and use a low sample of around  800 give or take, and throw in a few inds. , what do you think the results would be? As I said flawed poll data to appeal to those that like to use these things to promote an issue.


----------



## Chris (Jun 23, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Again, as I have indicated on this post before and has been seen for what it is, this poll is flawed for several reasons, one the data sample is too low, and the  data pool does not contain an accurate sampling. If I were to poll lets say 50% plus or minus. of Obama supporters and  , 28% plus or minus of  McCain supporters, and use a low sample of around  800 give or take, and throw in a few inds. , what do you think the results would be? As I said flawed poll data to appeal to those that like to use these things to promote an issue.



Face it, the public has woken up to the flaws in our expensive, bloated, and unfair health system.

You can't handle the truth.


----------



## elvis (Jun 23, 2009)

Chris said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, as I have indicated on this post before and has been seen for what it is, this poll is flawed for several reasons, one the data sample is too low, and the  data pool does not contain an accurate sampling. If I were to poll lets say 50% plus or minus. of Obama supporters and  , 28% plus or minus of  McCain supporters, and use a low sample of around  800 give or take, and throw in a few inds. , what do you think the results would be? As I said flawed poll data to appeal to those that like to use these things to promote an issue.
> ...



They may have woken up to it, but that doesn't mean they want social medicine.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 23, 2009)

Chris said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, as I have indicated on this post before and has been seen for what it is, this poll is flawed for several reasons, one the data sample is too low, and the  data pool does not contain an accurate sampling. If I were to poll lets say 50% plus or minus. of Obama supporters and  , 28% plus or minus of  McCain supporters, and use a low sample of around  800 give or take, and throw in a few inds. , what do you think the results would be? As I said flawed poll data to appeal to those that like to use these things to promote an issue.
> ...



I'm perfectly fine with the idea that healthcare needs to be reformed  to make it more affordable for all Chris. I don't think I have made the arguement otherwise.  Where I differ is who is best at doing that.  However, if I went out and polled  500 Obama supporters and 150 McCain supporters I'm sure I'd end up with the same  70 plus percent that the times poll did.  What a staggering number of Americans that represents .


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 23, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



There are a few of us who know exactly why the health care system failed, but it's too few still. The majority are buying this "free healthcare" pitch too blindly.


----------



## Annie (Jun 23, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



What? You doubt it?


----------



## elvis (Jun 23, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



with the help of people like Chris.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 23, 2009)

Okay, I am repeating myself but meh, for all those who actually think healthcare will be cheaper if run by the government .... BZZZZZT! This is why our costs are high, and it's not the insurance companies that control them either so don't bother trying that crap. The FDA regulates what is allowed and what isn't. Pharmaceutical companies then have to pay them more in order to get permission to sell in the US, those with the biggest bribes tend to be the more dangerous and less tested drugs oddly .... this cost then has to be recuperated to make a profit, guess how they do that? Raising the cost to the patient. Not only do drug companies have this connection, the entire industry does. Drop out the FDA and *gasp* require patients learn a bit about their own health care then the prices will fall ... but you will also find a startling fact, we are not as sick as they tell us.


----------



## oreo (Jun 23, 2009)

I think everyone in this country agrees that there has to be something done with the ever-rising cost of health care in this country.  I am not so certain that the federal government can fix it.

I think the individual States would do a much better--more cost efficient job in handeling this issue.

*In fact, I can't think of one single thing that has ever been run efficiently by the federal government.*


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 23, 2009)

oreo said:


> I think everyone in this country agrees that there has to be something done with the ever-rising cost of health care in this country.  I just not so certain that the government can fix it.
> 
> I think the individual States would do a much better--more cost efficient job in handeling this issue.
> 
> I can't think of one single thing that has ever been run efficiently by the federal government.



There's the problem, it was the government meddling in it that messed it up in the first place. Sometimes just leaving it to it's own devices fixes it best.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 23, 2009)

oreo said:


> I think everyone in this country agrees that there has to be something done with the ever-rising cost of health care in this country.  I am not so certain that the federal government can fix it.
> 
> I think the individual States would do a much better--more cost efficient job in handeling this issue.
> 
> *In fact, I can't think of one single thing that has ever been run efficiently by the federal government.*



Thought you all might like to see what is going on here in Arizona,,

PHOENIX -- Saying they are working to prevent socialism, members of the state House voted 34-19 Thursday to ask voters to block the federal government from forcing Arizonans to enroll in any universal health care program.

"We are a front-line battle state to stop the momentum of this powerful government takeover of your health care decisions,' argued Rep. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, the sponsor of the measure.

"Health care by lobbyists thwarts your rights and can be stopped here.'

Denied:1up! Software ()

I had started an earlier thread  oreo suggesting just what you had said that perhaps states are the best place to provide care and let the people that live there decide for themselves what they want.


----------



## Annie (Jun 23, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > I think everyone in this country agrees that there has to be something done with the ever-rising cost of health care in this country.  I just not so certain that the government can fix it.
> ...



So cynical. Obama SAID it won't cost a penny that's not being spent already. You doubt him? Damn, hard act. LOL!


----------



## Care4all (Jun 24, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > I think everyone in this country agrees that there has to be something done with the ever-rising cost of health care in this country.  I am not so certain that the federal government can fix it.
> ...


navy
Has the federal government stopped the States from doing what is right for their citizens with their health care?

They haven't.

So WHAT stopped the States from handling their own problems with health care for their citizens and correcting the problems with it the past 10 to 20 years, I wonder?  

only a handful of the 50 states have even tried to approach this mega issue...I know massachusetts tried...maybe a couple of other states have as well, but don't know how it is working out for them....?

care


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, as I have indicated on this post before and has been seen for what it is, this poll is flawed for several reasons, one the data sample is too low, and the  data pool does not contain an accurate sampling. If I were to poll lets say 50% plus or minus. of Obama supporters and  , 28% plus or minus of  McCain supporters, and use a low sample of around  800 give or take, and throw in a few inds. , what do you think the results would be? As I said flawed poll data to appeal to those that like to use these things to promote an issue.
> ...



So we'll just let the bloated, inefficient more expensive government bureaucracy handle health insurance right?

Out of the frying pan and into the fire.  you place way too much faith in government


----------



## jreeves (Jun 24, 2009)

Toro said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > So the assumption is that in this  broad cross section, a contruction worker represents the  interests of ALL contruction workers, a  soldier a soldier, a  Doctor a Doctor, a housewife a housewife? That is why the data in flawed from the start in such a low number of people questioned, because it makes assumptions based on the person(s) taking the poll. In order for this poll to be accurate it has to contain a much larger number of people to have a true reflection as to the feelings of  most Americans.  Let me cite you an example, I can during an election cycle poll 895 people and come out with an opinion that will tell me  mickey mouse will be the next president of the United States  if I question the right people and use a low enough number of people to represent the  intentions of  ALL the voters. In short this poll is flawed based on the following, the poll sample represents the intentions of exactly .00000385ths of Americans  and even if you used a factor of 20 or 19 the data is still flawed because the poll sample number is too low.  This poll while  interesting is meaningless, because it represents the interests of less than 1% of the people  that need, want, or have healthcare.
> ...



This particular poll although, is quite skewed...



You may have heard about the New York Times/CBS poll showing support for government-run health care. It turns out that the sample was tilted towards Barack Obama:

*As can be plainly seen on page 7 of the polls data, only 73 percent of respondents divulged who they voted for last November. 48 percent said Obama, 25 percent McCain.

    What this means is this poll surveyed 66 percent Obama supporters versus 34 percent McCain.
*
    As the final tally last year was 53 percent to 46 percent, this poll WAY oversampled Obama voters.

This isnt to say that all polls are stacked and Im not accusing the Times or CBS of wrong doing, but you have to question why theyd let a poll like this be released when it doesnt equally represent voters. Seems very disengenious and irresponsible.
NY Times oversamples Obama supporters in health care poll | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government


----------



## jreeves (Jun 24, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Our current health insurance is a scam. I dropped mine long ago.
> ...



Lmao....

Him and 7 million illegal immigrants


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 24, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



How many uninsured people need additional help from taxpayers?*|*KeithHennessey.com

I've posted this several times and no one provides proof that these numbers are wrong other than to say, "That guy worked for Bush so his numbers are a lie"

Great argument huh?

BTW I saw a similar report on CNBC which stated that the true uninsured are less than 9 million people.

As usual, the government is not telling the whole truth here.


----------



## Annie (Jun 24, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Pretty good. Same number here:

Larry Kudlow : We Don't Need Big Bang Health Care Reform - Townhall.com



> ...Theres more. According to the U.S. Census Bureau we dont have 47 million folks who are truly uninsured. When you take college kids plus those earning $75,000 or more who choose not to sign up for a health-care plan, roughly 20 million people are removed from the list of uninsured. After that you can remove the 10 million who are not U.S. citizens and the 11 million who are eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid but for some reason have not signed up for those programs.
> 
> So that leaves only 10 million to 15 million people among the long-term uninsured....


----------



## jreeves (Jun 24, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



I don't think for Democrats that this about helping people who legitimately need  Health insurance. I believe it's about creating a dependent constituency that will have no choice but vote them into office over and over..


----------



## Dante (Jun 24, 2009)

*Remember Chris...health care is not a festival of nuts---unless it is for you a family reunion.*
How's them almonds?



Chris said:


> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> 
> The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dante (Jun 24, 2009)

*I'd bet most Americans who say they are happy with their health plans have never been gravely ill.*


----------



## jreeves (Jun 24, 2009)

DevNell said:


> *I'd bet most Americans who say they are happy with their health plans have never been gravely ill.*



I'd say the Canadian who has to wait six months for radiation treatment aren't too happy with their free health plan or their grieving loved ones...


----------



## Dante (Jun 24, 2009)

jreeves said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > *I'd bet most Americans who say they are happy with their health plans have never been gravely ill.*
> ...



nobody is advocating copying the Canadian system you moron. How about American ingenuity? We can and will build a better health care system after we shut people like you up.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 24, 2009)

DevNell said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



Yes, because America is ALL about shutting up the opposition and building something "better" without hearing from people we don't like . . . oh wait, it's not.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 24, 2009)

DevNell said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...


Yes the left ilk in Congress wants to spend 3 trillion dollars to fuck up our health care. Your right, the Canadians would never think of being that fucking loony.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> 
> The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.
> 
> ...



You knew of course that The New York Times (unbiased rag that it is), over sampled Obama voters about 2 to 1 right?


----------



## jreeves (Jun 24, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> ...



Why should he concern himself with facts and truth?


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 24, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...


Wow, you came up with that all by yourself?


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 24, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> ...


Oh please, Iran Contra, war in Central America, Nuns shoved out of planes. The US couldn't survive another Ronnie.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 24, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Yes it would be awful if people got to keep more of what they earned and the economy grew.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 24, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > *An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.*
> ...



i suppose that depends on how you interpret and analyze the data....?  but i didn't get that AT ALL out of the little info in that post on it shull....????


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 25, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


Reagan ended the middle class. Until 1981 a single paycheck could support a family and buy a house.


----------



## Meister (Jun 25, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...




Funny, I thought it was because wages couldn't keep up with the Carter inflation.  Wow I learn something new everyday...Thanks for the info Junkie


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 25, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> ...



Then why don't you understand that when Rasmussen does it?


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 25, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



You'd have a point if I were one who believed polls were evidence of much of anything. Now stop deflecting and address this inconvenient truth.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 25, 2009)

so.. polls don't mean anything when the result is not what you hoped to see?


nice.  srsly.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 28, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...




Maybe you could show a little proof, from a reliable source?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 28, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Social medicine bad.

Social bureaucracy to track payments to private medical professionals good.

-Joe


----------



## elvis (Jun 28, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



No.  Neither is good.  I don't want to wait hours when I should only have to wait minutes.  I don't want a shortage of doctors, medical equipment, etc.  which govt run care would produce imo.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Okay, I am repeating myself but meh, for all those who actually think healthcare will be cheaper if run by the government .... BZZZZZT! This is why our costs are high, and it's not the insurance companies that control them either so don't bother trying that crap. The FDA regulates what is allowed and what isn't. Pharmaceutical companies then have to pay them more in order to get permission to sell in the US, those with the biggest bribes tend to be the more dangerous and less tested drugs oddly .... this cost then has to be recuperated to make a profit, guess how they do that? Raising the cost to the patient. Not only do drug companies have this connection, the entire industry does. Drop out the FDA and *gasp* require patients learn a bit about their own health care then the prices will fall ... but you will also find a startling fact, we are not as sick as they tell us.



Health-care is an industry and should remain private.  Insurance is a bureaucracy for the tracking payments to other industries.  Any organization the size of We, The People that is not self insured is foolishly wasting resources. 

-Joe


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 28, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



I agree.  Letting the government run 'health-care' is a bad idea.  Letting the government run the bureaucracy to track the premiums in and payments out to that private industry is a smart move.  We don't need million dollar executives to track payments.  Middle class bureaucrats will do the job for a whole lot less.

Working example:  US Social Security.  Been tracking premiums in and payments out since 1935 and currently running at an efficiency of less than 1% of premiums for all overhead.  (That's less than 1 penny out of every FICA dollar collected for overhead)

-Joe


----------



## elvis (Jun 28, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Can't imagine the insurance lobby tolerating that.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 28, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Fighting it as we speak with every one of our health-care dollars that they can borrow from their friends in the banking industry.  Top priority right now is maintain control over Congress and keep the gravy train on the track.

-Joe


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 28, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


Investigate France's system ... No waiting, specialists readily available, most people get a private hospital room, doctors make house calls, Rxs are cheaper, longer life expectancy and  lower infant mortality. See for yourself.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 28, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Investigated....
The French Health Care System
Reimbursement is regulated through uniform rates. *The financing is supported by employers, employee contributions, and personal income taxes. The working population has twenty percent of their gross salary deducted at source to fund the social security system. *

*The State is in charge of protecting patient´s rights, elaborating policies and enforcing them. It is responsible for public safety. *
Health authorities plan the size and numbers of hospitals. They decide on the amount and allocation of technical equipment (such as MRI, CT scans). Through its agencies, the State organizes the supply of specialized wards and secures the provision of care at all times. 

In recent years, regional authorities have taken a growing role in policy-making and negotiation. 
Healthcare Economist · Health Care Around the World: France
However, France utilizes more market-based ideas than most people realized. Copayment rates for most services are 10%-40%. About 92% of French residents have complementary private health insurance.

In essence, the French system avoids widespread rationing because, unlike true single-payer systems, it employs market forces. Even the OECD says that the proportion of the population with private health insurance and the degree of cost sharing are key determinants of how severe waiting lists will be.

Insured. About 99% of French residents are covered by the national health insurance scheme.

Cost. France is the third most expensive health care system (~11% of GDP). While the system has generally been well funded, in 2005 the health care system ran a 11.6 billion deficit and in 2006 the health care system had a 10.3 billion deficit. No centrally planned health insurance system will be immune from occasional (or even frequent) deficits.

Funding. Most of the funding is from a 13.55% payroll tax (employers pay 12.8%, individuals pay 0.75%). There is a 5.25% general social contribution tax on income as well. Thus, there is an approximately a 18.8% on employees for health insurance. There are also dedicated taxes which are assessed on tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical company revenues.

Private Insurance.* More than 92% of French residents have complementary private insurance. *This insurance pays for additional fees in order to access higher quality providers. Private health insurances makes up 12.7% of French health care spending. These complementary private insurance funds are very loosely regulated (less than in the U.S.) and the only stringent requirement is guaranteed renewability. Private insurance benefits are not equally distributed so there is, in essence, a two-tier system.


----------



## jeffrockit (Jun 28, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously a poll worded in such as way that it is designed to elite a certain response is worthless.
> ...



It's not the I want the status quo. Healthcare needs a major overhaul as it has many problems. With that being said, government run is not the answer either. Anyone that believes it is going to be free are just wrong. Also I keep hearing about efficiency but not about quality and that is scary. I don't want my healthcare efficient, I want it effective. People need to stop letting the partisan sides blind them.


----------



## Maple (Jun 28, 2009)

I would question the validity of anything the New York Times posted.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 28, 2009)

Maple said:


> I would question the validity of anything the New York Times posted.


Amazing a right winger who doesn't trust the NYT.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 28, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > I would question the validity of anything the New York Times posted.
> ...



Amazing a left winger who blindly believes everything that the NYT publishes....


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 28, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...


I'd certainly believe the NYT over Fox or Newsmax. After all Fox won the right to lie in court.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 28, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Of course....no one mentioned Fox or Newsmax but nice strawman there. Beat the hell out of 'em...


----------



## Meister (Jun 28, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



 You are kidding right?  Because for a minute there I thought you were being serious.  Boy, I almost fell for it, that was a good one.


----------



## elvis (Jun 28, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



So you believe Judith Miller, then?


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 29, 2009)

Last week, New York Times reporter Jayson Blair joined Janet Cooke, formerly of the Washington Post, the New Republic's Stephen Glass, the Boston Globe's Patricia Smith, and Jay Forman in Slate as journalists who got caught *embellishing, exaggerating, and outright lying in print*. The will to fabricate cuts across disciplines, with academics and scientists inventing data, too. Last year, Emory University history professor Michael A. Bellesiles resigned following an investigation of charges that he concocted evidence to support his book Arming America, and Bell Labs fired researcher Jan Hendrik Schon when it discovered he made up scientific data and published it.....

The Jayson Blair Project. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

*A few years ago, Michael Finkel's journalism career was as dead as yesterday's newspaper because he had lied in an article for the New York Times Magazine.* Today, the 36-year-old Bozeman, Mont., resident has banked a half- million dollar advance on his first book, sold its film rights to Brad Pitt's production company and has a year-old marriage with a baby on the way. 
After getting fired by the New York Times for lying in print, a reporter stumbled on the story of his life

By Amy Westfeldt, Associated Press 

The New York Times' ombudsman said the newspaper should review reporter Judith Miller's journalism practices to address "clear issues of trust and credibility" in her role in the CIA leak investigation. Miller's attorney called the newspaper's recent criticism of her "shameless."

Times Public Editor Byron Calame also said the paper should consider updating its ethics guidelines on using anonymous sources and quoted publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. as saying "there are new limits" on what Miller can do in the future.

Calame wrote in a Sunday column that the Times and Miller's Oct. 16 accounts of the reporting that landed Miller in jail for refusing to testify to a grand jury "suggested that the journalistic practices of Ms. Miller and Times editors were more flawed than I feared."

Miller went to jail for 85 days rather than testify to a grand jury investigating the leaking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity. She was released Sept. 29 and agreed to testify after her source, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, released her from a promise of confidentiality.
NYT Updates Its Ethics: &#8220;Lie Or Be Fired&#8221; | Sweetness & Light

Barbara Stewart, former freelance reporter for The Boston Globe, was dismissed this week after adding fictitious details to a story about events which actually did not occur at the time of her writing. The Boston Globe's Executive Editor Helen Donovan called the incident a "significant breach" and said, "We should have noticed the lack of attribution on a couple of key facts and should have asked questions we didn't ask."

Stewart has been a reporter for The New York Times' Metro Desk between October, 1994 and May, 2004; according to the Boston Herald, the Times denied that Stewart fabricated any parts of stories while she was employed there. This was Stewart's third article for the Globe.

Freelance reporter fired from Boston Globe for adding fictitious details to story - Wikinews, the free news source

So yes, I'd say there is a credibility problem with NYT...


----------



## Care4all (Jun 29, 2009)

Actually, I'd say they did a FINE JOB, of getting rid of the liars exposed.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 30, 2009)

jreeves said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Well you could start with the NY Times themselves. There the ones that admitted as much.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 30, 2009)

Shogun said:


> so.. polls don't mean anything when the result is not what you hoped to see?
> 
> 
> nice.  srsly.



You still don't get the whole, if you're gonna accuse someone of something (i.e. believing in polls when convenient) make sure it's accurate, thing do you.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 1, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...


Nope, she lied and left the NYT after her humiliation.
She works for a conservative think tank now.

Judith Miller
"of course, the whole story turned out to be false. After quitting her job at the New York Times, she joined the *conservative* Manhattan Institute for Policy Research in 2007."


----------



## Care4all (Jul 1, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> ...



Who should the polling have included....?  Certainly a poll that had 50% republicans and 50% democrats would NOT have represented the public either...because there are more people voting democratic than there are voting republican so the polling should include more Democratic voting people than Republican voting people....

As much as the nyt did this may not have been called for, but certainly there should have been some weight on the democratic side when polling, to make it a true representation of our society?

care


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 1, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Actually, I'd say they did a FINE JOB, of getting rid of the liars exposed.



Well thats one way of  putting it Care, I personally like to see it this way, the paper as a whole like all of print media has a problem with competetion with the internet and cable media. So they are having issues keeping readers, that being the case, there are some institutions that are willing to stretch the bounds of truth in order to attract readers to a dying  medium.  While I won't condemn the entire staff for the serious bad conduct of others, it does  bring a negative image  to the entire paper that goes right to it's credibility. As it would for any other media outlet.....


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 1, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Last week, New York Times reporter Jayson Blair joined Janet Cooke, formerly of the Washington Post, the New Republic's Stephen Glass, the Boston Globe's Patricia Smith, and Jay Forman in Slate as journalists who got caught *embellishing, exaggerating, and outright lying in print*. The will to fabricate cuts across disciplines, with academics and scientists inventing data, too. Last year, Emory University history professor Michael A. Bellesiles resigned following an investigation of charges that he concocted evidence to support his book Arming America, and Bell Labs fired researcher Jan Hendrik Schon when it discovered he made up scientific data and published it.....
> 
> The Jayson Blair Project. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine
> 
> ...



That background info is rather intriguing. I suppose the point you're trying to make is that the NYT has a worse track record for hiring reporters that "lie." The thing is, everyone KNOWS that Fox's signature attraction is that it, er, _embellishes_ all the time, so what's the point of selective firing among their reporters? 

When the news about Mark Sanford first broke, who at Fox decided to put a big *D* next to his name?


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jul 1, 2009)

This is just another one of those Obama programs that is being rammed up our butts by the liberals.  I think you will be surprised at the quality of care you get when this is passed by congress.  Now, think back for as far as you can remember.  What exactly has the government ran that was efficient and cost saving?  Also add ran smoothly to that mixture.  If you think this is a good idea you are out of your mind.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 1, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Last week, New York Times reporter Jayson Blair joined Janet Cooke, formerly of the Washington Post, the New Republic's Stephen Glass, the Boston Globe's Patricia Smith, and Jay Forman in Slate as journalists who got caught *embellishing, exaggerating, and outright lying in print*. The will to fabricate cuts across disciplines, with academics and scientists inventing data, too. Last year, Emory University history professor Michael A. Bellesiles resigned following an investigation of charges that he concocted evidence to support his book Arming America, and Bell Labs fired researcher Jan Hendrik Schon when it discovered he made up scientific data and published it.....
> ...



Maggie, if you are trying to engage me in a debate on the merits of  Fox you have  engaged the wrong person.  I think I made it pretty clear what my feelings are on print media in general. However, I will say this about most media that is  "agenda" driven. i.e. Fox, MSNBC,NYT,  well basically all of them..  You and I and all of us basically have to look hard for the real truth among all the  propaganda they all spew out on a daily basis. It's why I much prefer to watch CSPAN if I want to know whats going on in Govt.  that way  all the  agenda based editorials can be left on the table and I can be left to make up my own mind. A concept that many have an issue with these day's the fact that they can still make up their own minds and do not have to watch Olbermann, Hannity, or any of those people and have it made for them,....


----------



## Barb (Jul 1, 2009)

Meister said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



 Are you really trying to equate the sad assed insurance most people have, if they have that, with what is enjoyed by members of Congress, on the taxpayer dime?  Honestly? Our insurance wouldn't cover that, and once it is established the co-pay is out of the budget, all heroic measures are stopped. 

Americans pay more per capita than the any other nation in the industrialized world, for the worst outcomes and the fewest insured.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Whatever.  GW didn't need 72% support to ram his agenda down our throat.  Blue dogs better toe the line or suffer the wrath.    

But you should know that donations are down big time to Democrats.  We're basically telling them that we want to see some action before we give anymore.  But keep in mind corporations are donating more than ever.  

At least if we can't get anything major done with healthcare or jobs coming home or ending the war or helping unions, at least the dems will throw us a bone or two.

Maybe gays will be allowed to serve in the military    Which happens to be run by the rich and controlled by the rich, who will have them go off and die for their greedy agenda, but at least they'll get to be legally married.  

Watch that's the only thing they give us.  

And then blacks won't vote for the Dems next time because they are very anti gay.    Maybe thats how you steal black votes from the Dems.


----------



## elvis (Jul 1, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Interesting you bring up Bush and 72 percent.  He had 70 percent of the country believing in the war when it started.


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jul 2, 2009)

If only someone had the answer for American health care.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 3, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


Yes, I think the public is no longer as gullible as it was then.


----------



## Meister (Jul 3, 2009)

Barb said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



No Barb, I'm not.  I'm trying to equate the sad ass insurance *we will have *once the dust is settled, with the what the kind of insurance that is, and will still be enjoyed by our congress. My private insurance is a very good one, and I'm not willing to step down to a government run insurance plan.  
As far as your stated worst outcomes....don't even insult me with that.  Do you realize that, when it comes to treating heart disease, and cancer there is no country better, Barb.  I know, I know, your going to say that is just the "life saving" treatment, but what about a broken arm?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 3, 2009)

Barb said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Regarding Ted Kennedy, I'm sure he for years has had supplemental coverage above what even the top tier government health care program covers. His brain tumor is only the latest in a slew of illnesses. Sure, anyone can opt for that kind of catastrophic coverage assuming we have thousands to spend on premiums.


----------



## del (Jul 3, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



do you really think anyone would sell that fat, drunken lout insurance if he wasn't a senator?


good one.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 3, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



I would personally be stunned if you could even explain what Iran-Contra was, let alone why it was bad, without cutting and pasting it from the Internet.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 3, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



And now you're going to explain to us SPECIFICALLY how Reagan "ended the middle class" and what your proof is, right?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 3, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Life expectancy and infant mortality have nothing to do with healthcare systems in industrialized nations.  Zero, zip, nada.  It's a false premise.  If you want to compare life expectancy and infant mortality in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, with ours and link it to differences in health systems, that's one thing.  France?  No.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 3, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > I would question the validity of anything the New York Times posted.
> ...



Amazing, a left-winger who thinks the NYT is carved in stone by the finger of God . . . oops, I mean the finger of a primitive and outmoded superstitious concept.  Sorry about that.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 3, 2009)

Barb said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Worst outcomes?  How so?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 3, 2009)

Meister said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Well, if we're going to talk about "worst outcomes", then I think we NEED to talk about life-threatening problems, and whether or not you're better off being in the US when it happens.  I know if you're a prematurely-born baby, you're DEFINITELY better off being born in the US.


----------



## Barb (Jul 3, 2009)

Meister said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



 I have sad assed coverage now, and I pay for it with my employer. Between what I pay, what the deductible is, and the copay, I still have to think two or three times before I go to the doc. I save it for my kids. If you're insulted by the reality dealt with daily by the vast majority who don't enjoy the platinum coverage you enjoy, or have no coverage at all (and before you start, the majority of them work damned hard for a living, often at more than one job) , by all means don't look. And the "success stories" you mention? They are for the insured. My brother died of cancer, so I'm pretty well versed on what is covered, how it is classified by our lovely insurance companies as a pre-existing condition, and the letter he wrote to Governor Bush of Florida asking him if the Medicaid system was waiting for him to die before they covered him for palliative care. As for broken bones, no one goes to their primary care physician for that. You're throwing shit against the wall to see what will stick. We have triage to decide what's an emergency now, that little feature isn't likely to be thrown out the window under a public option.


----------



## Barb (Jul 3, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


just below Costa Rica. 
37        United States of America
The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems


----------



## Meister (Jul 3, 2009)

Barb said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



I'm sorry to hear that your brother died of cancer, Barb.  But that does not negate the fact that our health insurance for cancer and heart disease IS the best in the world...hands down.  Canada's healthcare you wait up to 8 weeks for radiation treatments.  
If you don't think that the government coverage isn't going to pick and choose who lives and dies, then your naive.
You mentioned medicaid....that's a government run system isn't it?  That should give you a heads up of what you can expect.
Barb, I'm not against health coverage for all, but there has to be a better one than the one we will end up with.  I want it done right where there is a blend of private coverage with the assistance of the government. I just don't want to have to pay for mine, which isn't cheap, and then being taxed to pay for others.  I'm retired, and pretty much on a fixed income.


----------



## Chris (Jul 4, 2009)

Meister said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Our healthcare is the best in the world? Not for the 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance. Not for the single mother with cancer who can't pay her premiums.

I am a amazed what a bubble some people live in.


----------



## Chris (Jul 4, 2009)

Common arguments forwarded by supporters of universal health care systems include:

Health care is a basic human right[99][103][104] or entitlement.[105]
Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.[106]
About 59% of the U.S. health care system is already publicly financed with federal and state taxes, property taxes, and tax subsidies - a universal health care system would merely replace private/employer spending with taxes. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.[107]
A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork.[108] Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending.[109]
Several studies have shown a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide would prefer a universal health care system over the current U.S. system[110][111][112]
Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions.[113]
Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced.[114]
America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund.[115]
A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.[116]
Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.)[117]
The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care. If managed care programs and their concomitant provider networks are abolished, then doctors would no longer be guaranteed patients solely on the basis of their membership in a provider group and regardless of the quality of care they provide. Theoretically, quality of care would increase as true competition for patients is restored.[118]
A 2008 opinion poll of 2,000 US doctors found support for a universal health care plan at 59%-32%, which is up from the 49%-40% opinion of physicians in 2002. These numbers include 83% of psychiatrists, 69% of emergency medicine specialists, 65% of pediatricians, 64% of internists, 60% of family physicians and 55% of general surgeons. The reasons given are an inability of doctors to decide patient care and patients who are unable to afford care.[119]
According to an estimate by Dr. Marcia Angell roughly 50% of health care dollars are spent on health care, the rest go to various middlepersons and intermediaries. A streamlined, non-profit, universal system would increase the efficiency with which money is spent on health care.[120]
In countries in Western Europe with public universal health care, private health care is also available, and one may choose to use it if desired. Most of the advantages of private health care continue to be present, see also two-tier health care.[121]
Universal health care and public doctors would protect the right to privacy between insurance companies and patients.[122]
Public health care system can be used as independent third party in disputes between employer and employee.[123]
Conservatives can favor universal health care, because in countries with universal health care, the government spends less tax money per person on health care than the U.S. For example, in France, the government spends $569 less per person on health care than in the United States. This would allow the U.S. to adopt universal health care, while simultaneously cutting government spending and cutting taxes.[124]

Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Barb (Jul 4, 2009)

Meister said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



 Our health _facilities_, not our _coverage_. Major difference. 
I'm too old to be naive. I didn't live this long not knowing when to duck. Anyway, thanks. You have a happy holiday.


----------



## elvis (Jul 4, 2009)

Chris said:


> Common arguments forwarded by supporters of universal health care systems include:
> 
> Health care is a basic human right[99][103][104] or entitlement.[105]
> Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.[106]
> ...



wiki says it.  I'm convinced now.


----------



## Meister (Jul 4, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



I'm surprised how stupid you are and still living. 

Chris, here is a little fact for you...*it isn't 50 million Americans* that number is including the illegals also.  Next...only around 16-17 million of those will end up being insured you twit.


----------



## Chris (Jul 4, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Common arguments forwarded by supporters of universal health care systems include:
> ...



You should be. The rest of the world is smarter than you are.


----------



## Meister (Jul 4, 2009)

Barb said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...




I did noticed you had no comment about medicaid...I don't know why you wouldn't, it is a government run system.  I also noticed you didn't acknowledge my idea toward a coverage for all.  Nobody is too old to be naive, Barb...nobody.  You have a good fourth of July also.


----------



## elvis (Jul 4, 2009)

Chris said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



don't you have some veterans to swindle?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 4, 2009)

Barb said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



You really ought to keep up on the news - the REAL news - on this topic if you're going to bloviate about it.  The WHO measured quality of healthcare systems in that study by how socialized the systems were, directly and specifically.  We didn't rank behind Costa Rica because our healthcare is ineffective.  We ranked behind Costa Rica because we're not as socialized.

Call me after you buy a clue.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 4, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...


US infant mortality rate is higher than Canada and most European countries.


----------



## Full-Auto (Jul 4, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Based on what the bogus W H O REPORT.   Laughable.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 4, 2009)

Full-Auto said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Infant Mortality and Life Expectancy for Selected Countries, 2007 &mdash; Infoplease.com


----------



## Full-Auto (Jul 4, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...





Great no measurement criteria again.  Why is this a common theme?


----------



## Meister (Jul 4, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Wanna do a little reading and get the real facts, or do you still wanna stick your head in the ground???
Is europes infant mortality rate superiority over the USA a myth or just that we use different standards? - Yahoo! Answers
Why Does The US Appear to Have Higher Infant Mortality? | Coyote Blog


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 4, 2009)

Meister said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


OMG, the wingut's Bible ... Newsmax. LOL


----------



## Meister (Jul 4, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Once a fool always a fool, Junkie.  Keep sticking your head into the ground, because you will never look at facts.

Forty percent of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life.

In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive.

If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a &#8220;miscarriage&#8221; and does not affect the country&#8217;s reported infant mortality rates.

The length of pregnancy considered &#8220;normal&#8221; is 37-41 weeks. In Belgium and France &#8212; in fact, in most European Union countries &#8212; any baby born before 26 weeks gestation is not considered alive and therefore does not &#8220;count&#8221; against reported infant mortality rates.

World Infant Mortality Rates & the Truth : Lone Star Times

In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. Therefore, unlike in the U.S., such high-risk infants cannot affect Swiss infant mortality rates.

Efforts to salvage these tiny babies reflect this classification. Since 2000, 42 of the world&#8217;s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.

Pajamas Media Â» The Doctor Is In: Infant Mortality Comparisons a Statistical Miscarriage

Junkie, stop drinking your Kool-Aid for a minute and try to digest these articles.  They are pretty simple to read, and very straight forward.  But, I know you will just say what your prior post stated, and you will still be blind to facts.  But, that will be the stupidity that runs through your sorry ass veins.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 4, 2009)

Chris said:


> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> 
> The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.
> 
> ...



If you break down the 895 people who took the poll 612 are registered democrats and 283 are registered republicans.     

Just some FYI for people, polls are easily manipulated by people on either side of an issue


----------



## elvis (Jul 4, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> ...



especially when morons like chris are involved.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 4, 2009)

aw no need to be mean


----------



## Barb (Jul 4, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Part of the criteria is % covered. A wider % covered = socialism to you? My God. So by your standards, superior health care (and it is two words) depends on the level of specialness you feel. How enlightening. What color is the sky in your world?


----------



## Barb (Jul 4, 2009)

Meister said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



 Meister, you didn't feel the need to address every point I made in my posts, why should I feel the need to address every point you make in yours? But for the sake of clearing that omission up for you, in a system where everyone is covered, everyone would be covered. I hope that helped. Incidentally, the public _option_ does not preclude the private option, so your proposal has already been addressed in the system you're rejecting.


----------



## Meister (Jul 5, 2009)

Barb said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



If Obama does tax business healthcare, it will drive businesses away from offering that as a benefit, Barb.  That would pretty much end any competition for your government run healthcare. They also want to put mandates on private insurance companiesThe government healthcare that could end up picking up just 16-17 million people, far short of the 45-50 million, and this would be a cost of around 1 1/2 trillion dollars over 10 years.  Also Barb, I really don't feel like paying for illegals healthcare like Obama does.  That is just flat out wrong.


----------



## Barb (Jul 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



 Meister, ask any business owner if they'd like to get out of the practice of paying a part of workers health insurance. Many already have. Hell, I used to do the books for my parents small business, and the payments were outrageous twenty some odd years ago. The insurance agencies are the problem, not the solution. They just add an unnecessary layer of expense.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



A proposal to tax CADILLAC Healthcare plans, over 17,000 dollars a years is what is on the table.

This means ALL health care plans are still tax deductible up to the 17k mark, which is above the average cost for a health care plan for a family.

The reason this is being proposed is because the BIG WIGS of corporations are not taking out the insurance policies that those making 100k take out, they are taking out insurance policies that are deemed Cadillac Policies that COST $100K A YEAR for the health Insurance policy, and our government has been giving the corporations buying these cadillac policies for these CEO'S who have been taking a tax deduction for the full amount, the full $100,000, each and every year...

Why should we the tax payers, give a deduction for yearly health insurance in the amount of $100,000 a year per CEO?  They should get the same deduction as every person in America gets, the $17k, and no more than that...which is fair.

I think the proposal to 'cap' the deduction has merit.

Care


----------



## ba1614 (Jul 5, 2009)

IMO the 'cap' deduction certainly does have merit! I only wonder if that will apply to the 'Cadillac' coverage the folks in government have?


----------



## Care4all (Jul 5, 2009)

ba1614 said:


> IMO the 'cap' deduction certainly does have merit! I only wonder if that will apply to the 'Cadillac' coverage the folks in government have?




yes, it is my understanding that it would cover congress as well, if they take out plans that are Cadillac plans over the cap amount.... they would be taxed on the amount OVER the capped deduction of $17k or whatever the cap ends up being once legislated.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Those who hire illegals should have to pay for their healthcare.
If no one hired them, they wouldn't be here to do the work that Americans refuse to do.


----------



## PixieStix (Jul 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> 
> The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.
> 
> ...


 

Well, color me surprised. 72% of Americans are stupid...duh!


----------



## Trigg (Jul 5, 2009)

Wow they interviewed less than 900 people.......................hardly an accurate cross section of America.


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jul 5, 2009)

The name of this thread is

"72% of Americans support government run healthcare" 

Sounds like health care is a done deal, OR ELSE!​


----------



## Meister (Jul 5, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...




You would think so, but Obama wants to pay for them...it equates to votes for the future.
I have found out that Americans will do any job for a fair wage...any.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 5, 2009)

PixieStix said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> ...



You missed my earlier post where i showed the political affiliation of those who took the poll.   Over 70% of the respondants to the poll were registered democrats which skews the results.

If we took a poll of 800 registered republicans and 200 registered democrats i'm willing to bet you would have over 70% of respondants coming out in favor of not getting the govt involved.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 5, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Sorry, but the overall infant mortality rate is irrelevant.  As I've said before, that comparison matters in regards to health care systems when it's a less-developed nation versus an industrialized one, but not in comparing two industrialized nations.

Premature infants, on the other hand, are a whole 'nother thing, if only because at least some other industrialized nations don't even count them as live births, let alone put out the effort to save them that we do.  This also applies to babies born with defects like spina bifida.  According to Health Statistics Quarterly AND the Commonwealth Fund (a source leftists love to cite when they can twist it to suit themselves), these children, along with people who have cancer, heart disease, renal failure, and almost any other potentially fatal illness, have the best chance of survival in the United States.

By the way, a little note about Canada and it's wonderful, "fair", "everyone gets such good care" system and the infant mortality rate you're gloating over:  their rate, like every other country's, is a composite.  While their OVERALL rate is 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births, their rate for the poorest fifth of their population is 7.5 per 1,000, two-thirds higher than the rate among their wealthiest fifth.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 5, 2009)

Full-Auto said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



No, that's technically correct.  According to the OECD and the National Center for Health Statistics, our infant mortality rate is around 7.2 per 1,000 live births.  What leftists don't get after reading that statistic and running with it is WHY that is.  The NCHS goes on to tell us that this is due in large part to the fact that the US doesn't have a homogenous population.  Infant mortality varies widely according to factors like race, geography, and socioeconomic level.  Race and genetics alone account for as much as 40% of the variation.

Oh, and as I keep pointing out, there's also the fact that some countries, like Switzerland, simply don't record babies with very low birth weight as live births, and we do.  Since 1/3 of all infant deaths recorded in the US are to babies with very low birth weight, you can see how this would skew the numbers.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 5, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



This has been reported in numerous places, including the _Journal of the American Medical Association_, so you're not going to get to dodge this by pooh-poohing the source as biased.  It's a fact.  Deal with it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 5, 2009)

Barb said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Wrong, honey.  Don't even try that fuzzy-wuzzy, emotional button-pushing with ME.  "My GOD, you're just so mean, you want people to DIE!"  Spare me, and tell me now if 8th grade is the highest maturity level you can manage in a debate.

The WHO report used five criteria, weighted as follows:

1)  Health level, 25 percent - This factor can most justifiably be included because it is measured by a countrys disability-adjusted life expectancy (DALE).  Unfortunately, as I've mentioned before, life expectancy in industrialized nations has very little to do with the healthcare system (by the way, it's correctly written as a one word when it's attributive, although it used to require a hyphenation under those circumstances.  Don't EVER flatter yourself that you're qualified to correct my grammar and spelling.) and is mostly attributable to factors like race, geography, and education.  Still, DALE is at least a direct measure of the health of a countrys residents, so its inclusion makes sense.

2)  Responsiveness, 12.5 percent - This factor measures a variety of health care system features, including speed of service, protection of privacy, choice of doctors, and quality of amenities (e.g., clean hospital bed linens).  Not directly connected to the health of the citizens perhaps, but important and desirable.

3)  Financial fairness, 25 percent - A health systems financial fairness (FF) is measured by determining a households contribution to health expenditure as a percentage of household income (beyond subsistence), then looking at the dispersion of this percentage over all households.  The wider the dispersion in the percentage of household income spent on health care, the worse a nation will perform on the FF factor and the overall index (other things being equal).

THIS is one of the factors I consider a measurement of the distribution of socialism, because it has nothing to do with how good the medical system is, and everything to do with how much the government is playing Mommy.  The FF factor is not an objective measure of health attainment, but rather reflects a value judgment that rich people should pay more for health care, even if they consume the same amount. This is a value judgment
not applied to most other goods, even those regarded as necessities such as food and
housing.Most people understand and accept that the poor will tend to spend a larger percentage of their income on these items.

4)  Health distribution, 25 percent

5)  Responsiveness distribution, 12.5 percent - Health Distribution measures inequality in health level within a country, while Responsiveness Distribution measures inequality in health responsiveness within a country.

Strictly speaking, neither of these factors measures health care performance, because
inequality is distinct from quality of care. It is entirely possible to have a health care system
characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone. Suppose, for instance, that Country A has health responsiveness that is excellent for most citizens but merely good for some disadvantaged groups, while Country B has responsiveness that is uniformly poor for everyone. Country B would score higher than Country A in terms of responsiveness distribution, despite Country A having better responsiveness than Country B for even its worst-off citizens. The same point applies to the distribution of health level.  And this is how a country like Costa Rica can score higher than the US.  As long as there's no disparity and EVERYONE has crap care, the WHO is happy.  Sounds like every socialist nation in practice in the world during my lifetime.

And don't even get me started on the differences between overall attainment and overall performance, margins of error, sensitivity to weighting factors, etc.  The WHO report is only conclusive and damning if you really wanted it to be anyway, were primed to believe it was, and are too dimwitted to dig any deeper.

_(Factor explanations are from the Cato Institute, mixed in part with my own observations.)_


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


No, employers won't pay a fair wage to Americans as long as they can hire illegals cheap, and you know that.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 5, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Tell that to the 9 + % of Americans who can't find any employment.


----------



## Meister (Jul 6, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Where I live we don't have a problem with the illegals that I can see.  I do see Americans doing the jobs...all the jobs.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 6, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


The AMA was against Medicare and Medicaid too. They are a huge lobbying group. *That's biased*.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 6, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Lmao....yes the American Medical Association is a right wing PAC....do realize how stupid that sounds?


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 6, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


American Medical Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American Medical Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American Medical Association

Motto	Helping Doctors Help Patients
Formation	1847
Type	professional association
Headquarters	Chicago, Illinois
Location	 United States
Membership	245000
Official languages	English
President	Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D.
Key people	President-elect J.James Rohack, M.D., Chair Joseph M. Heyman, M.D.
The American Medical Association (AMA), founded in 1847 and incorporated 1897,[1] is the largest association of physicians and medical students in the United States. The AMA's mission claims to promote the art and science of medicine for the betterment of the public health, to advance the interests of physicians and their patients, to promote public health, *to lobby for legislation favorable to physicians* and patients, and to raise money for medical education.

http://www.ampaconline.org/ampac/
Welcome to AMPAC - the AMA's bipartisan political action committee. As the single voice for physicians on the national political scene, AMPAC has been a leading the way since 1961. With the help of over 50,000 members - and the active involvement of physicians and state medical society PACs across the country, *AMPAC was ranked as the 4th most effective PAC by National Journal magazine in 2004.
*


----------



## jreeves (Jul 6, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



You proved they lobby now, how are they biased?

LOL


----------



## Care4all (Jul 6, 2009)

Good morning JR

They are biased, because they are lobbying to protect THEIR OWN INTERESTS....this is how lobbying works.

This is not a lobby the Doctors set up for their patients FINANCIAL INTEREST but a lobby that is set up to protect the Doctor's best interest, including FINANCIALLY.

So yes, Jreeves, this would be the political action committee that promotes what these Doctors feel is in their best interest that Congress may legislate, thus political.

That's what all lobbying is about, group of lobbyists that represent the political interest of a particular group that very well differs with the political interest of another group of Lobbyists representing other people.  All trying to get legislation passed to protect their own group's interest...

I think it is certainly fair to say that Doctors have something at stake financially with this bill or any involvement in health care reform by our political leaders on it....

care


----------



## Meister (Jul 6, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...




*Junkie, your missing the point, and probably on purpose...so here it is for you again.  I don't think you actually read the articles the first time*
 Forty percent of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life.

In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive.

If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a &#8220;miscarriage&#8221; and does not affect the country&#8217;s reported infant mortality rates.

The length of pregnancy considered &#8220;normal&#8221; is 37-41 weeks. In Belgium and France &#8212; in fact, in most European Union countries &#8212; any baby born before 26 weeks gestation is not considered alive and therefore does not &#8220;count&#8221; against reported infant mortality rates.
World Infant Mortality Rates & the Truth : Lone Star Times

*Here is another one.*
Pregnancies in very young first-time mothers carry a high risk of delivering low birth weight infants. In 2002, the average age of first-time mothers in Canada was 27.7 years. During the same year, the same statistic for U.S. mothers was 25.1 &#8212; an all-time high.

Some of the countries reporting infant mortality rates lower than the U.S. classify babies as &#8220;stillborn&#8221; if they survive less than 24 hours whether or not such babies breathe, move, or have a beating heart at birth. 

Forty percent of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life.

In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive.

If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a &#8220;miscarriage&#8221; and does not affect the country&#8217;s reported infant mortality rates.

The length of pregnancy considered &#8220;normal&#8221; is 37-41 weeks. In Belgium and France &#8212; in fact, in most European Union countries &#8212; any baby born before 26 weeks gestation is not considered alive and therefore does not &#8220;count&#8221; against reported infant mortality rates.

Too short to count?

In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. Therefore, unlike in the U.S., such high-risk infants cannot affect Swiss infant mortality rates.

Efforts to salvage these tiny babies reflect this classification. Since 2000, 42 of the world&#8217;s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.

The parents of these children may view socialized medicine somewhat differently than its proponents.
Pajamas Media Â» The Doctor Is In: Infant Mortality Comparisons a Statistical Miscarriage

*Maybe these articles will give you a heads up....junkie*


----------



## Care4all (Jul 6, 2009)

Meister said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



fyi
_Comparing infant mortality rates

The infant mortality rate correlates very strongly with and is among the best predictors of state failure.[3] IMR is also a useful indicator of a country's level of health or development, and is a component of the physical quality of life index. Some claim that the method of calculating IMR may vary between countries based on the way they define a live birth. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat.

UNICEF uses a statistical methodology to account for reporting differences among countries. "UNICEF compiles infant mortality country estimates derived from all sources and methods of estimation obtained either from standard reports, direct estimation from micro data sets, or from UNICEFs yearly exercise. In order to sort out differences between estimates produced from different sources, with different methods, UNICEF developed, in coordination with WHO, the WB and UNSD, an estimation methodology that minimizes the errors embodied in each estimate and harmonize trends along time. Since the estimates are not necessarily the exact values used as input for the model, they are often not recognized as the official IMR estimates used at the country level. However, as mentioned before, these estimates minimize errors and maximize the consistency of trends along time."[4]  

http://www.unicef.org/sowc09/docs/SOWC09_Table_1.pdf

While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.[5] And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."[6] 
*
However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.*[7]_

reference:
*# ^ Gabriel Duc, "The crucial role of definition in perinatal epidemiology," Sozial- und Präventivmedizin/Social and Preventive Medicine, Vol. 40, No. 6 (November 1995): 357-360.*


----------



## Nik (Jul 6, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Do you know who funds the AMA?  Ever heard of Licensure?

Did you know that the AMA funds much of its operations from selling the prescription records of doctors to pharmaceutical companies?  

High-Tech Stealth Being Used To Sway Doctor Prescriptions - The New York Times


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jul 6, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Wrong, honey.  Don't even try that fuzzy-wuzzy, emotional button-pushing with ME.  "My GOD, you're just so mean, you want people to DIE!"  Spare me, and tell me now if 8th grade is the highest maturity level you can manage in a debate.



This is a picture of a woman with breast cancer.  

I hope you have the opportunity to experience it while having no health coverage.  

I want to see the look on your face.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 6, 2009)

looks like skin cancer Derek, on her breast....regardless, I realize.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 6, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Oh, dear God.  You don't even know what the _Journal of the American Medical Association _is?  Who let you into this discussion thread, Chim Chim?  Back to the monkey house with you.

Epic fail.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 6, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Yes, and the JAMA is a political opinion rag.  Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 6, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



And now you're going to cite _Wikipedia _to try to support your asinine claim that the JAMA is a biased political magazine?  Seriously?  What's next?  You start throwing feces at us literally, rather than just verbally?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 6, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



If this were even vaguely less retarded, I would point out that there's a difference between the AMA having a lobbying group, and BEING one.  But this drooler is too dumb to even dignify that much.


----------



## Nik (Jul 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Yeah, I mean what reason is there to think that an organization funded mainly by pharmaceutical companies might be biased


----------



## Full-Auto (Jul 7, 2009)

Nik said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...




Shocking this is rejected as bias, yet feel bias because some parts of BP funded enviromental studies.


----------



## Yukon (Jul 7, 2009)

In the United States today a woman with this type of cancer having NO insurance will DIE a horrible death. Let us not forget though that Medicare is a communist plot...........right ?




Derek_Plumber said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, honey.  Don't even try that fuzzy-wuzzy, emotional button-pushing with ME.  "My GOD, you're just so mean, you want people to DIE!"  Spare me, and tell me now if 8th grade is the highest maturity level you can manage in a debate.
> ...


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 7, 2009)

Of NICE and Men - WSJ.com


> Speaking to the American Medical Association last month, President Obama waxed enthusiastic about countries that "spend less" than the U.S. on health care. He's right that many countries do, but what he doesn't want to explain is how they ration care to do it.
> 
> Take the United Kingdom, which is often praised for spending as little as half as much per capita on health care as the U.S. Credit for this cost containment goes in large part to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE. Americans should understand how NICE works because under ObamaCare it will eventually be coming to a hospital near you.
> 
> ...


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 7, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Of NICE and Men - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> > Speaking to the American Medical Association last month, President Obama waxed enthusiastic about countries that "spend less" than the U.S. on health care. He's right that many countries do, but what he doesn't want to explain is how they ration care to do it.
> ...


I, for one, will wait until the plan for the US is presented.
You will have the choice to keep your precious private insurance plan .. regardless.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 7, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Of NICE and Men - WSJ.com
> ...



If you believe that, i have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.

There is no way that a private company can compete with a government plan.  private companies do not have an unlimited supply of tax dollars that can be used to prop up their business if it does not turn a profit.

What we will get by attrition is one government run plan because the government in the name of doing what's best for us will drive private health insurance companies out of business.

That is the plan.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

Nik said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



The AMA is more likely to take liberal than conservative positions politically, dipshit.  And you aren't really stupid enough to think you're going to get traction from screaming "Evil pharmaceuticals!" around HERE, are you?  Oh, wait, I forgot who I was talking to.  Never mind.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

Enough already.  Anyone who wants to wave the WHO's results in our faces is hereby exempted from being able to nitpick whether or not their detractors are "biased" on the grounds of extreme hypocrisy.  It's long past time you stop running and hiding like poltroons and answer the charges against your claims with something other than trying to kill the messenger.

So let's hear it, cowards.  WHO's stats are seriously flawed.  What's your response?  And it had better be good, or I for one am going to assume that you're surrendering.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


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


What, in God's name, seems vaguely Liberal about the AMA?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

Political Junky said:


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



In 2008, the AMA issued a policy statement on global climate change declaring that they "support the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which states that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that these changes will negatively affect public health." 

They advocate draconian gun control.

There are other things, but unfortunately, I have to go to an appointment, so I don't have time to look it up right now.  I'll be back later and post more on the subject.


----------



## Aristophanes (Jul 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.
> 
> Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters



And herein is the BS that the hackjob Reuters journo-wanna-be reports as "72% of Americans support national healthcare."

Uh...no, they don't.  72% of Americans support the idea of a solvent, government-run system that has to compete in the private sector.  Well so what?  That's not that bad of an idea.  It's unconstitutional and illegal and I don't support the idea, but it's not THAT odious.

If you asked them if they would support a government-run plan that would undercut all competition unfairly by not having the requirement to be solvent, having all its financial shortfalls monetized by tax payer subsidies or just printing the cash, and a government plan whose managers (the 536 morons in DC) would manipulate the tax code in order to force you onto the government plan so they would achieve another unfair edge over private options, you'd be lucky to find 10% support.

Americans aren't going to get the kind of heath care plan out of Washington that they are being told they'll get - that's why the support is so high.  We're being lied to.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Most scientists, worldwide, believe in the adverse effects of climate change. It's not a Liberal notion even if most wingnuts deny it.


----------



## Aristophanes (Jul 7, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Most scientists, worldwide, believe in the adverse effects of climate change. It's not a Liberal notion even if most wingnuts deny it.



So?  According to the most recent election returns from Iran, 65% of Iranians voted for Ahmedinejad.  Does that mean he's legitimate?  Of course not.

There is no such thing as truth via concensus.  People are not arbiters of the truth.  The sad FACT of the matter is that the FACTS of the matter tend to show that there is no such thing as ANTHROPOGENIC global warming.  Nobody contests the fact that the average global temperature may vary.  It's the caus(es) of that variation that are in dispute.  

CO2 concentrations in the atmopshere are higher now than they have ever been, and the rate at which CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere is higher now than it has ever been - yet for the past 11 years, the average global temperature has remained flat, or gone down.  That means there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and the average global temperature, but we're trying to pass a cap and trade bill anyway.  THAT in turn means cap and trade isn't about AGW, but instead is about government control.


----------



## Dante (Jul 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



obstruction is NOT an opinion --- unless one is a rabid ideologue


----------



## Dante (Jul 7, 2009)

jreeves said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



I don't see anyone on medicaid/medicare or the government's health care plan (Congress et al) screaming for a private hand on their policies.


----------



## Aristophanes (Jul 7, 2009)

DevNell said:


> I don't see anyone on medicaid/medicare or the government's health care plan (Congress et al) screaming for a private hand on their policies. [/SIZE]



Well duh.

Congress is special, and they don't have the play by the rules.  They get their OWN plan, and it's better than whatever they'll be giving us.


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jul 7, 2009)

Give this one more look.​
Wide support for government health plan: poll


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

*Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. *Twenty percent said they were opposed.

President Barack Obama and many Democrats in Congress have argued a publicly run healthcare insurance plan would increase competition and drive down the high cost of care at a time when the U.S. economy is mired in a deep recession.

Republicans argue a public plan would drive insurers out of business and lead to a government-run healthcare system.

Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives suggested this week that all Americans should be able to get insurance regardless of medical history and that coverage should be mandatory for individuals and businesses.

The proposal, contained in the latest House draft of the healthcare bill, would create new insurance exchanges where people shop around for health coverage. Whether a government-run plan has a role in such an exchange has spurred serious political debate.

Republicans, the minority party in Congress, have proposed more modest healthcare changes, but lack the votes in the House or Senate to push them through or derail the Democrats' health reform drive. They have warned about the expected high cost of restructuring the healthcare system, projected at more than $1.5 trillion -- a huge expense for a nation carrying record budget deficits.

The Republicans also hope to gain traction by playing on fears a vast expansion of government could further hurt the economy and reduce the quality of medical care.

The poll found that people were uneasy about heightened government involvement in the healthcare sector, with 77 percent saying they were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their own care.

A total of 895 adults participated in the telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 7, 2009)

Derek_Plumber said:


> Give this one more look.​
> 
> But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.



here's an idea

How about those who want the government controlling their health care have *their* taxes raised and leave us folks who like our insurance alone.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 8, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Actually, the notion that "most scientists" believe in manmade catastrophic climate change is itself a leftist notion.  The idea that the AMA should be taking a position on it is ALSO a leftist notion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 8, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



I would call the desire to silence all opposition the REAL obstruction here, and I would definitely call the person - you - who believes that his ideas are so right and virtuous that they should transcend the right of anyone to disagree with them and justify suppression a "rabid idealogue".

On the other hand, "Your idea is complete shit" is a perfectly valid opinion, and if your idea happens to be obstructed by enough people who think it's complete shit, well . . . that still doesn't make it any less of a valid opinion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 8, 2009)

DevNell said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



That's because welfare recipients are generally, by definition, lazy, dependent fuckers without the gumption to come in out of the rain.  Although I personally know quite a few who aren't exactly all sunshine and puppies about dealing with government bureaucracy.

It's not that hard at all, however, to find Medicare recipients who are seriously pissed off at having to deal with the government's red tape.  If you can't find any, that begs the serious question of where the hell you're looking.


----------



## JW Frogen (Jul 8, 2009)

99% of Americans believe they don't look fat in that.

They are wrong.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 8, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Several members of my family, as well as many friends are on Medicare and not a single one has ever had a problem with "red tape." They've had a problem with doctors overbilling, however, which means that what Medicare won't pay for, they must, and it's often outrageous. Some doctors in my community (and we all know who they are) also have now started robo-calling Medicare patients around the first of every year, knowing full well that Medicare recipients are entering into a new deductible phase. That means they get to collect FROM THE PATIENT the full amount up front. Neat, huh?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



We can afford providing health care for 47 million uninsured Americans and non-Americans about, as much as, we can afford a nuke going off in the middle of New York City.


----------



## Chris (Jul 8, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



A single payer system is more efficient because it eliminates red tape and overhead for 150 different insurance companies. That is why the rest of the world pays HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and covers everyone.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



yep and why they wait for MRI's and CT scans too...


----------



## tyronemcclurkin (Jul 8, 2009)

Look how the federal government handled social security......enough said


----------



## immto (Jul 8, 2009)

Universal Health Care, the main issue they have in getting it done is the cost. Not anymore. All they need to do is have those bloody rich pay a little more of their fair share. It's almost like those idiots are trying to eliminate as many jobs as they can, kill any chance of a recovery. It's almost sick to accuse those who make $250k rich. I don't know what planet Politicians are living on but a family with an income of $250K probably is not vacationing in the Hampton's and certainly are not cruising the Caribbean in their own private yacht.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 8, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



They have a problem with over billing because the government doesn't reimburse them for shit. Well everyone else is paying one price for service the government feels it should get to pay less for the same service. Medicare/Medicade is a perfect microcosim of how fucked up government healthcare will be. It's a subsidy and obviously no one here gets what a subsidy does to the cost of something even though you have just told us exactly what it does. IT ARTIFICALLY INFLATES THE PRICE OF THINGS. Knock, knock, hello. It will force prices up, not down.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2009)

immto said:


> Universal Health Care, the main issue they have in getting it done is the cost. Not anymore. All they need to do is have those bloody rich pay a little more of their fair share. It's almost like those idiots are trying to eliminate as many jobs as they can, kill any chance of a recovery. It's almost sick to accuse those who make $250k rich. I don't know what planet Politicians are living on but a family with an income of $250K probably is not vacationing in the Hampton's and certainly are not cruising the Caribbean in their own private yacht.



There is one problem with having a tax system in which, over 40% pay no net income tax. You can only bleed so much revenue from the other 60%.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 8, 2009)

tyronemcclurkin said:


> Look how the federal government handled social security......enough said


Do you know anyone who ever didn't get their Social Security check?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> tyronemcclurkin said:
> 
> 
> > Look how the federal government handled social security......enough said
> ...



These attorneys represent the people who have not gotten a SS check....

Social Security Disability - Denied Social Security Benefits?


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 8, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > tyronemcclurkin said:
> ...


Good try .. that article is about being denied Social Security Disability, because the individual doesn't quality for it.
Again, do you know of anyone who didn't get their Social Security check?


----------



## Maple (Jul 8, 2009)

Boy, I can hardly wait until I get my FREE healthcare. It will pay for all my plastic surgery and my boy friend's VIAGRA.

What do you think is next. Do you think it will pay for my nanny to watch my 5 children???

Do you think that it will pay for dental care and eye care??. I have been waiting to get veneers and I am sure that Obama will make sure that I get FREE cosmetic dentisty because I need to compete in a world that has nice smiles. 

And, and, I would love not to wear glasses, I appear older, so do you think that his plan would make it possible to get laser surgery and it's FREE??????? Oh my goodness. 


 I can't beleive it and it's ALL free. I voted for Obama and he promised me that I would not have to worry about paying my mortgage or worry about gasoline prices, so I guess it's all real. 

I feel like I have won the lotto.

Above the Obama voters, the dumbest people on earth.


----------



## xotoxi (Jul 9, 2009)

Maple said:


> Boy, I can hardly wait until...


 

I thought you'd hit the road.

What's the deal, lady?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 9, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



So nobody wins these suits, I wonder why there is a ton of lawyers representing people who never prevail.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jul 9, 2009)

this just in, 72% of americans are idiots, and have no clue how bad socialized medicine is or 100% would be against it



Chris said:


> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> 
> The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.
> 
> ...


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 9, 2009)

Maple said:


> Boy, I can hardly wait until I get my FREE healthcare. It will pay for all my plastic surgery and my boy friend's VIAGRA.
> 
> What do you think is next. Do you think it will pay for my nanny to watch my 5 children???
> 
> ...



The problem with idiots like you is that you deny that there is a problem to begin with.  Nobody says that a government program for healthcare will be free.  You are an absolute moron.  If you think that our current system is a good one, you show more ignorance than the very few who actually believe government healthcare would be free.

But hey, keep denying the facts that the current system has doubled the cost of healthcare and that it will double it again.  The fact is that at the current rate, it will be 100 million without insurance before too long and more after that, and one of those may even turn out to be you.  These costs will wipe out many businesses which will lead to even higher unemployment.


----------



## Meister (Jul 9, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > Boy, I can hardly wait until I get my FREE healthcare. It will pay for all my plastic surgery and my boy friend's VIAGRA.
> ...




Somehow, I know there is a way to get the people that want insurance covered without a full universal health care system.  One that won't screw the person who still wants his private insurance.  But, I don't think that will ever happen because of the power grubbing politicians.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 9, 2009)

Meister said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...



The biggest problem is that no matter where we head with this, costs will continue to rise.  The big question is by how much.  Under our current system, the CBO projects that healthcare spending will increase from the current 17% of GDP today, to 49% of GDP by 2082.  This projection takes into account cost savings and reductions in healthcare spending that will have to take place.  Without these, the CBO projections would show healthcare spending surpassing 100% of GDP, which is obviously impossible as our entire economy would collapse.

The interesting point of the CBO projection is that while Medicaid and Medicare spending will increase as a percentage of GDP, it is the cost of private healthcare that will eventually overwhelm the system and make up the largest portion of the increase.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8948/01-31-HealthTestimony.pdf

My point is that at some time in the future, the costs will become so high in the private sector that there will be an absolute demand for real change.  When that time comes, the option of private insurance will be removed.  What most people don't understand is that we are on a path that is unsustainable.  It's not only that some people are currently without coverage.  The bigger point is that the costs are spiraling out of control and there is no end in sight.  

To keep it the status quo is no longer an option.  But those against change stand in the way of any type of change.  Keeping more of healthcare in the private sector will only work if health insurance is made mandatory, but those who are fighting government control of healthcare are against this also.  

If it were up to me, I would push for the system they have in Switzerland.  It is mostly private but health insurance is mandated, and it's not up to employers to provide health insurance.  It's up to each individual and family.  But there is still some government control.  Premiums are limited to three age groups, and everyone is charged the same amount regardless of health.  The government also limits the amount hospitals and doctors can charge for certain procedures.  

But again, the insurance companies would fight this tooth and nail also, and they would convince enough that our current system gives everyone the best care for the money.  Eventually though, people will begin to wake up.  When more and more employers begin moving their operations overseas because they can't afford the cost of health insurance for their employees, things will change.  The auto companies have already moved many of their operations to Canada and Mexico for this exact reason.

Healthcare spending will determine what happens with our economy long term.  If spending continues to spiral out of control, we will fall behind most of the rest of the world economically.  We will also see a much larger gap between the wealthy and the poor as the middle class is wiped out.  Of course, once the middle class is wiped out, the wealthy will be wiped out because there won't be enough consumers with any money to buy their products.


----------



## Chris (Jul 10, 2009)

Maple said:


> Boy, I can hardly wait until I get my FREE healthcare. It will pay for all my plastic surgery and my boy friend's VIAGRA.
> 
> What do you think is next. Do you think it will pay for my nanny to watch my 5 children???
> 
> ...





No one believes anything is free. 

But anyone who wants to get keep getting screwed by the oil companies, the insurance companies, and Big Pharma is a fool. 

Republicans love their masters!


----------



## Care4all (Jul 10, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



excellent post and analysis....

some things that might help:

we need to get alot more people in to medical school, nursing school, medical technology...so the ''supply'' of medical personnel is not limited, causing prices to go up for their labor...invest now in schooling them, save BIG TIME later. 

help fund more research and development in technology and medicines through grants, but regulate the prices charged once developed.

help fund more private and state hospitals and clinics being built so there is more supply, but regulate charges or put in caps on what can be charged.

reput in the regulation that kept insurance companies, insurance companies... instead of multi financial institutions...this will give more focus on health services, and keep the insurance company from making bad investments financially elsewhere and charging higher insurance prices to make up for it....

some sort of tort reform

States need to let more or all health Insurance companies operate in all states, instead of limiting insurance companies within their state, which limits the supply which causes higher prices.

we do need all hospitals/doctors and clinics to revise their antiquated ''paper'' systems and unify their billing practices...some say as much as 25% of the whole healthcare cost can be SAVED by doing this reform.

i dunno, i think this has to be approached from all angles and all options should be on the table, and some thinking outside of the box too.

care


----------



## Yukon (Jul 10, 2009)

Whats the difference between socialized medicine, socialized banking, socilaized insurance, and socialized automobile manufacturing?


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 10, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[13][14][15] 
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[16] 
George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earths climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earths climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[17] 
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[18] 
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[19] 
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[20] 
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[21] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[22] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thingall these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[23] 
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[24] 
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."[25] 
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[26] 
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasnt changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[27] 
Tim Patterson[28], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[29][30] 
Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[31] 
Harrison Schmitt, former Astronaut, chair of the NASA Advisory Council, Adjunct Professor of engineering physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison:"I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect".[32] 
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error...human influence on the 'Greenhouse Effect' is minimal (maximum 4%). Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 4% of the ~2% of the "Greenhouse Effect", hence an influence of less than 1 permil of the Earth's total natural 'Greenhouse Effect' (some 0.03°C of the total ~33°C)."[33] 
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.[34] 
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[35][36] Its not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.[37] 
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[38] 
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankinds role is relatively minor"[39] 
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[40] 
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earths surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."[41] 
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theres a listing for you of just a few of those wingnuts, and I suggest that if you assert that do not watch the weather channel as well because it's founder also is among those wingnuts. The fact is  the WHO and IPCC reports  have all been shot ful of holes not by *wingnuts* but by scientists,professors,and others, from institutions from MIT, to Harvard. Want some examples take the last 4th IPCC report that has since taken out all the data prior to 1880 of Dr. Mann's original  hockey stick graph that has been the basis for global warming. The reason for doing this is because the scientific community has called into question the very basis for temp. change and when data from ice core samles is added to the mix prior to 1880 the line is no longer a big hockey stick that sends people running to the hills.  Further the UN is the same organization that was reporting on global cooling in the 1970's and a global ice age will result  as a result of man made  CO2. As for the WHO reports  on standards of healthcare, when you omit murders, deaths by acident in this country and use the very same baseline that the WHO usues to guage world health care the US scrores at the top of the list. As for the 72% I suppose when you poll 800 people and  600 of those  are Obama  voters  the  end result should not be a surprise.


----------



## Yukon (Jul 10, 2009)

Navy,

You are so impressive.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 10, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> this just in, 72% of americans are idiots, and have no clue how bad socialized medicine is or 100% would be against it
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You missed my earlier post.   80% of respondants to this poll being quoted were registered democrats.   It skewes the results of the poll a lot.   Typical NYTimes stuff there.


WTF is the global warming discussion doing in the health care thread?  Dont we have a bazillion global warming/climate change threads?


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 10, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > this just in, 72% of americans are idiots, and have no clue how bad socialized medicine is or 100% would be against it
> ...




My apologies to everyone for  putting in a response to a comment made about *wingnuts* as it applies to people who happen to hold a different view than the so called main stream.  It can also apply to the healthcare debate  when it comes to these so called reports comming from the NYT, WHO and others that tend to dismiss those who disagree with them and label those groups, when the point was to show that sometimes  people who disagree could hardly be considered a  group of wingnuts  and the same applies with the healthcare debate.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 10, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> this just in, 72% of americans are idiots, and have no clue how bad socialized medicine is or 100% would be against it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's your opinion ... anything to back it up?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 10, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > actsnoblemartin said:
> ...



I dont think you need to apologize for your post above.


@ politicaljunky, its his opinion as you said .

Again this poll is garbage as the respondants were heavily skewed to people registered as democrats.   If it was heavily skewed toward republicans you would have probably got the exact opposite result.

That being said.  I think our health care system, especially the insurance companies, need a lot of improvement.


----------



## Soaring (Jul 10, 2009)

ReillyT said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


I agree.  How is medicare mismanaged?  Spreading untrue rumors will get your tongue cut out young man.  Show me where medicare is mismanaged.  You can't, because it is only a rumor.  I have medicare and backed up with private insurance, and medicare takes most of the cost of any medical procedure I may have.  I paid into the system for 50 years, and it has proven to be my medical savior.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 10, 2009)

Soaring said:


> ReillyT said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



You DO know that Medicare is about to go bankrupt, right?  It's running budget deficits in the hundreds of billions, and a 2001 report by the Department of Health and Human Services estimated that Medicare payment errors cost taxpayers $11.9 billion a year.  

When Congress passed the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act (H.R. 1) in November 2003, 75 percent of Medicares 40 million beneficiaries already had some form of prescription drug coverage; one-third of eligible retirees had coverage through their former employers private insurance.  Now those seniors are being herded onto Medicare, whether they want to go or not.  

Even the continuation of private coverage is now costing taxpayers money.  To subsidize private employers to continue covering their retirees, Medicare will spend $71 billion over the next eight years.

I think that trumps your "But I really love having someone else pay my bills" argument.


----------



## johnrocks (Jul 10, 2009)

Yeah,it's true BUT only IF it's free and doesn't cost them anything.


----------



## Chris (Jul 10, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You have to wait for those here as well. And if you have cancer and can't work, how are you going to pay for health insurance?


----------



## Meister (Jul 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


I can get an MRI in 4 days here.  My wife waited a week for a CT scan, Chris.  Canada waits 4 to 8 weeks.
4-8 weeks wait and you have cancer or a bad heart in Canada...well I'll let you do the math Chris.


----------



## Barb (Jul 10, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Dennis Kucinich Pummels Right Wing Dr. On Canadian Healthcare System | Crooks and Liars


----------



## Meister (Jul 11, 2009)

Barb said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Dennis Kucinich?  I have to wonder where your borders lay on the left Barb.  I'm beginning to think you haven't any.  But, I digress....

Please note that I took the NY Time article, and a pro universal healthcare site.  Nothing as biased as your Dennis Kucinich.

Private clinics are spreading like bad weeds across the country, welcomed by a federal government that is content to look the other way while these for-profit ventures offer health care for a price.Last weekend, health coalitions, citizens&#8217; groups and other organizations that support public health care confronted the federal government&#8217;s abandonment of the public health care system. People across the country raised a united voice to say that these private clinics continue to pose a real threat to the future of public health care in Canada.
It may seem easy to dismiss the clinics merely as service providers, filling a niche where people can pay money if they want to access surgeries, medical procedures and even family doctors. If people have the extra money, why shouldn&#8217;t they be able to pay for something as personal and essential as health care?
The fact is that Canada does not have enough trained doctors, surgeons, specialists, nurses or other health care providers. The professionals who practise in private clinics are spending their time away from the public system where there are arguably more people with greater needs &#8211; including the elderly, the disabled and the chronically ill. *Private clinics may be able to help some, but they are the advantaged few. Everyone else is left with even longer waiting times or without access to family doctors.* 
http://www.canadians.org/media/council/2008/7-May-08.html
Here is another good read for you, Barb.

Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years before receiving treatment.But no one is about to arrest Dr. Brian Day, who is president and medical director of the center, or any of the 120 doctors who work there. Public hospitals are sending him growing numbers of patients they are too busy to treat, and his center is advertising that patients do not have to wait to replace their aching knees. 
But most Canadians agree that current wait times are not acceptable.

The median wait time between a referral by a family doctor and an appointment with a specialist has increased to 8.3 weeks last year from 3.7 weeks in 1993, according to a recent study by The Fraser Institute, a conservative research group. *Meanwhile the median wait between an appointment with a specialist and treatment has increased to 9.4 weeks from 5.6 weeks over the same period.*
*Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery, according to the study. 
Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery, according to the study*. 

Last December, provincial health ministers unveiled new targets for cutting wait times, including four weeks for radiation therapy for cancer patients beginning when doctors consider them ready for treatment and 26 weeks for hip replacements.

But few experts think that will stop the trend toward privatization
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/in...ewanted=1&_r=1

 . 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Meister; 07-07-2009 at 10:43 AM.


----------



## Barb (Jul 11, 2009)

Oh hell, everyone's biased. Kucinich is a US Congressman, sits on the Committee on domestic policy, and might have some better information than the NY Times does at their disposal. The Dr. he was questioning in the vid had NO answers (if he had any information to refute with he would have, he didn't) to the stats Kucinich quoted.


----------



## Meister (Jul 11, 2009)

Barb said:


> Oh hell, everyone's biased. Kucinich is a US Congressman, sits on the Committee on domestic policy, and might have some better information than the NY Times does at their disposal. The Dr. he was questioning in the vid had NO answers (if he had any information to refute with he would have, he didn't) to the stats Kucinich quoted.



Hey...you have your sources and I used mine.  The sources I used certainly weren't bent to the right at all, they were just stating the facts. Private clinics are on the comeback, and there is a reason why.  I really wasn't trying to sway you, because I knew I couldn't, Barb.  Like I said, I just don't think you have any borders on the left.


----------



## Barb (Jul 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Oh hell, everyone's biased. Kucinich is a US Congressman, sits on the Committee on domestic policy, and might have some better information than the NY Times does at their disposal. The Dr. he was questioning in the vid had NO answers (if he had any information to refute with he would have, he didn't) to the stats Kucinich quoted.
> ...



 In all honesty Meister, I don't have any borders in either direction. It depends. For instance, I don't see the NY Times as s bastion of the left, especially during a Republican administration. And a 2006 article isn't exactly current either.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 11, 2009)

Barb said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


OMG, Dennis Kucinich made that doctor look like a fool that he is. The good doctor was prepared with propaganda answers/lies.


----------



## Chris (Jul 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Bullshit.

Life threatening cases get MRIs immediately in Canada.

And if you can't afford healthcare, you NEVER GET AN MRI!


----------



## del (Jul 11, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



MRIs are diagnostic; how would they know *before* the MRI that the case was life threatening, kirkie?

back on the short bus.


----------



## Meister (Jul 11, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



You beat me to the twit, Del.  Thanks

I just wanted to add the wait time for radiation treatments in Canada.  I guess Chris would consider that "life threatening"?...Maybe not, though.

For cancer patients, the study found that the median wait time for radiation therapy was almost seven weeks, exceeding the benchmark of four weeks

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=1709117


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Dennis Kucinich Pummels Right Wing Dr. On Canadian Healthcare System | Crooks and Liars
If you click a link at this site you can see the entire hearing.


----------



## Chris (Jul 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Once again, how long will a single mother with cancer who can't afford health insurance have to wait for an MRI?


----------



## Chris (Jul 11, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Your posts are nothing but personal insults that say more about you than they do about me.

Every other Western democracy has national health insurance and the pay HALF per capita what we pay from healthcare and cover everyone. Their systems are cheaper, more fair, and better for society, no question.

America is finally waking up to this fact. Maybe one day you will wake up too.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 11, 2009)

Chris said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



No American's aren't waking up. They are blindly following a leader because he promises them outrageous shit that sounds good on paper. Stop using the 'all other westernized countries' argument. it simply doesn't hold water. All it does is show how obtuse you are and your blatant refusal to take into account the differing factors between our country and others. Factors that will play a key rold in whether or not such a system would be effective here or not. 

The only benefit one can objectively point to at this point is the lower cost. Minor problem with that: Low cost healthcare does not equal quality healthcare. Tape it on a wall and bash your head against it for an hour cause apparently it aint sinking into your gray matter all that well.


----------



## Chris (Jul 11, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...





The only benefit is lower cost? How about the fact that 60% of all bankruptcies are healthcare cost related? How about the fact that doctors will be able to be doctors instead of spending half their time fighting with 150 insurance companies over paperwork? How about the fact that millions of Americans will have access to healthcare that can't afford it now? How about the fact that people with cancer won't have to worry about paying for their insurance premiums while they go through chemotherapy? How about the fact that American businesses will now be able to compete worldwide because they will no longer have to pay for healthcare? How about the fact that with a single payer system, the government can negotiate drug costs with the drug companies? How about the fact that there will be fewer medical lawsuits because people won't go bankrupt because of medical costs? How about the fact that liability insurance will be lower for this reason? 

How about the fact that taking care of the sick people in our society is just the right thing to do???


----------



## Yukon (Jul 12, 2009)

It never fails to amaze me how well the Health Care Insurance Companies have done in BRAINWASHING you poor people. How sad, how pitiful, how really American.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 12, 2009)

Chris said:


> The only benefit is lower cost? How about the fact that 60% of all bankruptcies are healthcare cost related?



So then your assertion must be that no one should go bankrupt having to pay for healthcare costs? That goal does not necessitate that government run the system Chris. THAT is what I don't want. My problem with isn't that you want to change the system, cause lord know it ain't perfect (but it is the best one out there). My problem with you (and liberals in gerneral) is that you have so little imagination. Government is a liberals solution to everything. What is so amazingly mind boggling about you is that healthcare is kind of an important thing. And you want OUR government, with it's inefficiency, its beauracracy, its wastefulness running that part of your life.



Chris said:


> How about the fact that doctors will be able to be doctors instead of spending half their time fighting with 150 insurance companies over paperwork?



This highlights one problem with the current system and where an actual free market solution would help. In reality this is not true. They only have to deal with a few because currently only so many imsueance providers can operate within an area, usually a couple of states. As was suggested in another thread make health insureance providers part of insterstate commerce, then they would have to compete which would mean lower premiums for individuals.



Chris said:


> How about the fact that millions of Americans will have access to healthcare that can't afford it now?



This one is simply false. It will simply be a different million (or more) not receiving care.  Again Chris, what is the basic problem and/or goal. To me the argument seems to be this: If not but for cost than more people would utilize healthcare.  Neccessarily that would mean with cost not being a major barrier there will be increased demand on the system.  Which will mean more waiting. 



Chris said:


> How about the fact that people with cancer won't have to worry about paying for their insurance premiums while they go through chemotherapy?



This goes back to a more fundamental principle and one I can speak personally about. I HAVE had cancer and have had chemotherapy. Obviously there was no fault on my part in getting cancer. So give me an argument here. Even though I had no responsibility in acquiring my condition, why does that make it okay for me to obligate someone else (the taxpayer), who's never even heard of me, let alone bear any responsibility for me, the expenses of my illness? 

Admittedly I don't really see where you're going with this in terms if the system you envision. It seems to me you believe the system would be some flat yearly tax, where that is all one would have to pay regardless of the medical problems that may befall someone, minor or catastrophic.  Personally I don't see how you can justify paying the same thing for chemotherapy as the common cold. You will have to explain how see that working out on practical and ethical basis.



Chris said:


> How about the fact that American businesses will now be able to compete worldwide because they will no longer have to pay for healthcare?



That would be great. But again accomplishing that does not neccessitate government being the single payee. There are many solution that could be implemented to make insurance coverage more affordable to the consumer.



Chris said:


> How about the fact that with a single payer system, the government can negotiate drug costs with the drug companies? How about the fact that there will be fewer medical


Government is already in bed with the drug companies. How can you be so blind as to not see the level of corruption that would take place here. Speaking of single payer, what is your opinion of monopolies. Kind of thought those weren't a good thing. I can think of no worse institution than our government having one.



Chris said:


> lawsuits because people won't go bankrupt because of medical costs? How about the fact that liability insurance will be lower for this reason?



Again solution does require that government be the single payer. It has been the right side of the aisle that has proposed reregulation of malpractice insureance (as noted by one of Bush's more memorable quotes) Of course you know that is a big part of the reason why medical costs are so high, because malpractice insurance is so high.



Chris said:


> How about the fact that taking care of the sick people in our society is just the right thing to do???



What an absolute crock of shit this one is. You're going to try to guilt people into paying for other people's problems now? Is that the 'right thing to do' Chris? This is why I can't stand libs. Npt only is government your solution to everything. The individual bears no responsibility for the solution either. You would not believe the problems that could be solved if only, when looking for a solution to anything, the first thing people asked was 'what can I do about this'? But they don't. It simply isn't human nature. Human nature is to take personal credit for successes and blame others for problems. Why should I (the taxpayer) have to pay for your heart transplant because you ate McDonalds at lunch every day for 20 years? Or your lung transplant because you were a pack a day person? Our medical costs would go down astronomically if you took the responsibility of simply taking care of yourself. It isn't fair to say taking care of sick people is the right thing to do. Because that isn't the whole picture. Making me pay for your sins is most definately NOT the right thing to do.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 12, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It never fails to amaze me how well the Health Care Insurance Companies have done in BRAINWASHING you poor people. How sad, how pitiful, how really American.



It is rather obtuse to translate not wanting the government to run health care into liking the medical insurance industry.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 12, 2009)

Barb said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Dennis Kucinich?  Seriously?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 12, 2009)

Barb said:


> Oh hell, everyone's biased. Kucinich is a US Congressman, sits on the Committee on domestic policy, and might have some better information than the NY Times does at their disposal. The Dr. he was questioning in the vid had NO answers (if he had any information to refute with he would have, he didn't) to the stats Kucinich quoted.



Oh, WELL.  He's a politician.  THAT certainly makes him trustworthy and credible.

Three words for you, Mensa Girl:  Senator Edward Kennedy.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Sure Chrissy...
Obamacare meets the reality of nationalized health care: Rationing and long lines | Washington Examiner
President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the legions of liberal political activists trying to ramrod nationalized health care through Congress face an insurmountable obstacle in the Internet. There are mountains of data available today regarding the decades of experience with similar systems in Canada, Great Britain and elsewhere, and the facts about that data are within a few mouse clicks of every American. As the debate in Congress and the nations public policy forums heats up, key facts gleaned from that abundance of data are becoming ever more prominent.

*Take, for example, the report out last week from the Wait Time Alliance (WTA), a group of 13 Canadian medical groups, including the Canadian Medical Association. For cancer patients, the report found that the median wait time for radiation therapy was almost seven weeks.  That figure exceeded the recommended maximum wait time of one month. Note, too, that as a median figure, there were just as many patients who waited longer than seven weeks as who waited less than seven weeks. The WTA report also found unacceptably long delays for people seeking emergency room treatment, with an average of nine hours for patients who were treated and released. The average for patients who needed to be treated and admitted to the hospital was 24 hours! And patients needing psychiatric care for major depression are being forced to wait up to six weeks before starting treatment, according to the WTA report.*

Long waits for critical treatment are inevitable in government-run health care systems for one simple reason: Making health care free creates an infinite demand for medical services. But no country can satisfy an infinite demand, so government bureaucrats always end up rationing health care. Long lines of people waiting for services are the result. Its the same process that produced long waiting lines for decades in the Soviet Union for basic necessities like bread and housing.

Obamacare advocates can only hope their friends in the mainstream media do a better job of carrying their water for them in the weeks ahead than The New York Times and CBS with their latest poll. Using a sample with exactly twice as many Obama voters as McCain voters, the Times/CBS pollsters got a result in which 57 percent of their respondents said they would pay higher taxes so that all Americans have health insurance that they cant lose no matter what. But, as anybody who has taken a basic statistics course knows, a warped sample and an apples-to-oranges comparison has zero credibility.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 13, 2009)

Sounds like Canada UNDERESTIMATED Demand....which is causing delays....they need to increase their SUPPLY to solve the problem correctly NOT cut services.

They need more hospitals, and Doctors and Nurses, and Medical Schools, Nursing schools, and Medical Technology schools so that the Demand for such, is serviced imo.....

And of course, easier said than done...


----------



## Care4all (Jul 13, 2009)

When you have a long wait at a restaurant because they don't have enough cooks or waitresses on hand, the next night you staff with more cooks and waitresses so that you can serve the demand....

If you have too few tables available for the crowd, you enlarge your restaurant and add more tables, if that can't be done, someone buys the commercial lot next to you and opens another restaurant to serve the demand.

Why don't hospitals work in the same capitalistic manner?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 13, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



I see. Longer life expectancy, much lower infant mortality rate, and healthier old age are not benefits? You fellows are pitiful in your lies!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 13, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > It never fails to amaze me how well the Health Care Insurance Companies have done in BRAINWASHING you poor people. How sad, how pitiful, how really American.
> ...



Now that is a load of BS. And you know full well that there are a number of differant kinds of single payer systems out there that are working better than the broken system we have. You are lying in your support of the present ripoff artists that are running our present system.

Here is where you can learn how five of them work;FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 13, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



There are 50 million Americans that do not have to worry about wait times. They don't have medical insurance, so they go to the emergency room after the situation is out of hand. 

No, it is not a warped sample. As more people have the experiance of being unemployed and uninsured, that number will rise. Not only that, when people change jobs, and suddenly find themselves paying extra for pre-existing conditions, they will learn the reality of how much our present system sucks.


----------



## editec (Jul 13, 2009)

Certainly, as Old Rocks suggests, as more and more people find themselves no longer having HC insurance thansk to the employment picture, the pressure from the public to cover the HC of the uninsured will continue to get stronger.

Those of you paying attention know of my reservations about creating single payer insurance and socializing medicine, too, but I suspect that the political pressure to solve this problem is going to overhwelm the pressure from the insurance companies not to put them completely out of business.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 13, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



No you're the pitiful one's again I'm afraid. Another obtuse liberal who needs to gloss over the fact that I don't know, maybe our lifestyle choices play the largest role in those things? Not our health care system.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 13, 2009)

editec said:


> Certainly, as Old Rocks suggests, as more and more people find themselves no longer having HC insurance thansk to the employment picture, the pressure from the public to cover the HC of the uninsured will continue to get stronger.
> 
> Those of you paying attention know of my reservations about creating single payer insurance and socializing medicine, too, but I suspect that the political pressure to solve this problem is going to overhwelm the pressure from the insurance companies not to put them completely out of business.



The thing is, they may not be put out of business even if the country went to a single payer plan....  In France, for example, there is their universal gvt plan and there is also a business for SUPPLEMENTAL Insurance, which covers things the gvt may not cover under their basic coverage plan....

There are sooooo many universal plan options out there to choose from for our basic health care....and we don't have to choose any of them and can make up our own plan to solve our own problems, we are not stuck picking one of the many other country's plan....

I agree with you that a single payer universal government plan may not be the way to go, but I don't think Obama's plan using the insurance companies, is the most efficient and cost effective plan either...

I think this needs a lot of thought and analysis and number crunching and speculation of what the end results will be, before we make a move on this....

We can fix this problem, if we put our opened minds to it....


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 13, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Now that is a load of BS. And you know full well that there are a number of differant kinds of single payer systems out there that are working better than the broken system we have.



This goes back to the ridiculous, 'it works there so it will work here' argument. Yes it does seem to be working well in Fance (accept for that minor hemorhaging money thing). But we aren't France.  We don't know the doctors per capita that they for starts. If we choose a system we have to evaluate whether it will work for US.  And single payer is simply another term for a monopoly rocks. No one has stepped up to the plate and answered this yet. WHY do you want OUR government, with it's wastefullness, it's susceptibility to special interest, it's politics, to have a monopoly on the health care industry. 



Old Rocks said:


> You are lying in your support of the present ripoff artists that are running our present system.



You're reduced to calling people liars as argument for your health care plan? That says a bit more about you than it does me. I have had more head aches with health insurance companies than you wil ever have in your life. Again, that doesn't mean I want our equally, if not more so, pathetic government running the system.


----------



## Barb (Jul 13, 2009)

Care4all said:


> When you have a long wait at a restaurant because they don't have enough cooks or waitresses on hand, the next night you staff with more cooks and waitresses so that you can serve the demand....
> 
> If you have too few tables available for the crowd, you enlarge your restaurant and add more tables, if that can't be done, someone buys the commercial lot next to you and opens another restaurant to serve the demand.
> 
> Why don't hospitals work in the same capitalistic manner?



 Because the market is not an efficient allocator of public good. There isn't do re MEEEE to be made in doing the proper thing for human well being. That's for political and social organizations. The problem is, the market stuck its nose in our political and social business instead of producing things. They want a fee for allocation. They suck at it,  their ad agencies aren't so hot, but they only have to play three chords here in the US and almost half the pop thinks its the harps of  angels. I was wondering when they'd resurrect Harry and Louise.


----------



## editec (Jul 13, 2009)

> Because the market is not an efficient allocator of public good.




Right on sister. 

Certainly that's true in the business of HC.  And for those interested in a fact based approcah tpo this problem,  that is obvious if one studies the dollars spend per capita and the morbity and mortality stats of this nation of ours versus nearly any other industrialized nation on earth (and some third world nations, too, amazing as that seems to most of us!)


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 13, 2009)

editec said:


> > Because the market is not an efficient allocator of public good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not quite. What you are saying here in terms of morbity and mortality rests on the presumption that health care system is wholly or mostly responsible for it. They aren't. is the healthcare system to blame for all of the overweight American's that end up having complications as a result, who directly impact morbity and mortality? Of course not.  Typical liberal again. You bare absolutely no responsibility for the problem whatsoever.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 13, 2009)

Barb said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > When you have a long wait at a restaurant because they don't have enough cooks or waitresses on hand, the next night you staff with more cooks and waitresses so that you can serve the demand....
> ...



Same question I ask everyone else. Why do you have the right to obligate me to pay for your health care needs?


----------



## Maple (Jul 13, 2009)

Rasmussen just came out, over 50% of Americans do not want a government run health care system.

This can be fixed, but it needs to stay in the private insurance industry. 

For all of you who want this--- Have any of you ever had to go the social security administration for a name change-anything else- because if you did, you would see how this government agency operates. You certainly don't want these idiots to be making decisions for you about your healthcare or the healthcare of your loved ones.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 13, 2009)

Barb said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > When you have a long wait at a restaurant because they don't have enough cooks or waitresses on hand, the next night you staff with more cooks and waitresses so that you can serve the demand....
> ...


I've half expected to see Harry and Louise, as well. They've trotted out every other cliche.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 13, 2009)

Maple said:


> Rasmussen just came out, over 50% of Americans do not want a government run health care system.
> 
> This can be fixed, but it needs to stay in the private insurance industry.
> 
> For all of you who want this--- Have any of you ever had to go the social security administration for a name change-anything else- because if you did, you would see how this government agency operates. You certainly don't want these idiots to be making decisions for you about your healthcare or the healthcare of your loved ones.



medicare recipients are HAPPY as pie, for the most part....  wonder why?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 13, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > Rasmussen just came out, over 50% of Americans do not want a government run health care system.
> ...



And why shouldn't they be happy with it?  Medicare has been sold to them below cost, and that's why the Medicare trust will be empty by 2017 and Medicare will be unable to pay its bills unless the current 2.9 % payroll tax, half paid by the employee and half paid by the employer, is soon raised by 134% to almost 6.8 %.  How happy will working people be with it when they have to start paying the true cost of Medicare?


----------



## Yukon (Jul 13, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Sounds like Canada UNDERESTIMATED Demand....which is causing delays....they need to increase their SUPPLY to solve the problem correctly NOT cut services.
> 
> They need more hospitals, and Doctors and Nurses, and Medical Schools, Nursing schools, and Medical Technology schools so that the Demand for such, is serviced imo.....
> 
> And of course, easier said than done...



There are NO delays for life threatening treatmenst no matter what the treatment is. Unlike the USA where the HMO decides who gets treatment, in Canada the Doctor decides.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 13, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > > Because the market is not an efficient allocator of public good.
> ...



LOL. Here we go again. All illnesses are lifestyle choices? All cancers? Of course, the fact that these nations do not have families going bankrupt because of medical bills, while in our nation, hundreds of thousands of families are yearly bankrupted has nothing at all to do with the problem? 

Bern, you are defending the indefensible. You keep saying what we have is not good, but don't you dare change it. Definition of insanity, keep on doing the same thing, and expecting differant results.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 13, 2009)

Maple said:


> Rasmussen just came out, over 50% of Americans do not want a government run health care system.
> 
> This can be fixed, but it needs to stay in the private insurance industry.
> 
> For all of you who want this--- Have any of you ever had to go the social security administration for a name change-anything else- because if you did, you would see how this government agency operates. You certainly don't want these idiots to be making decisions for you about your healthcare or the healthcare of your loved ones.



OK. You just made a statement concerning the SS Admin. You claim they are horribly inefficient. I just started SS. It took me less than an hour to fill out the forms on the net. And my first check arrived a week later with all the information I needed concerning working and drawing SS. I have yet to deal with any major corperation that operated with that efficiency.

Another Poll Shows Majority Support for Single-Payer - Healthcare-NOW!

A New York Times/CBS News poll released last week shows, yet again, that the majority of Americans support national health insurance.

The poll, which compares answers to the same questions from 30 years ago, finds that, 59% [of Americans] say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.

Only 32% think that insurance should be left to private enterprise.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 13, 2009)

Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Favor Universal Health Care -- Until Taxes Are Mentioned
By Eric Kleefeld - May 29, 2009, 4:55PM
A new CNN poll shows just how tricky the debate over health care really is. People are all for expanded coverage and greater government involvement -- right up until they have to face the tradeoffs.

"In general, would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government's influence over the country's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans?" Americans favor government intervention in the health system by 69%-29%.

"In general, would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government's influence over the health care you and your family receive in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans?" When it involves their own care and their families, approval is still high, but a bit lower: 63%-36%.

"Do you think the federal government should guarantee health care for all Americans, or don't you think so?" Americans favor guaranteed health care for all, by a margin of 62%-38%.

Now here's where it gets really tricky: "Would you prefer a health care reform plan that raises taxes in order to provide health insurance to all Americans, or a plan that does not provide health insurance to all Americans but keeps taxes at current levels?" It is now a 47%-47% tie, thanks to the threat of tax increases.
Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Favor Universal Health Care -- Until Taxes Are Mentioned | TPMDC


----------



## ozzmdj (Jul 13, 2009)




----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 13, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Favor Universal Health Care -- Until Taxes Are Mentioned
> By Eric Kleefeld - May 29, 2009, 4:55PM
> A new CNN poll shows just how tricky the debate over health care really is. People are all for expanded coverage and greater government involvement -- right up until they have to face the tradeoffs.
> 
> ...



Basically, most Americans support universal health insurance as long as some one else is going to pay for it and as long as it will not increase their insurance premiums or limit any of their present health care choices.  

The majority likes the idea of forcing employers to either provide health insurance or pay a fee and they also like the idea of taxing upper income Americans to pay for it, so the battle lines in the Senate have been drawn: those who oppose raising taxes during a recession or raising business costs during a recession will vote against the only ways of paying for universal health insurance that the majority of Americans will support.  

Poll: Americans want health-care bill, but not cost - USATODAY.com


----------



## Barb (Jul 13, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



 What makes you think you aren't already? Surely you don't think the insurance agencies absorb the costs of others? you're already getting the bill with an added layer of expense.  Enjoy.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 13, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...



i don't know how happy they will be if they have to pay a lot more....one reason i suppose they do like it is for reasonably good care for a reasonable price...as you noted!

Though, i do think people would support some tax increase to secure the program, but i don't know the tipping point of where they won't support it anymore...

care


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 13, 2009)

Care4all said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



It's not just one tax increase.  As long as the cost of delivering health care continues to rise, and there seems to be no reason to doubt it will, the tax increases will keep on coming.  If they don't want to keep paying higher and higher taxes, they will have to agree to less and less coverage; what that will come out to mean is that if you develop a serious chronic disease, you may not receive much in terms of treatment.  This is pretty much the only way to keep the costs of health care down: stop providing expensive treatments for age related diseases.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 13, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



I have said none of those things. You're only gonna come out looking like a tool in this if you insist on lieing about what someone has said. If you can't at least have an honest conversation about what has and hasn't been said get the fuck out. 

I never said all illnesses were due to poor lifestyle choices. The fact is that a pretty decent chunk of Americans have unhealthy habits contributes a great deal to the cost of healthcare.

And as far as changing the system, you dishonest piece of shit, I have stated at least twice in this very thread that changes do need to be made. What I have stated, quite specifically, is one course of 'change' that I think would be bad for everyone and this is OUR government running the show.

Don't get in my face about indefensible rocls, because blatantly and cowardly mischaracterizing someone's position, especially when it's right in front of your face is about as indefensible as it gets.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 13, 2009)

Barb said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Wow you are predictable. How did I know this was gonna be your argument? You are familiar with the concept of a consenting contractual agreement aren't you?


----------



## eatatj0s (Jul 13, 2009)

Toro said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > a total of *895* adults participated in the telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points....
> ...




What kind of people actually want to take a telephone survey, instead of hanging up?  I'll tell you who, not the kind of people who's opinions should count.  I mean, I wonder how many people they had to call before they got 895.  Also, a lot of people have completely got rid of their landline (which I'm sure was used to conduct this survey), with the exception of one group, the elderly.  Therefore, if they actually got someone to take the survey, that person, for some reason, thinks it is a good idea to take time out of their life to answer questions for a stranger that is getting paid to interrupt random people with a telephone call, OR,  the person answering the phone is elderly since they all have landlines, and will be pretty much be all for government ran healthcare, seeing that it only stands to benefit them.


----------



## rhodescholar (Jul 14, 2009)

Chris said:


> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
> 
> The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.
> 
> ...



Of course 72% do, since most of them won't have to pay for it, as 50% of the country pays little or no taxes, and the Messiah is only looking to raise taxes on those of us who actually make a decent living.

And let's see how many support a gov't-run system when they need an operation for a life-threatening illness, and the next available doctor cannot be scheduled for, oh, about 18 months...


----------



## editec (Jul 14, 2009)

Maple said:


> Rasmussen just came out, over 50% of Americans do not want a government run health care system.
> 
> This can be fixed, but it needs to stay in the private insurance industry.
> 
> For all of you who want this--- Have any of you ever had to go the social security administration for a name change-anything else- because if you did, you would see how this government agency operates. You certainly don't want these idiots to be making decisions for you about your healthcare or the healthcare of your loved ones.


 
My HC is currently a completely socialized system...the Veterans' Administration.

FYI I recieve excellent care from that system.

Far better, in fact, than I ever got when I had private insurance.

So your theory that the government cannot do anything right is simply based on your own limited experiences.


----------



## chanel (Jul 14, 2009)

Laura Ingranm just said we spend 2,5 trillion a year on health care. But the govt wants to spend another trillion to service the "uninsured" I'm not great a math but I fail to see how a 30 percent increase will "control costs" what am I missing?


----------



## Barb (Jul 14, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



 I am. Are you aware that the majority of the American people would like the option of consenting to a better deal? See, where there is an actual choice, there is informed consent. Where there is a cabal setting prices for the higher prices of a given industry, there is no choice beyond pay up if you can or go without. The insurance industry is a cabal. If they can compete with the public option so be it. If they can't, millions of uninsured and under insured Americans are under no obligation to keep these paper pushing middle men in business or their stockholders in profit.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 14, 2009)

Barb said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



My point is, through your employer or however you choose to do so, you have the choice of purchasing healthcare insurance or not. I disagree with government involvement in running health care on many fronts and have mostly talked about the practical aspects.  There is the unconstitutionality of it (not that we pay much attention to that document anymore).

How much of your freedom are you willing to give up to have a risk free life? Because Obama has said if the government does this than EVERYONE has to do it. You don't have a choice. And when choice is eliminated, freedom is eliminated. Maybe I don't WANT insurance. Maybe I'm happy with my employer's plan. Maybe I choose to fund my health care costs through and HSA. Even going with my employer option, by taking the coverage, i am agreeing to their terms. 

You did mention competition within the insurance industry. Well, lets make them compete for starters and see what that does. We don't need to run rough shod into government running the show. Make insurance companies compete on a national, or hell, global level, instead of these groups of a few states in place now.  

The most concerning thing about all of this to me is, even with their track record, so many people want to by pass a lot of good options and just let government take care of it.


----------



## Barb (Jul 14, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



How is promoting the general welfare unconstitutional, or ensuring the inalienable right to life? Government can work, it more often than not does when those in charge of it aren't trying to drown it in the bathtub. I'd rather purchase mine through a group who, if I'm not happy with, I can send packing. The insurance companies have made promises before. I see no reason to believe them now. They're a worthless industry paid obscene sums of money for paperwork. You keep yours if you want. Be happy. I am under no obligation to underwrite your choice with my participation. I choose something else.


----------



## editec (Jul 14, 2009)

Barb said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...


 

We're you not aware, Barb,  that listening to Rush Limbough for a few hours makes one a qualified constitutional scholar?

That's why so many here describe themselves as strict interpretors of the US Constitution...people who are all more  qualified than the Supreme Court to explain to us what the Constitution really means.

I know it's somewhat amazing that this board is rife with Constitutional scholars, but apparently it must be true.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 14, 2009)

Barb said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 14, 2009)

Barb said:


> How is promoting the general welfare unconstitutional, or ensuring the inalienable right to life? Government can work, it more often than not does when those in charge of it aren't trying to drown it in the bathtub. I'd rather purchase mine through a group who, if I'm not happy with, I can send packing. The insurance companies have made promises before. I see no reason to believe them now. They're a worthless industry paid obscene sums of money for paperwork. You keep yours if you want. Be happy. I am under no obligation to underwrite your choice with my participation. I choose something else.



Simple. if it is not enumberated in the constitution then the Fed has no authority to it. You may choose another way, but if you are choosing Obama's way you are taking away my choice. That seem okay with you?


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 14, 2009)

editec said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Wasn't Rush really. It was reading the 10th ammendment and passing high school level civics. 



> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"



So where exactly are the powers granted to the Fed by the constitution. That would be Article 1, Section 8



> Section 8: The Congress shall have power:
> 
> To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> ...



The founders were nice enough to make the document pretty simple with respect to the Feds power. If it isn't there they can't do it (even though it has been ignored from time to time). It gets made more complicated by 'scholars' for the purpose of rationalizing things they want to justify government doing that arent really there.


----------



## bigdaddygtr (Jul 14, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> a total of *895* adults participated in the telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points....
> 
> 
> So this 72% consists of 895 people? out of what over 250 million who would be impacted by this,? thats hardly what I would call a ringing endorsement of  this plan.



you're only saying that cause the poll didn't work out in your favor.  By your philosophy ALL polls are BS cause they all have about 1,000 people


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 14, 2009)

bigdaddygtr said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > a total of *895* adults participated in the telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points....
> ...



the poll was BS (the NY Times admitted as much) not due to the sample size, but due to an over sampling of Obama voters.


----------



## chanel (Jul 14, 2009)

Yep yet that 72 percent bogus figure is being tossed around. Most people would agree that the system needs reform (cost conyainment) but very very few want the govt to spend a trillion dollars rationing care. In fact maybe I'll start a poll with that question "Should the govt DICTATE medical decisions and make working people pay for the illegals?" I bet I'd get 95 percent no's. The other 5 percent believe Obama will be doing their proctology exams himself. And they'd dig that.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 15, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



That is a lie...there is not 50 million *Americans* without health insurance, 10 million of your 50 million aren't even Americans. Others have declined health insurance through their employers, a good deal expect to get health insurance in the next 6 months, others make over 75 K a year...etc.....this is all part of the susposed 50 million Americans who can't get health insurance....


----------



## Chris (Jul 15, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> bigdaddygtr said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Most voters are Obama voters.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > bigdaddygtr said:
> ...



Not by a rate of a little over 2 to 1 they weren't. Had it been by percentage it should have been about 55-45 at best. It was more like 70-30.


----------



## Chris (Jul 15, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You are on the losing side of history.

Everyone in the world gets it except for the right wing in America.

That is why America is going broke. 

High energy costs, high healthcare costs, all because of the right wing nuts.


----------



## elvis (Jul 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Wait, you just said in another thread that history doesn't matter.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Yeah you're right Chris, if you consider a bit over a 50-50 split being 'almost everyone', to paraphrase Mark Twain, at least try to get your facts right before you try to distort them.

It's  really funny listening to a lib talk about how we are going broke. Please explain to all of us how taking more money from people in the form of taxes and the government spending more and getting into deeper debt will make us less broke.


----------



## Chris (Jul 15, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



It is funny to hear a rightie talking about debt.

It was the derivative bubble brought on by Phil Gramm's deregulation of the financial industry that destroyed the American economy.

A single payer healthcare system is more efficient than paying overhead and profit for 150 different insurance companies. Everyone knows this except you and your friends. That is why the rest of the world's businesses are kicking our ass, because they don't have to pay for healthcare and their healthcare cost HALF as much per capita.


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 15, 2009)

*72% of Americans support government run healthcare 
*

Well 100% of the insurance companies don't!!!  So there...stick that in your pipe and smoke it.  And fox news doesn't support it...so there!  And at least 15 democratic senators are being paid off by the stinking insurance lobby so they know where thier bread is buttered....so there!  Maria Cantwell you stinking douschebag...We are watching you.  If you do not vote with the people you will not keep you senate seat!  So there!


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 15, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> *72% of Americans support government run healthcare
> *
> 
> Well 100% of the insurance companies don't!!!  So there...stick that in your pipe and smoke it.  And fox news doesn't support it...so there!  And at least 15 democratic senators are being paid off by the stinking insurance lobby so they know where thier bread is buttered....so there!  Maria Cantwell you stinking douschebag...We are watching you.  If you do not vote with the people you will not keep you senate seat!  So there!



... and you support robbing the rich and ruining our economy ... so fucking there.


----------



## manu1959 (Jul 15, 2009)

72 % of americans are going to be pissed off........


----------



## elvis (Jul 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



of course, chrissy lewinsky is going to leave out the part where Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall act.


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > *72% of Americans support government run healthcare
> ...



Jeeez Kitty...you didn't say...you were rich!  That changes EVERYTHING!!!!!  Now maybe some of the idiot neo cons can worship YOU!!!!


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 15, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Intelligence is not your strong suit. You do know that the rich in our state are the ones who fund the shelters and clinics around here that let everyone have a chance, right? They do so for tax cuts, basically it's them choosing exactly where their taxes go. If you take that choice away do you really think these programs will survive? They get almost nothing from tax dollars in reality, and all the state run programs last no more than a few months then they fall apart and out of funding. Hell, Seattle is broke, flat broke, we can't even fund anything right now. Because of this the social service programs are all on hiring freezes, without the money from Gates and Jobs they'd be gone completely.


----------



## Maple (Jul 15, 2009)

Good lord, some on this board are sooo rich envy it makes me sick.  The rich already pay  the great majority of the taxes in this country, most worked hard for their money and by the way.



THEY EMPLOY THE REST OF US. 


HAVE YOU EVER GOTTEN A JOB OR FOR THAT MATTER A PAYCHECK FROM A POOR PERSON?????? Please answer the question all you commies, have you ever been hired by a poor person. Is it in your heads that we should all be poor, and then we are all equal???
Do you like to have a roof over your head, do you like to eat, do you like to have clothes on your backs, do you like to have a car to get around in. If the answer to all of these questions is yes, THEN YOU NEED TO BE THANKING THAT RICH PERSON WHO HIRED YOU, because I can guarantee you it was not a poor person who gave you the opportunity to put that roof over your head, clothes on your back, food on your plate or a car to drive.


----------



## xotoxi (Jul 15, 2009)

Maple said:


> Good lord, some on this board are sooo rich envy it makes me sick. The rich already pay the great majority of the taxes in this country, most worked hard for their money and by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
What's your problem, lady?


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 15, 2009)

The really ironic thing is that those who are so strongly for taxing the rich more have never truly been poor.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 16, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Of course your brilliant....here is how you want to receive your health care. Do you think there is any possibility that you will receive anything other than long waits and rationed care?


http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/JEC Health Chart.pdf


----------



## 2daloo (Jul 16, 2009)

I bet that 99% of the people polled in this survey voted for Obama.


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 16, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...





Kitty..Kitty..Kitty...Do you really want to compare IQs?

*They get almost nothing from tax dollars in reality*

I guess you don't have much experience in the real world seeing as you are rich and all.  You probably don't even have the time to answer you fan mail from those adoring neo cons.

The rich take more advantage of tax dollars than the poor.  It takes more infrastructure to sustain an organization than an individual.  The rich...companies. and corporations use the structure of society to further thier goals.  To suggest otherwise is ignorant.

Kitty????...are you being a bad and ignorant kitty?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 16, 2009)

You people who are believing this poll need a serious IQ check.

You do realize that just under 80% of the respondants to this poll were found to be registered democrats....that kinda skews the results.

Imagin if 80% of the poll takers were far right conservatives....i bet we would have a results stating 72% of americans are against govt run health care.

But...once again....i'm going to put my challenge out there for all who support govt run health care:

*Explain to me how it is a smart Idea to put the same govt that can not make our social security program solvent in charge of health care.

Social Security is a simple savings plan and the reps/dems can't even handle that without making it bankrupt and insolvent. So how can you expect the majority of americans to trust them to run health care for us?

I mean just look at the system they set up http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/Hous...ealth-Plan.pdf 

They can't handle a savings account but think they can handle that? here is a small pic of the govt's propsal.*


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 16, 2009)

jreeves said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Those are bogus scare tactics.  I don't let the insurance company sponsored media form my opinions. 

But to answer your question..no.

Here is a truth you might consider...who or what stands to gain the most from a for profit health care system?  Those who seek profit?...or the patient?  It is really that simple.  If I am sick or injured or if YOU are sick or injured..I don't want any part of the criteria for yours or my treatment to be wether or not someone can make a profit.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

jreeves said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Yes.

What exactly does you posting a chart have to do with anything?


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> You people who are believing this poll need a serious IQ check.
> 
> You do realize that just under 80% of the respondants to this poll were found to be registered democrats....that kinda skews the results.
> 
> ...



Yes, anything more than a savings account, the government can't do.  So somehow its easier to send a man to the moon than have a savings account?

Pure stupidity.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 16, 2009)

Chris said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Could you maybe once in your life not be a chicken shit and answer the question:

How does increasing taxes, government spending more thus creating more debt make the country less broke?


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 16, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



"Broke" is a result of accumulating and not paying back debt and the policies in trade which decrease our worth and leaverage in the international markets.

The only way out as in your own finances is to pay off the debt and change the rules of trade to genetrate more income.

There will allways be excuses to not pay taxes.  They have no more basis than "the dog ate my homework".  They are just excuses.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > You people who are believing this poll need a serious IQ check.
> ...



The govt of the 60's that sent a man to the moon was a lot more capable then the nitwits us morons have all voted in since then.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 16, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



........3rd times a charm?.....maybe?

How does increasing taxes, government spending more thus creating more debt make the country less broke?


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



I know, which is why they just shut down the space program and its all defunct now, right?....

Oh wait....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 16, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Actually how free market health care works, is an insurance company provides coverage and the consumer pays a premium. So both are winners....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


 That chart is how your health care would be delivered under the democratic proposal for health care reform. If you enjoy beaucratic red tape and having big brother decide how lives and dies then you should support it.......


I would rather make my own health care decisions.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Getting treatment shouldn't require the help of a rocket scientist though....


----------



## Zook (Jul 16, 2009)

Im against Gov run health care. I don't remember the constitution giving the government the right to run any sort of health care program. If it is not givin that right in the constitution it should not do it.


----------



## Barb (Jul 16, 2009)

2daloo said:


> I bet that 99% of the people polled in this survey voted for Obama.



 Maybe, but I've been thinking about all the resistance to this, and it occurred to me that with a public option, people would be free to take varied part time jobs,a little something here, a little something there that might lead to something better, without having to worry about having to keep the crappy miserable job as full time because that provided the questionable (doesn't cover shit, can't afford the co-pays) bennies. I wondered why so many were against a bill that would free many employers from the burden until I figured out it will free millions from servitude to keep their kids insured. People won't ONLY have options in health care coverage, they will have options in employment they didn't have before because the risk of losing those iffy and increasingly costly "benefits" they hung onto dead end jobs for have alternatives.


----------



## Meister (Jul 16, 2009)

Barb said:


> 2daloo said:
> 
> 
> > I bet that 99% of the people polled in this survey voted for Obama.
> ...



What???  Would you pour me one of those drinks your having.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

jreeves said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Except the people who can't afford the premiums.

And the people who are underinsured.

And the people who the insurance companies try to screw over by saying that x or y lifesaving treatment isn't covered.

And the people with pre-existing conditions.

But you know, besides all those people, its great.  The people who never need healthcare have a great relationship with their insurance company.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



You don't make your own.  Your employer and your insurance company do.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



And it doesn't.  Treatment is affordable and efficient.  Its called Medicare.


----------



## Barb (Jul 16, 2009)

Meister said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > 2daloo said:
> ...



 I'm sorry, do I have to dumb it down for you? There are risks people don't take under our current system that they will be free to take once health care is no longer (solely) provided for under full time employment or affordable because of independent wealth. People can take a couple or several part time jobs, or even an internship (currently an option only feasible for dependent children, the already independently wealthy, or those with no responsibility beyond themselves) and another part time position, and still afford health insurance for their family. What part of that is hard to comprehend?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



I was thinking Medicaid....

http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2003-12-veritas-egert.pdf
M edicaid continues to drive state budgets
across the country. As state revenues have
declined, Medicaid costs per enrollee have almost
doubled in the last five years.1 Largely as a result,
the National Governors Association reported in
November 2002 that nearly every state is in a
fiscal crisis.2 *Nationally, Medicaid and other
health care services comprise 30% of state
budgets, and these costs increased by 13% in 2002,
which was the largest increase in a decade.3
Growth in Medicaid continues to put a severe
strain on state budgets, and 28 states anticipate
shortfalls in Medicaid spending for the current
fiscal year.4*
Texas is no exception to these trends. Without
reform, Medicaid threatens to consume an ever
increasing share of the state budget, potentially
jeopardizing every other budgetary item. *Some
predict that left unreformed, Medicaid will
bankrupt every state in as little as 20 years.5*


----------



## jreeves (Jul 16, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



But since you brought up Medicare...
Medicare Money Problems Trigger Warning : NPR
*The Medicare health program's annual financial report reveals a system that is healthy at the moment, but has a bleak long-term prognosis.*

The report, released Monday, is sure to touch off a political firestorm due to recent actions that compel the federal government to address the problem.

*At the moment the trust fund that pays for hospital and nursing home care has enough money to last until the year 2019. That's a year longer than last year's projection.
*
Still, Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt sees a problem.

"This year's spending has triggered ... for the very first time, a Medicare funding warning," Leavitt said.

That "warning" is part of a mechanism created in 2003 by congressional Republicans. They wanted a way to keep closer tabs on the portion of Medicare that's funded by general taxes and Medicare premiums. Known as "Part B," it covers doctor visits and other outpatient care. (Other funding for Medicare comes from payroll taxes.)

The warning is triggered when, for two years in a row, Part B  and other Medicare funding from general revenues  are expected to exceed 45 percent of total Medicare spending within seven years. This year is the second year that has happened.
AMNews: May 25, 2009. Medicare trustees present dire outlook on program's finances ... American Medical News
*Medicare's hospital trust fund could be out of money in less than a decade, and outpatient spending threatens to consume an even larger portion of the gross domestic product, according to those overseeing the program's finances.*


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Hmm.  The government program that often has heavy involvement by private insurance companies is doing much poorer than the government program that has little involvement by private insurance companies.

Gee.  I wonder why?


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

jreeves said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



And?  Healthcare is expensive.  Medicare is affordable and efficient, but you still have to actually pay for it.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



And...you just contradicted yourself


----------



## jreeves (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Yes, I'm sure the government will be able to run health insurance much better....just look at SS, the federal government in general, the Postal Service, Medicare, Medicaid, the Stimulus payments.....etc....


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Incorrect.  Everything is relative, my dear.  All healthcare will be expensive.  But as far as healthcare goes, Medicare is affordable.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Which is why we should provide 10 million non-Americans with government coverage right?


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



The government IS ALREADY RUNNING HEALTH INSURANCE WELL.  Nobody with a brain in their head thinks that Medicare failed.  

Medicaid isn't run by the feds, genius.  

As for the US Postal Service....



> U.S. Postal Service 1st-quarter profit $672 mln



U.S. Postal Service 1st-quarter profit $672 mln | Reuters

You on crack, son?  You really want to cite one of the more profitable and best run federal agencies as evidence that its a failure?


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Wtf?  Nice non-sequiter.  How bout you focus on healthcare instead of trying to turn this into an illegal alien discussion.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 16, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Did I say illegals, No I didn't, I said non-Americans.


----------



## Nik (Jul 16, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Then explain what the fuck you are trying to say clearly, as opposed to just pretending you know what I think.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



States run Medicaid but they must meet federal guidelines to receive matching federal funds. Therefore Medicaid is run by the feds...
Medicaid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unlike Medicare, which is solely a federal program, Medicaid is a joint federal-state program. *Each state operates its own Medicaid system, but this system must conform to federal guidelines in order for the state to receive matching funds and grants. *The federal matching formula is different from state to state, depending on each state's poverty level. The wealthiest states only receive a federal match of 50% while poorer states receive a larger match.

Medicaid funding has become a major budgetary issue for many states over the last few years, with states, on average, spending 16.8% of state general funds on the program. If the federal match expenditure is also counted, the program, on average, takes up 22% of each state's budget.[15]


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2009)

Yes, our healthcare is too expensive because our system is a bloated, inefficient, for profit system. 

That's why we pay TWICE as much per capita for healthcare as the rest of the Western democracies and our outcomes aren't any better.


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



What?  You might want to re-think that statement again.  Actually, don't bother, I'll just destroy it.

The feds have broad guideliens the states must meet.  Not specific ones.  The states decide the specifics of the program.  Some states have managed care, others don't.  Some states have good coverage, other states don't.  Medicaid programs vary widely from state to state.  Since they vary so widely it becomes immediately obvious that its a state program, not a federal program.

Its run by the states, dude.  The feds just have broad guidelines for it.  But its run by the states.  From your link:



> *each state operates its own Medicaid system*


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Postal Service....LOL
La Figa » Mail Drop: Postal Service Loses $2.8 Billion in 2008, Blames the Interwebs
*Last year the United States Postal Service lost $2.8 billion in what they considered a "decent year"  and anticipate a 17% drop in volume (and thus revenue) this year, due in part to online bill paying.  By 2010, the USPS anticipates losses as high as $12 billion if changes aren't made.  Since they are running out of money, the Postmaster General suggests Congress to pass legislation that will allow the elimination of either Saturday or Tuesday delivery. And they're cutting positions by 15% and instituting a hiring freeze, Postmaster General John Potter told a Congressional subcommittee.

Wait! Wut?! A loss of 2.8 billion is considered  a "decent year"? WTF?*

Postal Service spokesman James Wigdel explained the drop in revenue:

    The old model was people religiously at the first of the month putting their stamp on the envelope and sent their credit card mail and all that remittance mail off. More and more people are doing that online.

That's not the only reason: I've noticed that while lots of people shop online, many sellers--private and commercial--use UPS or FedEx ground service to deliver packages, maybe because they are more economical?

Additionally, the USPS will pay almost $70 billion from now through 2016 for retiree health benefits. But Postmaster General Potter pointed out that if USPS paid for retiree health benefits out of its Retiree Health Benefit Fund instead of its operating budget, that change would have allowed the service to reach a $1.6 billion profit in 2007, instead of a $5.1 billion loss. Um, isn't that what a "retiree health benefit fund" is for--to pay retiree health benefits?

Wait! Wut?! The postal service had a $5.1 billion loss in 2007? No wonder 2008 seemed like a decent year!

The postal service has come up with some other nifty ideas to save money. Maybe they should have implemented some of these sooner:


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Each state operates its own Medicaid system that must meet federal guidelines to receive federal matching funds....If the state doesn't meet the federal guidelines the states wouldn't receive the funding. Now who controls what?


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



And?  Newspapers are all operating with losses as well.  Omg its cause they are run by the gubmint!!!!!!!!!!!

Or maybe its because old systems have a hard time adjusting to fundamental, structural change no matter who runs them?


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



The state controls the system.  Yet again.  They can choose whether they want to meet broad federal guidelines, and even if they do they still have a lot of discretion.  But, as has been said numerous times, the state runs the system.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



I thought you just painted a rosy picture of the USPS? WTF...make up your mind?


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



No business is rosy right now.  But the USPS has been profitable for many, many years.

So how if the government is so incompetent, was it able to run such a profitable and well run service for so many years?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



yep...broad guidelines indeed...
Medicaid | <cite>Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report Highlights</cite> State Medicaid Developments - Kaisernetwork.org
# Florida: *The state could lose $300 million in federal Medicaid funding if lawmakers do not expand a pilot program statewide by fiscal year 2011, Health News Florida reports. Under the pilot program, which former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) initiated in 2005, the state receives $1 billion annually for providing no-cost care to uninsured residents. However, the program also includes the penalty clause for reduced federal funds if it is not expanded by 2011.* According to Health News Florida, previous attempts to expand the program have been defeated by the state Legislature over the past two years, and some lawmakers this session have indicated that they do not plan on approving an expansion (Jordan Sexton, Health News Florida, 5/1). Legislative leaders only recently learned of the penalty and "now are scrambling in the waning days of the lawmaking session" to approve special budget language requesting additional time from the federal government, the St. Petersburg Times reports. They also must decide what to do with about $246 million in surplus funds, which some public hospital executives say should be used to close the $300 million shortfall if the penalty takes effect or any other funding deficits in the future (Caputo, St. Petersburg Times, 5/2). Others say that the excess funds -- part of the state's share from the federal economic stimulus package -- should be distributed and spent now (Health News Florida, 5/1). Some lawmakers want Medicaid reform scrapped altogether. State Senate Committee on Health and Human Services Appropriations Chair Durell Peaden (R), said, "We've done the experiment. It has failed," adding, "The reports are unsettling. People couldn't get to specialists, couldn't get adequate care. And they couldn't do it cheaply" (St. Petersburg Times, 5/2).


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



That was a supplemental pilot program.

Next?


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2009)

USPS is a good example of the efficiency of a single payer system.

No private company will come to my house and deliver a letter to California for 44 cents.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Do you really want to compare their profits with private competitors?

United States Postal Service
The Postal Service's most visible and energetic competitors were shipping-service providers FedEx and UPS. *For the Postal Service, competition was a tricky matter; the Postal Service was a government-subsidized entity with many advantages. Its rivals frequently maintained that the USPS used revenues generated from its monopoly on mail delivery to fund services designed to compete against private companies. The USPS, exempt from most taxes, including federal and state, free from parking fines, and able to clear foreign customs more easily than its competitors, seemed to hold the upper hand in the marketplace. In addition, postal laws required that private companies charge twice as much for services also offered by the USPS, allowing the agency to significantly undercut competing prices.* UPS chairman and CEO Jim Kelly spoke out against such policies in a speech given to the National Press Club in 1998 and declared, "I'm hard pressed to think of a better example of anti-competitive practices than setting your competitors' rates." The Postal Service defended the postal rules and pointed out that UPS and FedEx charged more than double the USPS's $3.20 Priority Mail charge for two-day delivery services. USPS spokesperson Norm Scherstrom said in the Journal of Commerce, "If I recall, when we started our Priority Mail ads, UPS was charging about $8 and FedEx was charging about $12&#8230;. If the requirement was a double postage rule why were they way above that?"

As powerful as the Postal Service was, it faced substantial competition from many challengers and did not command all delivery categories. *In the express-delivery service segment, FedEx was the largest express shipping company in the world and the market leader with a 43 percent share in 1997. UPS took the second place spot with 27 percent, followed by Airborne Express at 15 percent, other services with 8 percent, and the Postal Service with 5 percent, according to the Colography Group

*
That's how they did it..

Even with the advantages....


While USPS posted loses for 2008 here is what FEDEX posted...

http://finance.econsultant.com/fedex-2008-revenue-profit-2009-fortune-500-rank/

2008 Profit: $ 1,125 million


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



That's an example of federal guidelines dictating to a state how to run Medicaid in their state.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> USPS is a good example of the efficiency of a single payer system.
> 
> No private company will come to my house and deliver a letter to California for 44 cents.



Dipshit, they have a monopoly on residential delivery. If it was opened up to the marketplace, you very well could have mail delivered to a house in Ca for under 44 cents.


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Umm, the United States Postal Service is operated in.....the United States.  FedEx and UPS are worldwide operations.

Comparison fail.


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Thats an example of the federal government offering a state *addition monies* in return for additional services.  The state didn't need to ask for additional money.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Who establishes poverty guidelines, the states or the Feds?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



LOL...nice try but you fail.
How many times have we heard Obama state this is a global recession we are in?
Also, if the USPS wasn't  publicly ran, they would be in overseas markets.

I guess if I showed a quote from the US postmaster general calling for the privatization of the USPS so that they could compete, that wouldn't mean anything to you either, huh?


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



And?  



> Certain relatively recent provisions of Medicaid use the poverty guidelines; however, the rest of that program (accounting
> for roughly three-quarters of Medicaid eligibility determinations) does not use the guidelines.



http://www.canhelp.org/CAN2008/2008poverty.pdf


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Are you really this fucking stupid?

Yes.  Its a global recession.  That has nothing to do with my point.

USPS is going to be small, globally.  Why?  Because FedEx has operations in 211 countries.  USPS has operations in 1 country.  Therefore its worldwide operations is going to be smaller.

Do I really need to explain shit like this?


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> USPS is a good example of the efficiency of a single payer system.
> 
> No private company will come to my house and deliver a letter to California for 44 cents.



LOL You are so living in the past ... yeah ... also no private company lays off it's employees just because they are well managed ... yeah ... then raise the cost of services and still fuck up half their responsibilities ... yeah, that's good management.


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > USPS is a good example of the efficiency of a single payer system.
> ...



So you think a company can't be well managed, but get fucked over by externalities?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



*The Federal Poverty Guidelines are a set of numbers published annually by the federal government.*

Even a quarter of the Medicaid programs show the feds hand in controlling the program.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


I wonder why the Postmaster General called for the privatization of the USPS so they could compete better?

If USPS was being ran effectively, they would expand their operations to other countries. But they can't because they are a publicly ran postal service. That's my point try and pay attention.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


So Medicaid isn't ran by the Feds, great argument....LOL
They just throw billions of dollars at the program....Lmao

Great argument indeed...they spend billions of dollars for a health care program, that you say they have very little control of how it is administered.


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Pssst.  Who decides whether the programs use the federal poverty guidelines or not?


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Medicaid isn't a great program, because too much control is left to the states who constantly fuck it up.  Medicare, on the other hand, is an excellent program.


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



What the fuck?  The point of the USPS isn't to make money, dumbshit.  Its a government agency.  Its supposed to be revenue-neutral.  The point of the USPS is to deliver the mail to Americans, not to the French.  

And let me see if I can get this straight.  You think the USPS has a monopoly which allows it to have an unfair advantage...but yet you think it needs to privatize so it can compete better? 

And please provide the link to the postmaster generals comments that you are referring too.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Like what ... healthy competition? That's still a management issue.

Inability to keep up with tech? Management's fault again.

Inability to turn a profit? Management ...

Inability to maintain services at decent prices? Management ...

Mismanagement is the cause for any company to fail ... well that and over regulation, which the USPS doesn't have to worry about.


----------



## Meister (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



You asking for a link is just rich, nikee.
Yes, the USPS is in it to *make money*, I'm talking about money as a profit.  I've worked at the Post Office for 30 years, and they have always been in it for the money you twit.  "Revenue nuetral"...what a moron.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> You on crack, son?  You really want to cite one of the more profitable and best run federal agencies as evidence that its a failure?



the P.O. aint that well run Nik....if anything gets done its because of the people who actually move the mail....Most (middle) managers get in the way and cause more problems then they solve....we are experiencing this right now in my office....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 17, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Yes and why it is headed for bankruptcy unless something is done.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 17, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Postal Service....LOL
> 
> Wait! Wut?! A loss of 2.8 billion is considered  a "decent year"? WTF?[/B][/B]
> 
> ...



first off since the PO usually loses around 1-2 billion a year ...2.8 Billion is a decent year....

if UPS and FedX charge more how are they more economical....FedX and UPS send little post cards to the PO asking us for the correct address for their parcels with bad numbers so they can deliver them....and this happens more than what you would think....i have seen UPS parcels left at vacant houses....parcels delivered to a person that moved years ago....etc.etc.

and the retiree thing was mandated by Congress a few years back against the PO's wishes....they had them put a couple bill a year in an escrow account,which at the time everyone was going... WHY? it turns out its a cash cow for congress,now they want it stopped and that money back....and those nifty ideas,USUALLY, always get shot down by Congress


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

Nik said:


> No business is rosy right now.  But the USPS has been profitable for many, many years.
> 
> So how if the government is so incompetent, was it able to run such a profitable and well run service for so many years?



no it hasnt....they have some descent years but by and large they lose money...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> USPS is a good example of the efficiency of a single payer system.
> 
> No private company will come to my house and deliver a letter to California for 44 cents.



and you think it doesnt cost more than .44 cents to get that letter there?....dream on...


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Psst.....
http://www.familyimpactseminars.org/s_wifis22c01.pdf
Mandatory Populations
*Although state participation in Medicaid is optional, states that have Medicaid
programs must provide coverage to certain groups or categories of people*
(sometimes referred to as categorically eligible). Mandatory groups include
the following:
&#9830; AFDC-related populations (certain parents and children).
&#9830; People who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a federal
cash assistance program for low-income people with disabilities who
meet specified eligibility criteria.
&#9830; Pregnant women with incomes up to *133% of federal poverty
guidelines* ($12,382 for a single woman in 2004).
&#9830; Infants of women enrolled in Medicaid at the time of birth, or those in
*families with income up to 133% of poverty guidelines.*
&#9830; Children under age 6 in *families with income up to 133% of poverty
guidelines.*
&#9830; Children ages 6 through 18 in* families with incomes at or below the
poverty level.*
&#9830; Children in adoption or foster care.
&#9830; Some low-income Medicare recipients (for services not covered by
Medicare).


These are federal mandatory groups that must be covered using the poverty guidelines.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Do you really want to compare their profits with private competitors?
> 
> The Postal Service's most visible and energetic competitors were shipping-service providers FedEx and UPS. *For the Postal Service, competition was a tricky matter; the Postal Service was a government-subsidized entity with many advantages. Its rivals frequently maintained that the USPS used revenues generated from its monopoly on mail delivery to fund services designed to compete against private companies. The USPS, exempt from most taxes, including federal and state, free from parking fines, and able to clear foreign customs more easily than its competitors, seemed to hold the upper hand in the marketplace. In addition, postal laws required that private companies charge twice as much for services also offered by the USPS, allowing the agency to significantly undercut competing prices.* UPS chairman and CEO Jim Kelly spoke out against such policies in a speech given to the National Press Club in 1998 and declared, "I'm hard pressed to think of a better example of anti-competitive practices than setting your competitors' rates." The Postal Service defended the postal rules and pointed out that UPS and FedEx charged more than double the USPS's $3.20 Priority Mail charge for two-day delivery services. USPS spokesperson Norm Scherstrom said in the Journal of Commerce, "If I recall, when we started our Priority Mail ads, UPS was charging about $8 and FedEx was charging about $12. If the requirement was a double postage rule why were they way above that?"
> 
> ...



the PO cannot deliver mail to foreign countries,we get it to their Post Offices and they take it from there,and the same happens here, its called International Postal Regulations....
and that article about FedX making money is BULLSHIT they are hurting as bad as everyone else....the driver on my route said they were told Business is down 60%....thats a lot...UPS is hurting as well...the driver i talk to said they are eliminating routes and making existing ones bigger (same as we are doing in the PO) and new guys may get laid off....also a possibility in the PO....its amazing how much money all these companies say they are making to the public....but the workers know different,they cant hide the obvious from us...ALL delivery services are hurting,and will continue to do so until the economy picks up...less industry, less mail of all classes....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > USPS is a good example of the efficiency of a single payer system.
> ...



no you would not....it would cost pretty close to a dollar maybe more....the "junk mail" the PO delivers keeps that price at the low level it is....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



correct


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> LOL...nice try but you fail.
> How many times have we heard Obama state this is a global recession we are in?
> Also, if the USPS wasn't  publicly ran, they would be in overseas markets.
> 
> I guess if I showed a quote from the US postmaster general calling for the privatization of the USPS so that they could compete, that wouldn't mean anything to you either, huh?



they could compete right now if congress would let them....and even if they were privitized there is still the International Postal Regs .....MANY foreign PO's are privitized but still have those regs about who delivers in each country....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



not unless each countries PO allowed that to happen.....and i doubt very much if any would....each country has their own Post Office and THEY deliver their countries mail....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Postal Service....LOL
> ...



Like I said the USPS shows how efficient the federal government is at running things.


----------



## Annie (Jul 18, 2009)

Think 'if you like your insurance you can keep it' is true? Not so much:

Power Line - Does the Democratic Health Care Plan Ban Private Insurance?



> DOES THE DEMOCRATIC HEALTH CARE PLAN BAN PRIVATE INSURANCE?
> Share Post   PrintJuly 17, 2009 Posted by John at 7:41 PM
> That's a claim that is making the rounds these days, based on this editorial by Investors Business Daily:
> 
> ...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



i cant argue there....ideas from the bottom,from those who actually work,are usually squelched from those in middle mang....because they think their ideas are better,even though they cost time and money .....this is something that gives us headaches because we have to put up with these useless piles of crap...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



if you dont think the P.O. has regulations Kitty think again....EVERYTHING they wanna do to be more like a business they have to go through the so called Board of Governors...the Congressional Postal Panel...(i could be calling this the wrong name)....and then Congress themselves....and on the workroom floor there is PLENTY of regs on handling the mail....there is so much red tape involved in delivering and handling the mail the CORRECT way....its insane...even handling junk mail....believe me the PO has plenty of regulations....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder why the Postmaster General called for the privatization of the USPS so they could compete better?
> ...



and yea you would have to show me a link too Jr...the Postmaster and MANY and i mean MANY of the upper managers would be the first guys to lose their jobs if that happened.....i would really be kinda shocked if he indeed said that


----------



## Yukon (Jul 18, 2009)

Universal health Care is coming to you my GOP friends. Americans want it and they will get it. Thank God and Allah for Barack Obama  (that rhymes).


----------



## Citizen (Jul 18, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Universal health Care is coming to you my GOP friends. Americans want it and they will get it. Thank God and Allah for Barack Obama  (that rhymes).



As I posted on another thread, if the way the government takes care of our veterans through the Veterans Administration hospitals is any indication of government run health care, count me out.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Universal health Care is coming to you my GOP friends. Americans want it and they will get it. Thank God and Allah for Barack Obama  (that rhymes).



is health care insurance administered by the private sector, *universal* health care?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...


Is It Time to Privatize the Postal Service?
Dr. Gene Del Polito has served as the president of the Association for Postal Commerce for the past 20 years. Dr. Del Polito is highly regarded as an effective advocate on behalf of those who use mail for business communication and commerce. He has received several awards and is often sought as a speaker at postal conferences. 
*Marvin Runyon*: You talk about privatization. Well, we're being "privatized" every day by our competition--letter by letter, package by package. Competition is giving us plenty of incentive to improve. It's making us realize that if we're to be an innovative leader in the communications industry, we've got to get out there and compete for every postal dollar we get.

The only way to do that is to become more like a private company--in effect, to "corporatize" ourselves. And that is exactly what we're doing. When it comes to running a business, I learned a lot in my years at Ford and Nissan. I came to government, first to the Tennessee Valley Authority and then to the Postal Service, because I wanted to prove that the same practices could work in the public sector.

They do. TVA is a customer-driven, top-performing organization. It hasn't had a price increase since 1987 and has pledged to keep prices steady for a full decade, until at least 1997. It's proving that an organization that's part government and part business can be successful and competitive.

The Postal Service is also more businesslike than ever. We got a good start 25 years ago, when the Postal Reorganization Act combined our mission to serve everyone, everywhere, every day, with a mandate to operate like a business. And we've delivered.

We've become more businesslike as the act envisioned. Political affiliations no longer determine who gets what jobs. Postal management, with help from a board of directors similar to ones in the private sector, determines our strategic directions and capital investments. And we're self- supporting. Today, when it comes to postage rates, what you see is what you get. There's no longer a 25 percent hidden subsidy in the price of a stamp. No tax dollars fill our coffers. And the real price of a stamp when adjusted for inflation is about the same today as it was back in 1971.

Clearly, it's time to take the next step in postal reform. In recent weeks, as this subject has been discussed around the nation, a broad range of actions has been recommended. You will hear some more today. They've run the gamut from minor legislative changes to selling off the Postal Service lock, stock, and barrel to a private company.

But there is growing consensus that the answer lies between those two extremes. There is agreement that it's not time to get the government out of the business of delivering the mail. It's time to get the Postal Service into business for the American people by freeing it to compete.

Recent surveys affirm that point. A recent Lou Harris poll says that competition is good for the Postal Service. However, the survey results indicate that more than three-quarters of both business executives and consumers feel that, despite some flaws, the Postal Service is "the best way to provide mail delivery for everyone at a reasonable price."

A recent national survey by Opinion Research Corporation also found that the majority of Americans favor government delivery of the mail. Seventy-six percent favored keeping the current organization but making it more flexible. I've heard the same thing from business customers in a variety of sectors and in meetings with members of Congress and representatives of the administration. America doesn't want a different Postal Service--it wants the one it has to be more businesslike and responsive to its needs. 
Former PMG Marvin Runyon Dies at 79

*Marvin Runyon, U.S. postmaster general from 1992 to 1998, died May 3. He was 79.*


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


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



You are ignorant of history if anything.  The REASON of a public owned mail service is that it cannot go out of business like ALL of the others can and do.

What benefit could you possibly be lobbying for that could out weight a GAURANTEED delivery system?

Jeezuss are you people really THAT stupid?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Jeezuss....I am drawing a parallel between the USPs and the proposed UHC. The USPS loses money and is inefficient much like UHC would be. Although, UHC would lead to rationing care and long waits for basic health care.

I am not calling for the privatization of the USPS, the Postmaster General stated that.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

more doctors and hospitals and that won't happen...there should be some focus to increase supply to meet demand, you would think?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> more doctors and hospitals and that won't happen...there should be some focus to increase supply to meet demand, you would think?



Do you think more doctors and hospitals will be free? This cost would be in addition to the 1 trillion dollar price tag being floated around....


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > more doctors and hospitals and that won't happen...there should be some focus to increase supply to meet demand, you would think?
> ...



increasing the number of medical and nursing schools, both private and public, would be a good start in lowering the cost of medical school and that outrageous cost of such being passed on to us via higher prices.... due to the competition, and create more medical doctors as well...which are greatly needed.

what are your ideas on how to reduce costs long term jr?

care


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Increasing the number and medical and nursing schools wouldn't be free either.

The best way to reduce medical costs long term would be to change the obesity rates in America. 

Nearly four out of 10 adults in the USA will be obese within five years if people keep packing on pounds at the current rate - putting their health at risk, says one of the top obesity researchers.
Obesity Rate in USA
*Currently, about 31%, or about 59 million people, are obese, which is defined as roughly 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight. Almost 65% are either obese or overweight, 10 to 30 pounds over a healthy weight, which increases their chances of developing diabetes, heart disease, some types of cancer and a host of other health problems. *

The medical costs associated with treating these diseases will strain the health care system and economy in the years to come, experts say.

Americans are gaining one to two pounds a year, says James Hill, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver. Hill predicts that, at the current rate, 39% of Americans will be obese by 2008.

He's one of several national weight-loss experts who offer possible solutions to the obesity epidemic in Friday's journal Science. This report comes on the heels of a landmark report in January that showed being obese shaves seven years off a person's life, and just being overweight shortens a person's life span by about three years.

To stop gaining weight, people need to either burn 100 calories more a day with physical activity or eat 100 calories less every day, Hill says. They could cut back a little on portions, skip one soda or walk one extra mile a day, which would take about 15 to 20 minutes, he says. 


Maybe we should be advocating for universal exercise coverage in this country rather than UHC. Because the root cause of medical costs isn't lack of health care coverage its unhealthy lifestyles that is driving up medical costs.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



That makes sense...

When I was a child, we had gym class every day through elementary, middle and high school...

It was enjoyable and I learned an awful lot about many different sports along with enjoying the exercise and I think everyone else did as well.

we even had "presidential Fitness Awards" that we could win if we did certain physical tasks that were required and got a certificate from the PRESIDENT!  hahahaha, as a kid, that was pretty exciting and it encouraged us staying fit.....and playing sports.

Of course, I grew up in the age when we got our first black and white tv and only Dad controlled it, and of course no computers and stuff that keeps the kids sitting.  We played outside, and we played hard.

Now, many schools on tight budgets have cut gym to once a week I hear....?

enjoying being physical as a kid, I think helps the continuation of such as an adult...


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Agreed....making sure kids exercise and providing incentatives for healthy lifestyles would be a lot cheaper. Actually instituted correctly this program could save billions.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


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



um Jb.....you said the PMG of right now,John Potter said this, to Congress recently....where is that quote?....Marvin Runyon was for letting the post office run like a Private Business and be able to make as much money as they can and use it to keep the place up to date with the new technology instead of having to go through the hoops it has too get what it needs.....this article says nothing about he wanting to privitize the PO....


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



This is my biggest practical complaint in proposed government run health care. Some here don't seem to understand basic economics. When the price of something decreases, supply demanded increases. And just to cut anybody off at the pass that may try the ridiculous argument that health care is not like other goods and services, then why are we doing this? The goal is to reduce cost so that the people not using it because of the high cost now will. Increased demand on the system is a given folks. Is there someone here naive enough to tell me they think the supply of doctors and facilities we currently have can meet that demand?

So getting back to what you're saying care, I agree in principle that supply will need to increase to meet demand. But I'm sure the answer is more medical schools. After all that solution is predicated on the assumption that there is a shortage of schools for students qualified to become doctors. Ultimately is more practitioners that we need but they still must meet the current criteria to become so. I don't think lowering standards as a means of increasing supply is the way to go. More demand meat with lower quality supply is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> I am not calling for the privatization of the USPS, the Postmaster General stated that.



no....he did not....


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



i agree, i don't think the standards should be reduced, but more schools would reduce the cost of medical school due to competition and more qualified, intelligent, people could attend at the lower cost that were unable to afford it previously....

we have to increase our supply....hospitals, doctors, nurses, med techs...the boomers alone will demand it, and a shortage of such will keep prices higher than the market can truly afford.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



The only way to do that is to* become more like a private company--in effect, to "corporatize" ourselves.*  Maybe you missed this line Harry.


Here's what I said earlier Harry, can you point out where I said the current PMG?

I guess if I showed a quote from the US postmaster general calling for the privatization of the USPS so that they could compete, that wouldn't mean anything to you either, huh?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



do you know the difference between CORPORATIZE and PRIVATIZE?...what he said had nothing to do with PRIVATIZING the PO....he wanted to run it more like a private Co....not have to go through Congress to raise rates,buy new equipment etc....thats what he meant by CORPORATIZE ...and when you tell us that the PMG is calling for PRIVITIZING of the PO....gee yea i guess we would think its the guy in charge right now not a guy from 10-15 years ago...now show me a quote from the current PMG John Potter calling for privitization...ill be waiting....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



nice strawman...I never asserted that

I guess a private company is actually a public agency...silly me


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Jr....if you dont understand the quotes that you post....why post them?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



I get it, a private company is in fact a public agency. My bad...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > now show me a quote from the current PMG John Potter calling for privitization...ill be waiting..[/B]..
> ...



yes you did.....post no. 384......your quote....

I wonder why the Postmaster General called for the privatization of the USPS so they could compete better?

now when i read this im thinking the current PMG not some former PMG........if you meant some guy 15 years ago you should have said so.....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



I understand, Runyon wasn't PMG....understood


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Jr.....the guy wanted to RUN the Co. like a private one....not with all the red tape that binds the PO to all the govt. Regulations.....to CORPERATISE it ....to PRIVATISE it means to sell it to a private concern....like UPS for instance.....there is a difference....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



That was my point was it not, he wanted to eliminate the bureaucratic red tape of a public agency and make it like a big business or private company.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



ok lets let it go at that....a Govt owned Corp. run like a Private one....is that good?...dam your tough dude...


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Sounds good.


----------



## Yukon (Jul 20, 2009)

I just bought a new car from GM which is owned by the US Government.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> I just bought a new car from GM which is owned by the US Government.



Owning and operating/managing are two 'slightly' different things. What is your point?


----------



## Chris (Jul 20, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > I just bought a new car from GM which is owned by the US Government.
> ...



His point is that corporate greed destroyed the American economy.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 21, 2009)

Chris said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



You mean government greed and regulations combined with corporate greed and bad decision making destroyed the economy.

After all if the politicians were not receiving millions in campaign contributions from these same companies maybe they wouldn't have passed such sweethart regs for them.


----------

