# Do Americans favor the creation of a public health insurance?



## DavidS (Jun 17, 2009)

One poll says: Yes.

Now, who believes the polls, right? I mean polls are done by mostly left-leaning organizations, right?

Not this one. 

Okay, so this was a poll done by a conservative group that supports public health insurance, right?

No. This poll was done by a conservative group and PAID FOR by private health insurance companies.

Well, then the results must be very close, right?

No. This poll shows that over 80%, that's right, over 80% of Americans support the creation of public health insurance. 

New Poll Shows Tremendous Support for Public Health Care Option | OurFuture.org

The 2009 Health Confidence Survey: Public Opinion on Health Reform Varies; Strong Support for Insurance Market Reform and Public Plan Option, Mixed Response to Tax Cap | EBRI

Eighty-three percent of Americans favor and only 14 percent oppose creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase according to EBRI, a _conservative_ business research organization. This flatly contradicts conservatives loudest attack against President Obamas plan to provide quality, affordable health care for all. 
 The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) calls itself the most authoritative and objective source of information on the issues of employee retirement and health benefits. Founded in 1978, EBRI says it is the gold standard for private analysts and decision makers, government policymakers, the media, and the public. And EBRI is funded by many of the largest corporations in America. 
 EBRIs biggest donors include: AT&T, Bank of America, Boeing, General Dynamics, General Mills, IBM, JBMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Northop Grumman, Schering-Plough, Schwab, T.Rowe Price, UBS Financial, and Wal-Mart. EBRI also receives large contributions from the insurance industry, including: Blue Cross Blue Shield, CIGNA, Hartford, Kaiser Permanente, Massachusetts Mutual, Metropolitan Life, Union Labor Life, and UnitedHealth. 
 Heres who paid for the poll, as stated by EBRI: 
This survey was made possible with support from AARP, American Express, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Buck Consultants, Chevron, Deere & Company, IBM, Mercer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Principal Financial Group, Schering-Plough Corp., Shell Oil Company, The Commonwealth Fund, and Towers Perrin.​


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 17, 2009)

Social Security - the biggest, most complicated, most heavily regulated insurance company in the history of mankind is run by YOUR federal government at less than 1% for ALL overhead and administrative costs.

Don't tell me that We, The People can't efficiently run our own insurance program.

The less money required to send insurance executives to conferences in Cancun and pay bonuses, the more money available to pay claims for beneficiaries who have paid into the system and the cheaper the premiums need to be.

Duh!

-Joe


----------



## trueblue (Jun 17, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Social Security - the biggest, most complicated, most heavily regulated insurance company in the history of mankind is run by YOUR federal government at less than 1% for ALL overhead and administrative costs.
> 
> Don't tell me that We, The People can't efficiently run our own insurance program.
> 
> ...



Are you seriously using social security as the model for how healthcare should be run? Wow. I didn't know that anyone was a fan of social security. Social security has been leaking and flat-out losing money for years. Remember how Al Gore wanted to put it in a lock box? Because the program stinks. We put money in and somehow it disappears. By 2025 or 2030 it is supposed to be all dried up and gone, despite the chunk they take every month from my paycheck and yours. That is why, sir, I seriously doubt overhead costs are less than 1%. And there's no way this federal government can pull of a successful medical program, especially if social security, medicare and medicaid are examples for how they'd like to pull it off.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 17, 2009)

trueblue said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Social Security - the biggest, most complicated, most heavily regulated insurance company in the history of mankind is run by YOUR federal government at less than 1% for ALL overhead and administrative costs.
> ...



Believe it.  The administrative costs, ALL of them, including office space, wages, training, computers, heat, lights, the whole shit and shaboodle are less than 1 penny out of every tax dollar collected (just FICA taxes, mind you, not all taxes).  The reason?  SSA is managed and manned by professionals who are committed to excellence and willing to do the job for a _reasonable_ wage.

SSA is the most efficiently run insurance program ever conceived.  That's why the health insurance industry is lobbying so hard to keep their gravy train to themselves - they would fold under the competition.

SSA is solvent until 2035 - 2045 depending on what happens with the economy, and things are looking good for reform because starting in 1984 all newly hired members of congress were covered by SS, and civil service began being grandfathered out.  As soon as the old timers like Kennedy are replaced by leadership hired after 1984, you will see Social Security reform cooking nicely on the front burner.

(insert your favorite Deity here) bless the USA!

-Joe


----------



## foggedinn (Jun 17, 2009)

Only those Americans who have had to deal with private health insurance.


----------



## trueblue (Jun 18, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> trueblue said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Even if what you said was true and the SSA is the most efficient insurance program in the nation, it is still on track to crash, to fail, to run into the ground. That's not the kind of business model I want paying my hospital bills. Still, I gotta call you on this one. Do you have a source for all these claims? Or are you just making this stuff up?


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 18, 2009)

trueblue said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Social Security - the biggest, most complicated, most heavily regulated insurance company in the history of mankind is run by YOUR federal government at less than 1% for ALL overhead and administrative costs.
> ...


Then I'm sure you must not allow your parents to accept Social Security or Medicare.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 18, 2009)

DavidS said:


> One poll says: Yes.
> 
> Now, who believes the polls, right? I mean polls are done by mostly left-leaning organizations, right?
> 
> ...


Yes, I'd heard about this poll too. 80% of Americans in favor of a public option to healthcare is pretty convincing.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 18, 2009)

trueblue said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > trueblue said:
> ...



My source is a dear friend who works for the agency and his source is internal training publications, but everything I've said is of public record.  SSA is not on a track to crash, it is on track to need changes, which do need to be pushed for by the voters, but having congresscritters hired after 1984 being on Social Security instead of Civil Service helps - An easy way for the voters to help?  Dump an Incumbant!

-Joe


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 18, 2009)

At a long-awaited House subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, health-care professionals made it clear that they believe a single-payer system to be the best and perhaps only workable option for health care reform.

Advocates of single-payer universal healthcarethe system favored by most Americanscontinue to protest their exclusion from discussions on healthcare reform. On Tuesday, five doctors, nurses and single-payer advocates were arrested at a Senate Finance Committee hearing, bringing the total number of arrests in less than a week to thirteen. 

Baucus's Raucous Caucus: Doctors, Nurses and Activists Arrested Again for Protesting Exclusion of Single-Payer Advocates at Senate Hearing on Healthcare

60 percent of Americans in support of single-payer health insurance, advocates say Congress is excluding the majority of Americans from a critical national debate. Single-payer supporters say politicians are unfairly criticizing the idea as politically unfeasible without even having an open and public dialogue on its merits.


----------



## editec (Jun 18, 2009)

Who cares what Americans _favor?_

This reliance some of you have on polls, as though the people polled understand what's going on is totally absurd.

American are so badly being jerked around by misinformation  they don't know whether to shit or go blind.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 18, 2009)

editec said:


> Who cares what Americans _favor?_
> 
> This reliance some of you have on polls, as though the people polled understand what's going on is totally absurd.
> 
> American are so badly being jerked around by misinformation  they don't know whether to shit or go blind.


Those opposed are being fed right wing talking points against a public option. Do some research other than right wing/insurance websites.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 18, 2009)

DavidS said:


> One poll says: Yes.
> 
> Now, who believes the polls, right? I mean polls are done by mostly left-leaning organizations, right?
> 
> ...



Many Americans favor a public plan in principle, but the real question is, do they support it if it will raise their taxes, increase their health insurance premiums or increase the deficit?


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 18, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > One poll says: Yes.
> ...


A public option certainly won't raise anyone's insurance premiums.
Americans aren't as stupid as you assume.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 18, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > One poll says: Yes.
> ...




Think about how much money you *and* your employer spend on your health care.

Nationwide, that is a SHIT-PILE of money!  

Even poorly managed it would go a long way to paying for health care if the private insurance profits were removed from the equation.

-Joe


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 18, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares what Americans _favor?_
> ...



Editec isn't talking about him/herself.  And he/she is right about most people.

But you are right too.  100%.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 18, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...



And everyone would be covered.

How come we give murderers court appointed lawyers for practically nothing but we don't give sick people healthcare?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 18, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...



From what I've seen by looking at some annual reports of large health insurance companies, profits as a percentage of gross revenues average only about 3%, so if that's the only argument for a public plan, it's not much of an argument.  You could argue that administrative costs as a percentage of revenues appear to be significantly lower for our existing public plan, Medicare, than for private insurance companies, but some of that difference appears to be the result of differences in accounting between the government and the private sector and when you factor in the higher returns private plans get from their investments than Medicare gets from its Treasuries, it's not at all clear that a public plan offering the same coverage as a private plan would be significantly cheaper unless the rates were kept artificially low and this would mean either higher taxes or larger deficits.  

On the contrary, there is good reason to think a coverage from a public plan would cost more than from a private plan because there would be tremendous political pressure to include the expanded benefits and terms of service Obama has advocated in a public plan, such as accepting pre existing conditions at standard rates and expanded mental health benefits.  Including these expanded benefits and terms of service would make the public plan more expensive than private plans, having the effect that only those with pre existing conditions or in need of extensive mental health benefits or other expanded benefits would choose the public plan, thus further driving up its costs.  There are only two ways the government could keep the public plan price competitive with private plans: raise taxes or incur larger deficits to keep premiums artificially low or require all employers to provide the same expanded coverage the public plan did, thus raising the cost of health insurance for US companies and their employees and making US companies less competitive with foreign companies with all the negative economic consequences this would entail.  

Also worrisome is the fact that our current public plan, Medicare, will go broke in about five years, according to the last estimate I've seen, because Congress has irresponsibly yielded to political pressure for years and not raised the payroll taxes that are supposed to fund Medicare high enough to keep it solvent, and now these same politicans want us to believe they will behave responsibly if they are allowed to create a new public plan.

Obama wants to rush this thing through Congress so you will not have time to think about these things.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 18, 2009)

sealybobo said:


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



There is no reason to think a public plan has anything to do with universal coverage.  For example, the Kennedy-Dodd bill would include a public plan and leave an estimated 37 million Americans without insurance coverage.  Those currently uninsured who would receive it under this bill would get it because of insurance subsidies that have nothing to do with a public plan.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 18, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...


We've got FedEx and UPS competing with the US Mail. Does anyone think that's a bad idea?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 18, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


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



Ok. now add to that 3% for the shareholders (which is significant on its own) the costs to maintain the executive class, the costs for the lawyers needed to keep from paying claims, advertising, public relations and let's not forget government lobbying efforts, (that alone would pay for a few pre-existing conditions).

These are just the first few off the top of my head... Can you think of more health-care premium dollars that would be better spent on patient care?

The only difference between a private bureaucracy and a public bureaucracy is that the private one costs more and does a better job of skimming money off the top.  That should _say_ something in this country!

-Joe


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 18, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Heck no!  

But there is a difference - FedEx, UPS and The USPS actually *do* something.  

All you need to have an insurance company is a big pile of money and a computer.  Insurance isn't an industry... it's a tracking system for payments to other industries.  Why should there be risk-worthy profits in that?

-Joe


----------



## Soaring (Jun 18, 2009)

Let's make it clear that medicare is not free.  I paid into the system for the 36 years that I worked, and I am still paying 96 dollars a month into the system along with paying for my secondary medical insurance.  However, I still prefer the current system over what Obama is proposing.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 18, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> trueblue said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



He won't have to tell them not to accept SS or Medicare, it's going bankrupt on its own.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 18, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...



Lmao....
Government waste would eat up the private insurance profits and still be demanding to be fed....


----------



## jreeves (Jun 18, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Would the 10 million non-American citizens that are uninsured(that are counted in the 50 million uninsured) be covered by the Kennedy-Dodd bill?


----------



## jreeves (Jun 18, 2009)

sealybobo said:


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



Because we have a Constitution....


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 18, 2009)

"Private insurers consistently spend more on overhead and administration than Medicare. To anyone who shares the broad prejudice against government, the difference will be startling, although these numbers are very well known to health experts. The average overhead cost of *Medicare is roughly 2 or 3 percent*, far below the administrative *costs of private insurers, which range between 27 and 40 percent."*

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090610_why_so_scared_of_a_public_plan/


----------



## jreeves (Jun 18, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> "Private insurers consistently spend more on overhead and administration than Medicare. To anyone who shares the broad prejudice against government, the difference will be startling, although these numbers are very well known to health experts. The average overhead cost of *Medicare is roughly 2 or 3 percent*, far below the administrative *costs of private insurers, which range between 27 and 40 percent."*



I would dare to say a majority of the costs of private insurers have more to do with administrative costs. This would be due to a sue first society....Medicare doesn't exactly have to worry about being sued...


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > "Private insurers consistently spend more on overhead and administration than Medicare. To anyone who shares the broad prejudice against government, the difference will be startling, although these numbers are very well known to health experts. The average overhead cost of *Medicare is roughly 2 or 3 percent*, far below the administrative *costs of private insurers, which range between 27 and 40 percent."*
> ...


Nothing at all to do with multi-million dollar salaries, private Gulfstreams, or golfing in Scotland?


----------



## jreeves (Jun 18, 2009)

Political Junky said:


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



or multi-million dollar turtle tunnels, multi-million dollar fly research....


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


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



Not if We, The People were to revisit the definition of We, The People.

If not our responsibility, whose?

-Joe


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > "Private insurers consistently spend more on overhead and administration than Medicare. To anyone who shares the broad prejudice against government, the difference will be startling, although these numbers are very well known to health experts. The average overhead cost of *Medicare is roughly 2 or 3 percent*, far below the administrative *costs of private insurers, which range between 27 and 40 percent."*
> ...



Perhaps that's because when Medicare gets a claim they pay it using a definitive rule book instead of hiring a lawyer to keep a precedent from being set..... 

-Joe


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 18, 2009)

Here is the biggest problem.  If we don't make health insurance mandatory, nothing will keep costs from rising, and there is no other way to insure everyone.  Either you have a one payer system that is, for the most part, paid for by taxes, and everyone is covered, or you have a mostly private system where insurance is mandatory and no one can be denied.  Rates are based on the over overall risk pool

This is one thing the Hillary was 100% correct about.  You cannot have universal healthcare unless everyone pays something into the system.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 18, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


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



Based on our experience with Medicare, the main difference between a private plan and a public plan is that the private plan will charge enough to remain solvent and the public plan will yield to political pressures and become insolvent.  

In addition, as I explained above, a public plan will have to include expanded benefits that will raise its cost above the cost of private plans and either force you and your employer to pay more for your health insurance or cause taxes to be increased or create larger deficits.  There is no basis in fact or logic for believing that a public plan will lower our overall health insurance costs, and there are good reasons for believing it will cause them to increase.


----------



## trueblue (Jun 19, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> trueblue said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



What my parents do isn't my business, but I am grateful that they have their own retirement accounts and don't have to freeload of the government. That turns the "golden years" into the "trailer park years" real fast...


----------



## jreeves (Jun 19, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



I understand, but how has that We, the people done lately? As far as getting politicians to actually represent their interests? When We, The People aren't looking our representatives are paying their special interests and filling their own pockets.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 19, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


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



Their is also list of coverage through private insurance...Do you think Medicare never denies coverage?


----------



## JW Frogen (Jun 19, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Even poorly managed it would go a long way to paying for health care if the private insurance profits were removed from the equation.
> 
> -Joe




One does not even have to remove private innovation or incentive, in Australia the doctors and most providers are private but the state acts as a universal insurer. Any actuary will tell you the more people in a plan the more cost effective the insurance is. Still, one can also get private insurance here, but it is far more cost effective because it has to compete with the universal insurance.

Yet minimal cost is still required from the public insurance to tie usage with need and maintain the knowledge that no healthcare, of any kind is free.

Certainly the US is doing something wrong when it spends way more per capita than any other developed nation yet gets poorer health outcomes than most.

The problem Obama has is he just gave Congress a one trillion dollar blank check (much of which did not address the cause of the economic crises) and so it is now going to be more difficult to find the funding to start such a system.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Are you whining, or proposing a solution?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/79107-if-asked-would-you.html

-Joe


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Of course they do but the fine print in the government program is a helluva lot more legible and the people making the decisions in Medicare do not have a vested personal profit interest in denying a claim.

-Joe


----------



## jreeves (Jun 19, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



So the solution isn't to bankrupt this country and still have 37 million uninsured


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 19, 2009)

Socialised medicine is a better prospect that what you have now. Both feed off each other. They're pretty similar if you sit down and think about it...


----------



## editec (Jun 19, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares what Americans _favor?_
> ...


 
Do some research?

God, that's funny.

Yeah, okay, I'll do some research.


----------



## editec (Jun 19, 2009)

YOu people who imagine that the solutions to the problem of escalating HC costs can be found in merely giving the problem to government or turning it entirely over to private industry are missing the big picture, I think.

The reason HC costs are escalating has very little to do with whether we use a socialistic solution or a market solution.

The conditions that are driving up costs will continue to plague us regardless of what solution we employ.

FYI the USA's expenditure for HC has risen to 18% of the GNP.

It has risen from about 5% of the GDP when I was a boy.

You folks who are young can expect to see HC rationing in your lives no matter what system we put together.

The market will ration HC with market forces, or the government will ration HC by fiat, but either way, rationing HC is in our future.

Get used to it.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 19, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Socialised medicine is a better prospect that what you have now. Both feed off each other. They're pretty similar if you sit down and think about it...



Yeah they really are like one another, except one has long lines and crappy medical equipment and will cost us an additional 1 to 2 trillion dollars..........


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Socialised medicine is a better prospect that what you have now. Both feed off each other. They're pretty similar if you sit down and think about it...
> ...



Maybe that is the way it is in the US...

However, I'll say this - if you pay premiums or taxes what's the difference. I doubt if you have a serious heart operation that your premiums would cover it. So you are leeching off the other premium providers. Sucking from a different teet is still sucking from a teet...


----------



## jreeves (Jun 19, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



yep my 2 million dollar health care coverage probably wouldn't cover it.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



In my humble opinion, _part_ of the solution is to remove the profit motive from the tracking of premiums and payments from _basic_ health care.  I am politically active and I am pushing for change in that direction.  Leaving things as they are is not an option, I am open to suggestions that make sense. 

You?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Socialised medicine is a better prospect that what you have now. Both feed off each other. They're pretty similar if you sit down and think about it...
> ...



One way or the other, single payer costs less.

You guys say, "my taxes will go up", but you never admit that your costs will go down more in other areas.  

Yes, if the government runs single payer, you will pay more to the government, but less to the for profits healthcare ceo's who make more the more they deny you.  So what?  

And the doctors are still for profit.  The majority of them want this and 75% of us want it.  But the insurance providers and lobbyists can stop it, even though so  many of us want it.  Because they can squash any reform they want.

And it might not be so easy for them if they didn't have house slaves like you out there fighting for them.


----------



## Yukon (Jun 19, 2009)

The question of whether Americans want a socialized medicare system would be better put to a man who needs an operation and has no insurance. Ask the question then and I guarantee the answer will be a 100% YES to socialized medicare.

It is easy to sit back when you are healthy and ask the question.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 19, 2009)

editec said:


> YOu people who imagine that the solutions to the problem of escalating HC costs can be found in merely giving the problem to government or turning it entirely over to private industry are missing the big picture, I think.
> 
> The reason HC costs are escalating has very little to do with whether we use a socialistic solution or a market solution.
> 
> ...



Dude, the market already rations health care.  Even with the private payment tracking bureaucracy my employer and I split the cost for now, I still can't see a doctor about a problem stemming from trauma that happened to me 20 years ago when my payments and premiums were being tracked by a different private bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, both private bureaucracies sport multiple executives with million dollar bonus plans, paid because they figured out ways to deny claims like mine.

It just doesn't make sense.

-Joe


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 19, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > YOu people who imagine that the solutions to the problem of escalating HC costs can be found in merely giving the problem to government or turning it entirely over to private industry are missing the big picture, I think.
> ...


Of course it's rationed by the bureaucrats in the private insurance companies...you're right.  Those opposed to a public option conveniently overlook that.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 19, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



We need to look at the reasons *why* the rationing occurs in either bureaucracy: 

> Public bureaucrats ration because a claim does not meet specific criteria established by congress.​
> Private bureaucrats ration because they can enhance their paycheck if they are successful in denying claims.​
-Joe


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 19, 2009)

75% want single payer or a public plan.  And Democrats have 60 seats once the corrupt Minnesota Supreme Court stops stalling and seats Franken.  

But they are waiting for a recess that is coming up.  Stall, stall, stall.  Obstruct, repeat.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jun 19, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> 75% want single payer or a public plan.  And Democrats have 60 seats once the corrupt Minnesota Supreme Court stops stalling and seats Franken.
> 
> But they are waiting for a recess that is coming up.  Stall, stall, stall.  Obstruct, repeat.



Watch your health-care dollars at work, lobbying congress to keep the private bureaucracies deep in the gravy train.

It's revolting.  

-Joe


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 19, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...


Well, in the private bureaucracy they ration in order to profit. It's all about profit, while their CEOs make $25,000,000.+ salaries and fly around on private jets.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 19, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > 75% want single payer or a public plan.  And Democrats have 60 seats once the corrupt Minnesota Supreme Court stops stalling and seats Franken.
> ...



And the right doesn't complain about those costs being passed on to consumers.

Healthcare lobbyists will still bribe our politicians, but instead of it being insurance lobbyists, it'll be lobbyists that represent the doctors.  

Oh, and perscription drugs won't be covered with single payer, will it?

So the insurance companies can have that.

And if they start gouging us on that, as if they don't already, we'll socialize that too.  And not just the losses, but the profits too.


----------



## Yukon (Jun 19, 2009)

The question of whether Americans want a socialized medicare system would be better put to a man who needs an operation and has no insurance. Ask the question then and I guarantee the answer will be a 100% YES to socialized medicare.

It is easy to sit back when you are healthy and ask the question.


----------



## oreo (Jun 19, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> trueblue said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



They have already come out with a statement that SS will be in default or serious trouble long before they anticipated.

Social security/Medicare--plus the management of Fannie/Freddie tells me how enept our government is at manageing anything.

I am an employer.  Now imagine what you could have done with 12.6% of your gross wages- through-out your entire working years--invested in safe-secure government bonds--that pay out 4-6% returns?   Compare that to what social security pays to you--about 1-1/2% & the difference is astronomical.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 19, 2009)

first, let's define uninsured and get an accurate number of people who are actually uninsured not those that are eligible for medicaid and schip but not enrolled, not those that are illegal alien, not those that can afford insurance and choose not to buy it.

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.
> ** Another 4.3 million are eligible for free or heavily subsidized government health insurance (again, either Medcaid or SCHIP), but have not yet signed up*.  While these people are not pre-enrolled in a health insurance program and are therefore counted as uninsured, if they were to go to an emergency room (or a free clinic), they would be automatically enrolled in that program by the provider after receiving medical care.  There&#8217;s an interesting philosophical question that I will skip about whether they are, in fact, uninsured, if technically they are protected from risk.
> ** Another 9.3 million are non-citizens*.  I cannot break that down into documented vs. undocumented citizens.
> ...



seems to me the number of 45.7 million being thrown at us is a flat out lie.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 19, 2009)

LOL, Hennesssey worked for the Bush administration. You really trust his numbers?


----------



## "b0xcar*girl* (Jun 19, 2009)

trueblue said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Social Security - the biggest, most complicated, most heavily regulated insurance company in the history of mankind is run by YOUR federal government at less than 1% for ALL overhead and administrative costs.
> ...



I completely agree with the opinion on SS, Medicare and Medicaid. No offense to those who benefit, but I am absolutely sick and tied of paying for everybody else's stuff. I could continue on with a multitude of topics here, but I'll shut up.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 19, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> LOL, Hennesssey worked for the Bush administration. You really trust his numbers?



I trust the Census Bureau, which stated that 10 million of the 47 million are non-Americans.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 19, 2009)

oreo said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > trueblue said:
> ...


And would have lost all of that investment in the Bush crash.
Bushies wanted private investments to feed their buds in the investment business.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 19, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



The people who didn't invest their money responsibly would have lost a lot. But they would be enjoying returns this year. Historically speaking(including the Great Depression), investment ROIs in the stock market have wildly outperformed any government program ROI.


----------



## Immanuel (Jun 19, 2009)

I might, emphasize might, be for a public health insurance plan.  As long as, emphasize as long as, it is not the only plan available.  President Obama's plan has always been to create his insurance plan and prevent other plans from competing with his plan.  Sorry, but I have a problem with that.

If the government wants to create a public health insurance plan for people who can't afford health insurance, that is one thing, as long as, emphasize as long as, it is not subsidized by people who pay for their own insurance, but I am most definitely opposed to any plan that forces me to rely on a government bean counter for my healthcare.

Immie


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> yep my 2 million dollar health care coverage probably wouldn't cover it.



You're not the brightest spark are ya Reevesie. Reread my post again....


----------



## jreeves (Jun 19, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Grumpy, go to bed...If you want socialized medicine in your country and wait for specialist or an MRI go ahead. I enjoy the best procedures in the world and your country I'm sure is sucking off the teet of my country's research. One way we could keep medical costs down in this country is to start making other countries pay for our research.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Grumpy, go to bed...If you want socialized medicine in your country and wait for specialist or an MRI go ahead. I enjoy the best procedures in the world and your country I'm sure is sucking off the teet of my country's research. One way we could keep medical costs down in this country is to start making other countries pay for our research.



We don't wait. If I need an MRI urgently, I get one. No waiting, no nothing. Sometimes we pay for doctors visits. There is a mixture here of insured and public. The only waiting lists in the public service are for elective surgery. Sure, if you want a knee replaced it might take you 18 months, but if its ultra-urgent it gets done straight away. That's what happens when you listen to the harpies who don't know what they are talking about and just say things to fit their arguments without even living here or knowing the reality..

If you are to use the research argument it cuts both ways...You think you invented everything? The person who led the team that split the atom was a NZer....you want to go down that road? I won't even go into the combustion engine or a myriad of other things. Like most of your arguments


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 19, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Grumpy, go to bed...If you want socialized medicine in your country and wait for specialist or an MRI go ahead. I enjoy the best procedures in the world and your country I'm sure is sucking off the teet of my country's research. One way we could keep medical costs down in this country is to start making other countries pay for our research.
> ...


Cool come back. Are you in New Zealand?


----------



## jreeves (Jun 19, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Grumpy, go to bed...If you want socialized medicine in your country and wait for specialist or an MRI go ahead. I enjoy the best procedures in the world and your country I'm sure is sucking off the teet of my country's research. One way we could keep medical costs down in this country is to start making other countries pay for our research.
> ...



I'm sure the combustion engine has everything to do with medical research dipshit.

New Zealand Adults' Health Care System Views and Experiences, 2001 - The Commonwealth Fund
The Commonwealth Fund 2001 International Health Policy Survey finds that New Zealanders, on average, were more satisfied with their health care system in 2001 than they were in 1998. *Yet a majority of adults in New Zealand continue to believe their nations health care system needs major improvements.* Compared with people in the other four countries surveyed Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States New Zealanders were more likely to rate the quality of their health care and physicians positively. *On several measures of health care access, however, respondents reported experiences indicate there are inequities based on income and ethnicity.* Maori as well as lower-income adults were notably more likely to report going without needed care or experiencing difficulties getting care when needed. *Access concerns were often related to cost.*

This data brief based on The Commonwealth Fund 2001 International Health Policy Survey focuses on the health system views and experiences of New Zealanders. Comparative findings from the five-nation survey were reported in the May/June issue of Health Affairs. The data brief includes additional analysis of the survey that does not appear in the Health Affairs article.

The New Zealand Health Care System
New Zealand has an excellent public health system, but *its focus is on acute care.* *There are long waiting lists for treatments that are not considered immediately life-threatening. A non life-threatening illness can still leave you debilitated and in a lot of pain.* For this reason, almost a third of New Zealanders have health insurance.

There are two main types of health insurance - Comprehensive Care policies and Major Medical or Surgical Care policies. Comprehensive Care policies are more expensive, but cover all of your medical costs up to a certain limit.

Major Medical, Surgical Care or Hospital Only policies cover surgery and specialist visits rather than day-to-day medical costs. This type of insurance is much more affordable - around $100 a month for a typical family of four, but this varies with excesses, pre-existing conditions and other variables. For more information please see my article on medical insurance.


Yes so some bureaucrat decides what is urgent and not urgent....thanks but no thanks.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 20, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...


Some bureaucrat working for your private insurance company makes life and death decisions for you at present ... like it or not.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 20, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



They don't decide if I wait for several months in pain. I can go to my doctor or the hospital anytime I wish....
Also, I know exactly what my insurance covers, its laid out clearly in my statement of benefits


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 20, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> LOL, Hennesssey worked for the Bush administration. You really trust his numbers?



then prove the numbers wrong and you better not use any figures given by someone from the Obama or Clinton administrations or any democrat now serving or any lobby groups pushing for government health care because  clearly none of them can be trusted to tell the truth if it means they have to stop telling us that health care is a "ticking time bomb"


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 20, 2009)

jreeves said:


> I'm sure the combustion engine has everything to do with medical research dipshit.
> 
> New Zealand Adults' Health Care System Views and Experiences, 2001 - The Commonwealth Fund
> The Commonwealth Fund 2001 International Health Policy Survey finds that New Zealanders, on average, were more satisfied with their health care system in 2001 than they were in 1998. *Yet a majority of adults in New Zealand continue to believe their nations health care system needs major improvements.* Compared with people in the other four countries surveyed Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States New Zealanders were more likely to rate the quality of their health care and physicians positively. *On several measures of health care access, however, respondents reported experiences indicate there are inequities based on income and ethnicity.* Maori as well as lower-income adults were notably more likely to report going without needed care or experiencing difficulties getting care when needed. *Access concerns were often related to cost.*
> ...



Well, if you're gonna bring up such stupid things as 'we invented it" BS to back your argument, why stop at medical?

As for the rest of your post...your point? As I said, if it is urgent, you get the operation. End of story..


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 20, 2009)

jreeves said:


> They don't decide if I wait for several months in pain. I can go to my doctor or the hospital anytime I wish....
> Also, I know exactly what my insurance covers, its laid out clearly in my statement of benefits



Same in NZ. If you are in pain, you get the operation. Isn't socialised medicine a bitch? My father-in-law is getting his fourth replacement (three hips and one knee) in the space of 20 years....


----------



## jreeves (Jun 20, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > They don't decide if I wait for several months in pain. I can go to my doctor or the hospital anytime I wish....
> ...



That's not what the informational website about your nationalized health care states. It states that you could be in pain for months. That's why a third of your population has the "evil" private healthcare in addition to your public ran health care.....


----------



## jreeves (Jun 20, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure the combustion engine has everything to do with medical research dipshit.
> ...



Uh...only because everything else is completely irrelevant. I was only referring to medical research.


----------



## Yukon (Jun 20, 2009)

Poor Americans, it is so sad to know you will die without Health Insurance. How sad, how pitiful, how truly capitalistic.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Poor Americans, it is so sad to know you will die without Health Insurance. How sad, how pitiful, how truly capitalistic.



I have health insurance hack, so does 95% of Americans. Poor Canadians they have to come to America receive treatments that aren't available in their country. Poor Canadians they have to wait months for simple procedures and simple medical imaging. Then when they do receive medical imaging who knows if it is accurate because the equipment is 20 or 30 years old....


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 20, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Poor Americans, it is so sad to know you will die without Health Insurance. How sad, how pitiful, how truly capitalistic.
> ...


You have fallen for all the propaganda fed you by the AMA, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies. Do some research for yourself. Aren't you curious?


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 20, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, Hennesssey worked for the Bush administration. You really trust his numbers?
> ...


I feel just the opposite of you. You probably believe the crap that tobacco companies feed you about tobacco not being bad for you.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 20, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



I have done my own research and posted some of it here. Now if you want to debate some of the facts I have posted then go ahead.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Poor Americans, it is so sad to know you will die without Health Insurance. How sad, how pitiful, how truly capitalistic.



don't you worry about me Puke-On My insurance is just fine thank you


----------



## Yukon (Jun 20, 2009)

Believe whatever you wish to about the Canadian Health Care System. Ours is the best in the world, Canadian health care is available to ALL Canadians. Americans are brainwashed by the Insurance Companies to believe our system is inferior. How really sad you people are, how truly pathetic.....


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 20, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Um ... tobacco companies never made that claim/denial. Not once has anyone shown where tobacco companies have actually said their product is "good" for you ... but on the flip side, the rather deadly "health" food do all the time ... double standard much?


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 20, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


My, you are uninformed. You never saw the hearings where tobacco and their hired doctors stated that cigarettes don't cause cancer?


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 20, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Poor Americans, it is so sad to know you will die without Health Insurance. How sad, how pitiful, how truly capitalistic.
> ...


Unfortunately, it's not true that 95% of Americans have health insurance.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 20, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



First, that isn't saying it's "good" for you, secondly they had no evidence and still have very little, though I won't say it doesn't, I also won't believe it until I see some hard evidence. so far, what does cause lung cancer is in the smoke, but then it's also in many other products that are labeled as "good" for you, yet those are not attacked at all. To add to the hypocrisy of the anti-smoking lobby, the other sources of said chemicals are not only in much larger usage but also completely unavoidable. Tobacco companies put out a product, people choose whether to buy it or not, if people use anything without first looking up the information themselves, then they are the fools not the company.

Are you a fool who needs the government to tell you what to think and what's "good" for you? Again, all the "healthy" food products contain cancer causing chemicals (with even stronger evidence than tobacco to support that) yet they are not only allowed, they can claim they are "healthy" and "good" for you.


----------



## Yukon (Jun 20, 2009)

Approximately 45 million Americans have NO Health Insurance.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Believe whatever you wish to about the Canadian Health Care System. Ours is the best in the world, Canadian health care is available to ALL Canadians. Americans are brainwashed by the Insurance Companies to believe our system is inferior. How really sad you people are, how truly pathetic.....



As usual, there are no facts associated with your posts only your personal opinion.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 20, 2009)

jreeves said:


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


I read some of your information on NZ healthcare and it looks like they have great health coverage.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 20, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



U.S. POPClock Projection

Health Care Lie: '47 Million Uninsured Americans'
 The number of the uninsured who aren&#8217;t citizens is nearly 10 million on its own, invalidating all the claims of 40+ million &#8220;Americans&#8221; without health insurance.



     &#8220;It&#8217;s really indefensible that we now have more than 45 million uninsured Americans, 9 million of whom are children, and the vast majority of whom are from working families,&#8221; said Sen. Hillary Clinton in a May 31 speech.



    It was typical spin and easy to find. ABC medical expert Dr. Tim Johnson cited the incorrect data as he praised a "bold" and "politically brilliant" universal coverage plan on the April 26 &#8220;Good Morning America.&#8221;



     &#8220;It&#8217;s bold because it does propose to cover all Americans, including the 47 million now who are uninsured, within five years,&#8221; said Johnson.



     In his propagandumentary &#8220;SiCKO&#8221; that favored the socialist health care systems of Canada, Britain, France and Cuba, Michael Moore made the fantastic claim that almost 50 million Americans are uninsured.



     &#8220;SiCKO: There are nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance,&#8221; quoted Moore&#8217;s Web site.



      However, the Census Bureau report &#8220;Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,&#8221; puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.



     A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are &#8220;not a citizen.&#8221; *Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million.*



     Moore should have paid attention to that fact, since he agrees that being &#8220;an American&#8221; matters to get health insurance.



     &#8220;That&#8217;s the only preexisting condition that should exist. I am an American. That&#8217;s it,&#8221; said Moore in footage aired by ABC&#8217;s &#8220;Nightline&#8221; on June 13.



     That isn&#8217;t the only problem with the numbers currently being used.

*Subtracting non-citizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it, about 20 million people are left &#8211; less than 7 percent of the population.*

Turner also pointed out that* &#8220;45 percent of the uninsured are going to have insurance within four months [according to the Congressional Budget Office],&#8221; because many are transitioning between jobs and most people get health insurance through their employers.*

http://www.aei.org/issue/27131
Statement 2: Some 47 million Americans do not have health insurance.

This number from the Census Bureau is often cited as evidence that the health system is failing for many American families. Yet by masking tremendous heterogeneity in personal circumstances, the figure exaggerates the magnitude of the problem.

To start with, the 47 million includes about 10 million residents who are not American citizens. Many are illegal immigrants. Even if we had national health insurance, they would probably not be covered.

*The number also fails to take full account of Medicaid, the government's health program for the poor. For instance, it counts millions of the poor who are eligible for Medicaid but have not yet applied. These individuals, who are healthier, on average, than those who are enrolled, could always apply if they ever needed significant medical care. They are uninsured in name only.

The 47 million also includes many who could buy insurance but have not. The Census Bureau reports that 18 million of the uninsured have annual household incomes of more than $50,000, which puts them in the top half of the income distribution. About a quarter of the uninsured have been offered employer-provided insurance but declined coverage.

Of course, millions of Americans have trouble getting health insurance. But they number far less than 47 million, and they make up only a few percent of the population of 300 million.*

*Any reform should carefully focus on this group to avoid disrupting the vast majority for whom the system is working. We do not nationalize an industry simply because a small percentage of the workforce is unemployed. Similarly, we should be wary of sweeping reforms of our health system if they are motivated by the fact that a small percentage of the population is uninsured.*


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 20, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Believe whatever you wish to about the Canadian Health Care System. Ours is the best in the world, Canadian health care is available to ALL Canadians. Americans are brainwashed by the Insurance Companies to believe our system is inferior. How really sad you people are, how truly pathetic.....
> ...


Yes, personal opinion based on experience with the Canadian system, of which you have none.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 20, 2009)

Political Junky said:


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



That's the reason a third of NZ's that can afford private insurance run for it, correct?


----------



## jreeves (Jun 20, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Your personal opinion with no facts is duly noted....


----------



## Yukon (Jun 20, 2009)

Canadian Health Care System is the BEST in the world. USA health care System is NON-EXISTANT.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 20, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



then PJ you or Pukon show us a stat that shows Canada having the finest in the world....i will even settle for top 3....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Canadian Health Care System is the BEST in the world. USA health care System is NON-EXISTANT.



show us proof oh Chrissy of the North....

according to this your a fucking liar....

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html


----------



## jreeves (Jun 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Canadian Health Care System is the BEST in the world. USA health care System is NON-EXISTANT.



troll


----------



## jreeves (Jun 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Canadian Health Care System is the BEST in the world. USA health care System is NON-EXISTANT.



Without facts...opinions are just like aholes, everyone has one and most of them stink.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 20, 2009)

At the end of the day, in NZ and US, we both have a private and public health system. Both are forms of leeching and both should be part of the system IMO.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 20, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> At the end of the day, in NZ and US, we both have a private and public health system. Both are forms of leeching and both should be part of the system IMO.



America already has a leeching form of public health insurance its called Medicaid.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 20, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> At the end of the day, in NZ and US, we both have a private and public health system. Both are forms of leeching and both should be part of the system IMO.



Doc. what many in these threads fail to realize is there is a difference in a "good health care system" and "good health care"...if you have a great system but a hell of a lot of people are getting sub care....then how good is it?....i feel in my country,the technology and med. knowledge may be no.1....but if only certain people have access to it,then the "care" is lacking....and this is what has to change....christ if i needed to have some kind of test,and the institution across the street had the machine i needed to determine what is wrong with me,and what needed to be done to treat it,but i dont have access to it,then for me....WHAT THE HELL GOOD IS IT?....and this kind of shit happens....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 20, 2009)

oh shit here is more Pukon.....

Universal Health Scare #31: Canadian Health Care System On The Verge Of Bankrupting That Country | Political Vindication


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 20, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> oh shit here is more Pukon.....
> 
> Universal Health Scare #31: Canadian Health Care System On The Verge Of Bankrupting That Country | Political Vindication


My God, you believe that wingnut site? It spews hate for Obama and repeats drivel about Canadian Healthcare that we've all heard for years.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 20, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Canadian Health Care System is the BEST in the world. USA health care System is NON-EXISTANT.
> ...


Thanks, how does that make you feel to see the United States at #37?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 20, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > oh shit here is more Pukon.....
> ...



oh really.....like i have said in boocoo posts before this one....i know 4 people from Canada one is an ER nurse and she says the Canadian system has plenty of problems...now i notice that you or Pukon havent posted jack shit about Canada being no. one in the world,and since he said this ,you jumped on board and defended his statement,i showed something from the WHO saying Canada is no. 30 worldwide....of course to an asswipe like you they are probably just another "wingnut site".....put up or shut the fuck up dildo...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 20, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



the topic asswipe is Pukeface saying Canada is the best in the world....you dont have shit do ya?.....you are like this in quit a few posts Junkhead....you talk and make statements and when called out you got shit....back it up OR FUCK OFF and leave this kind of stuff to those who can produce something...


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 20, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


Canadian and American health care systems compared - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please read carefully.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 20, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted | Physicians for a National Health Program

1. Canada&#8217;s health care system is &#8220;socialized medicine.&#8221;
False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly for the state. In Canada (and many other countries with universal care), doctors run their own private practices, just like they do in the US. The only difference is that every doctor deals with one insurer, instead of 150. And that insurer is the provincial government, which is accountable to the legislature and the voters if the quality of coverage is allowed to slide.

The proper term for this is &#8220;single-payer insurance.&#8221; In talking to Americans about it, the better phrase is &#8220;Medicare for all.&#8221;

2. Doctors are hurt financially by single-payer health care.
True and False. Doctors in Canada do make less than their US counterparts. But they also have lower overhead, and usually much better working conditions. A few reasons for this:

First, as noted, they don&#8217;t have to charge higher fees to cover the salary of a full-time staffer to deal with over a hundred different insurers, all of whom are bent on denying care whenever possible. In fact, most Canadian doctors get by quite nicely with just one assistant, who cheerfully handles the phones, mail, scheduling, patient reception, stocking, filing, and billing all by herself in the course of a standard workday.

Second, they don&#8217;t have to spend several hours every day on the phone cajoling insurance company bean counters into doing the right thing by their patients. My doctor in California worked a 70-hour week: 35 hours seeing patients, and another 35 hours on the phone arguing with insurance companies. My Canadian doctor, on the other hand, works a 35-hour week, period. She files her invoices online, and the vast majority are simply paid &#8212; quietly, quickly, and without hassle. There is no runaround. There are no fights. Appointments aren&#8217;t interrupted by vexing phone calls. Care is seldom denied (because everybody knows the rules). She gets her checks on time, sees her patients on schedule, takes Thursdays off, and gets home in time for dinner. <more at link>


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 20, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



and this has what to do with what Yukon said?....ill tell ya....... FUCKING NOTHING!!!....but ill give ya some credit,at least you threw something in there...Pukon ran and hid,like he usually does after he makes his inane statements...but you are not even on the subject....


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 21, 2009)

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

Wide support for government health plan: poll
Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:45am EDT  Email | Print | Share | Reprints | Single Page [-] Text [+]

1 of 1Full Size
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.

[B*]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.[/B]

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.

(Writing by Paul Simao; Editing by Peter Cooney)


----------



## Yukon (Jun 21, 2009)

Unfortunately the American people are controlled by the Insurance Companies. They tell you what to pay, where to pay and now they even tell you what to believe. So sad..........


----------



## jreeves (Jun 21, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters
> 
> Wide support for government health plan: poll
> Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:45am EDT  Email | Print | Share | Reprints | Single Page [-] Text [+]
> ...



It all depends on how the question is asked....
Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Favor Universal Health Care -- Until Taxes Are Mentioned | TPMDC
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.*


----------



## Yukon (Jun 21, 2009)

Your Government is socialist...they own Banks, Insurance Companies, and automobile Manufacturers.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 21, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Unfortunately the American people are controlled by the Insurance Companies. They tell you what to pay, where to pay and now they even tell you what to believe. So sad..........



You provide a lot of facts to this debate....


----------



## editec (Jun 21, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately the American people are controlled by the Insurance Companies. They tell you what to pay, where to pay and now they even tell you what to believe. So sad..........
> ...


 
Yukon posts are the Troll-House cookies of this intellectual bakery.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 21, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately the American people are controlled by the Insurance Companies. They tell you what to pay, where to pay and now they even tell you what to believe. So sad..........
> ...



he doesnt provide SHIT....hey pukeon you still havent provided anything backing your PATHETIC claim saying Canada has the best health care in the world.....like i said ill settle for a top 3 position....and it had better be an unbiased source.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 21, 2009)

editec said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



like i have said many times before....he is the 3rd McKenzie brother....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 22, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



and you do notice how he stays away from the conversation when he cant back nothing up.....the jerks a fraud....an embarrassment to Canada....


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 24, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Hey Harry.  Have you been paying attention to the single payer/public option debate?  No chance you obstructionists are going to stop it.  All the myths you guys keep putting out there.  I think you believe what you are saying.  You just don't know you are being lied to.  Every reason why we can't or shouldn't is bullshit.  

The latest cry from the private insurers is laughable.  They say a public plan will put them out of business.  How is it that a government run program is going to put them out of business?  They say they provide the best for the least.  If that's true, they should have nothing to worry about.  I just find it funny that they slam government run this and government run that and the fact is, they have a monopoly and are ripping us off.  And you're swallowing it.  Wake up Harry.  

There were 10 blue dog democrats that were obstructing progress, and now there is 9.  LOL.  We're going to get this done harry.  And you can keep your expensive shit.  I'll go with the public plan.  And when the private companies deny you care or you can't afford them anymore, you can join too.  Your choice.  Isn't that what you want?  More competition and choices?  

That's the thing about us Democrats.  We'll fix this for you weather you want us to or not.  I wish we could ban you from participating.  Co-ops my ass.  

Here are the 9 traitors.  Soon they will fall though.  We're flooding their phone lines.  72% want this Harry.  Trust me, you are either making money off the private healthcare scam or you are stupid. 

These Democratic Senators are against it:
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

Senator Tom Carper (D-DE)

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC)

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)


----------



## Immanuel (Jun 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> The latest cry from the private insurers is laughable.  They say a public plan will put them out of business.  How is it that a government run program is going to put them out of business?  They say they provide the best for the least.  If that's true, they should have nothing to worry about.  I just find it funny that they slam government run this and government run that and the fact is, they have a monopoly and are ripping us off.  And you're swallowing it.  Wake up Harry.



Let's see the actual plan first before we jump to the conclusion whether or not the government will put private insurers out of business.

As I said earlier, the plan as proposed by President Obama would put them out of business.  However, that is not a final plan nor is it actually in the works.  Also, I was concerned that medical professionals and those who desire to enter the field would be discouraged from practicing the trade at reduced wages.  I didn't hear the President's speech yesterday.  I'm willing to wait and see.

I'm against anything that will eliminate competition.  But, I'd rather hear the plan and debate from there.

Immie


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 24, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The latest cry from the private insurers is laughable.  They say a public plan will put them out of business.  How is it that a government run program is going to put them out of business?  They say they provide the best for the least.  If that's true, they should have nothing to worry about.  I just find it funny that they slam government run this and government run that and the fact is, they have a monopoly and are ripping us off.  And you're swallowing it.  Wake up Harry.
> ...



The key issue is whether or not a public plan would receive government subsidies not available to private plans so that it could charge artificially low rates and drive private insurers out of business.  If the law were written so that the public plan could not receive such subsidies, there would be little opposition to it, and fact that Obama, Dodd, Pelosi, etc. have consistently refused to give that assurance tells us that they do not believe a public plan could provide healthcare more efficiently or less expensively than private plans now do, and when they talk about introducing competition into the market, they are lying.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 24, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Oh, so you want another private industry to be given government help? Sounds like Socialism.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jun 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


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



Heh, I can hardly wait until you are an old man in dire need of bypass surgery but Big Brother deems you too old for it or puts you on a loooong waiting list because there are too many others younger that "deserve" it before you  (shortage of heart surgeons ya know).....you'll be looking for a private entity then.....probably on the black market.....hahaha


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 24, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The latest cry from the private insurers is laughable.  They say a public plan will put them out of business.  How is it that a government run program is going to put them out of business?  They say they provide the best for the least.  If that's true, they should have nothing to worry about.  I just find it funny that they slam government run this and government run that and the fact is, they have a monopoly and are ripping us off.  And you're swallowing it.  Wake up Harry.
> ...



No his plan wouldn't put private insurers out of business.  It would reduce their profits though.

Medical professionals want single payer.  I've heard some say that if it worked, they'd prefer it, even if it meant they might make a little less.  Less headaches.  That was the reason for profit insurance companies came to be in the first place.  Doctors wanted to practice medicine and not run a business.  But the insurers mucked up the process and are now costing the doctors and the patients too much.  

And it will increase competition.  The private insurers have a basic monopoly now.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 24, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



At first the public plan will get government money, and then after that it will be funded by premiums.  

All the for profits have to do is lower their costs and start being competitive.  There goes that company jet.  

And instead of a $20 million bonus, they'll only get $1 million dollar bonus'.  Boo Hoo!!  

I can't remember the details, but there was this doctor in charge of a hospital or in charge of a insurance company and his pay was so outragous you wouldn't believe it.  I wish I could find the story.  But that is why healthcare is out of control.

I remember a few years ago people on the right tried to tell me that CEO/Executive pay was a drop in the bucket.  I always knew that was a lie but never had proof.  Now we know.  

Just the CEO alone.  If he/she makes $20 million dollars, that's 400 people making $50K a year.

And look at how much CEO pay is now compared to years ago.  Funny they get cost of living raises and raises to help with inflation but we don't?  

In 2005 CEO's made 300 times more than their workers.  Today 431 to one.  Fuck anyone who says a line worker isn't worth $35 hr.  

In the old days they made 40 times more than the average worker.

Again, fuck anyone who can justify this and not want to pay a line worker $35 hr.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 24, 2009)

ScreamingEagle said:


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



Yea, we've heard this already from you fear mongerers.  

And I hope you lose your job and get a pre existing condition and it ruins the rest of your fucking life you asshole.  Fuck you!!!


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Both Obama and the Congressional Dems have refused to rule out subsidies to a public plan that would not be available to private plans, and it is this fear that government subsidies would allow a public plan to charge artificially lower premiums to drive private plans out of business in order to usher in a government monopoly on health insurance.  Without the additional subsidies, a public plan would essentially be a non profit insurance companies, and non profit insurance companies have not fared all that well against for profit insurance companies.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jun 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


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



Touchy, aren't we?   I guess one gets that way when one considers what will actually happen down the line with socialized health care....as one can easily see happening in other countries that tried/are trying it...

and I totally agree that depending on your employer (another middleman) for your insurance is just plain stupid....and also hampers one's freedom.....I think every citizen should get their own individual major medical insurance policy plan that they pay for directly to the insurance company....not through one's employer....it shouldn't cost any more than what you pay for auto insurance....somehow people still manage to drive insured cars when they lose their jobs....and I am all for medical savings accounts like what Bush proposed....


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 24, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



WRONG!  Obama doesn't want to drive private plans out of business and he doesn't want to run GM.

BULLSHIT!  

And subsodies are my best friend if they will drive down costs.  Do you want me to cry for the insurance companies?  Not gonna happen.  

So tell me, why have non profits not done well against for profits?  Did the big boys run them out of business?  Please explain and prove that statement.  You must have links.

All your arguments would have had some merit a few years ago, but we are all way to informed to be bullshitted.  For profits jacked their rates up 191% since 2001.  Unacceptable, whether you want to admit it or not.

Just like you guys didn't believe gas at $4 was because of deregulations/speculation and gouging.  Even when they had record profits, that wasn't enough.  FACT, if it was simply s&d, their profits wouldn't have gone up at all.  They would have only increased the prices as much as the cost went up.  

NEXT!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 24, 2009)

ScreamingEagle said:


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



No, actually we're finding out that you fearmongers are exxagerating.  AND, the pre existing condition thing is happening here in America, no exxageration.  

Talk about rationing healthcare.  

So $2000 a year roughly for medical insurance?  Now thats reasonable.  How will it work?  The for profits will take a huge hit.  Explain how we will get it so cheap?  But it sounds ok to me so far.


----------



## Immanuel (Jun 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> No his plan wouldn't put private insurers out of business.  It would reduce their profits though.



As I said, what I have read (produced by the administration) had language that specifically forbade private insurers from offering any services that competed with the public plan.  That right there would drive private health insurance out of business.  That right there would be a disaster.



sealybobo said:


> Medical professionals want single payer.  I've heard some say that if it worked, they'd prefer it, even if it meant they might make a little less.  Less headaches.  That was the reason for profit insurance companies came to be in the first place.  Doctors wanted to practice medicine and not run a business.  But the insurers mucked up the process and are now costing the doctors and the patients too much.



I, too, have seen reports from different medical associations that said that medical professionals would prefer the single payer plan.  That may be the case... then again, they may get what they think they want only to find out that they are screwed and it is too late to do anything about it.




sealybobo said:


> And it will increase competition.



Not if private insurers are forbidden to offer services.



sealybobo said:


> The private insurers have a basic monopoly now.



Really?  Do you have any idea how many private insurers are out there?  A monopoly would be something like AT&T used to be for phone services or Microsoft is today or what the President described as his idea for this plan i.e. the only game in town.  I can go to any number of insurance companies and seek the most favorable plans right now, under the "plan" that possibility would be cut to one insurer and only one and I would be forced to take what ever they offer.

Oh and they will be able to raise the rates as high as they want to without anyone being able to do a damned thing about it as well as tax you just like they do Social Security to increase their profits and we won't be able to do a damned thing to stop them.  Your only option will be to just grin and bare it.

Immie


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Obama was asked about subsidies for a public plan at his press conference and refused to rule it out.  If the public plan receives subsidies, it will not have to base its rates on its premium income and investment returns on its reserves, and tax dollars or deficit dollars will be paying the difference between the rate the public plan's revenues indicate it should charge and what it would actually charge.  That's how the Standard Oil and other monopolies were formed: artificially lower prices to drive your competitors out of business and then raise your prices.  Without subsidies, of course, the public plan would have to base its charges on its legitimate revenues, and those would be much the same as private plans.

Well run non profit insurance companies have not been run out of business, but neither have they provided much competition for for profit companies.  In order for a non profit to compete, it has to hire marketing and advertising people, and to get good ones, it has to pay pretty much what for profit companies have to pay, and it has to hire portfolio managers to invest its reserves, and pay what other companies are willing to pay to get good ones.  Without first rate marketing and advertising people, the plan doesn't grow, and first rate investment people, it doesn't earn enough on its reserves to keep its premiums low.  There are lots of non profit insurance companies around, but they are generally small and their rates are pretty much what the rates for for profits companies are.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 24, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



I'll have to read and reply tomorrow, but I know exactly what Obama said about subsodies.  

If that stops the FOR PROFITS from gouging us for as much as they possibly can, I'm all for it.  

In 10 years, you won't be able to afford healthcare if we continue on this route.  Want to wait for that before we do something?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



If a public plan could actually cut costs enough to provide insurance at a lower rate than private companies, there would be no need for subsidies, so if Obama wants subsidies for the public plan, it's because, contrary to what he has said, he believes that a public plan would not be able to cut costs significantly and it would need, in effect, taxpayer bailouts to compete.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jun 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


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



First, we get the lawyers out of the health business....huge malpractice suits drive up costs...

Next, we limit insurance companies to major medical only....this will get them out of the health management business....and back into the risk management business where they should be...perhaps this is where we could require all to participate (like with autos)...and forego pre-conditions...

We stop employers from providing health insurance so people buy direct...thus there is no dependence on keeping a particular job to keep your insurance...you just pay your premium for the major medical of your choice...or pay directly in cash to your clinic...

Also, we promote tax-exempt health savings plans which will help people save to pay for ongoing regular health care costs that people will pay DIRECTLY in cash to their health care clinics/doctors when they go for services...

NO government....NO insurance companies (except MM)....NO employer-controlled insurance....NO lawyers....NO busy-body politicians...

Costs will plummet as people will do what they can to prevent excessive visits to the doctor when they have to pay cash each time they go...people will get more into healthy living for prevention (this is healthy rationing)...and competitition between clinics will lower costs as well...

Simple, yet effective...the big FOR PROFITS insurers that you hate can go take a hike...along with big daddy government...and leave us free people in control of our own heath care...


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 24, 2009)

ScreamingEagle said:


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



That is a plan I could live with.  Of course, you'll still have Medicare, but that could be somewhat revamped also.  The biggest issue for me is making catastrophic insurance available to everyone at a fair price.  I'd be more than willing to pay my own way on the normal costs, even though mine are much higher than most.


----------



## Yukon (Jun 24, 2009)

The USA claims to be the richest nation on earth and Americans actually believe it. How naive they are. They can't afford health insurance; get sick and die; even your arch enemy CUBA have it better than you..


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 24, 2009)

Yukon said:


> The USA claims to be the richest nation on earth and Americans actually believe it. How naive they are. They can't afford health insurance; get sick and die; even your arch enemy CUBA have it better than you..



I wouldn't get so carried away there Dumbo.  The fact is that Americans have the best healthcare available in the world.  The problem is that it's not available for everyone, and we are paying more than we should be for what we are receiving.

As for our wealth, it would help if we didn't subsidize most of the world by paying more than a fair price for prescription drugs along with subsidizing most countries' military.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 25, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


I know the story you're thinking of ... the executive took home $1.7billion in one year. I've searched for it too.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jun 25, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


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



Yeah, Medicare (another failed government program) could be phased out over time as medical savings accounts grow.  Catastrophic (aka major medical) insurance could be reasonably priced if people bought it young in life and if the pool is large...for that reason it might be good to require its purchase...much like auto insurance is required.   Old age brings more problems and more medical costs but people can deal with that if we plan ahead with enough medical savings and enough major medical (catastrophic) insurance....and if costs are kept at a reasonable level....which can only happen if we have a free market.  I would also want major medical insurance to be totally portable no matter where I chose to live.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jun 25, 2009)

Yukon said:


> The USA claims to be the richest nation on earth and Americans actually believe it. How naive they are. They can't afford health insurance; get sick and die; even your arch enemy CUBA have it better than you..



So...farthead....which nation is richer than US?  (and btw where are YOU from?)

We can afford health insurance.....in fact, only about 15 million can't....that's only like about 5% of 300 million Americans....and those 15 million are probably mostly illegals who sneaked into our country...the 45 million figure is a farce and is being bandied about by fear-mongering liberals seeking to establish socialism in our country...

Cuba has it better?....hahahaha....not unless you like dirty bedsheets and non-existent medicines....you're an idiot....and a liberal koolaid drinker.....


----------



## Annie (Jun 25, 2009)

We may be stupid, but we can get this:

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Obamas Michael Dukakis moment

Links at site:



> Obamas Michael Dukakis moment
> POSTED AT 9:28 AM ON JUNE 25, 2009 BY ED MORRISSEY
> 
> Barack Obama got ABC to move their news division into the White House in order to make the big pitch for his egalitarian, everyone-gets-treated-equally ObamaCare push.  Instead, *Obama fumbled into a Michael Dukakis moment that exposed him as a hypocrite.  ABC itself leads with Obamas response that he wouldnt stay within his own plan for his family*:
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 25, 2009)

ScreamingEagle said:


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



How much is your kids life or your mothers life worth if a doctor's neglegence causes their death?  

No, do not take lawyers out of healthcare.  Are you insane?

Secondly, medical malpractice accounts for 1/2 of 1% of the total costs.  Just another distraction/bullshit argument from the people who don't want healthcare reform.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 28, 2009)

sealybobo said:


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



Yes and creating a national emergency for universal health care due to the number of uninsured people that is based on non americans, people who are entitled to public health care coverage and people who have already denied health coverage is ok by your book...


----------



## jeffrockit (Jun 28, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Here is the biggest problem.  If we don't make health insurance mandatory, nothing will keep costs from rising, and there is no other way to insure everyone.  Either you have a one payer system that is, for the most part, paid for by taxes, and everyone is covered, or you have a mostly private system where insurance is mandatory and no one can be denied.  Rates are based on the over overall risk pool
> 
> This is one thing the Hillary was 100% correct about.  You cannot have universal healthcare unless everyone pays something into the system.



"Everyone" does not pay into any of the Systems now. Why should we expect that to change? I think the main reason the majority polled like the idea is that they think they will get it for free. Some of them may be right, but someone will have to pay what they don't.


----------



## Maple (Jun 28, 2009)

"SSA is the most efficiently run insurance program ever conceived. That's why the health insurance industry is lobbying so hard to keep their gravy train to themselves - they would fold under the competition." 

You are kiddin, aren't you? You want the government to compete with private enterprize, ain't gonna work bubba.


----------



## Maple (Jun 28, 2009)

Obama and members of congress and the senate won't be signing on for the health care that they are forcing down our throats, no way. They know it sucks and will ration quality care for all us pea-ons out here in the real world. 

This can be fixed in the private industry, government healthcare IS NOT FREE. 

1. Tort reform. A must, all that malpractice insurance is passed right back on to us, the consumer.

2. EVERYONE HAS TO PAY, even the poor, but they can do so on a sliding scale.

3. EVERYONE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE IT, no more showing up in the emergency rooms to have others flip the bill. 

4. You own your health plan and take it with you should you leave your job. 

5. You purchase it yourself and can pick and choose what coverage you need, you don't need maternity care when you are 80. This will create competition within the industry and keep our costs down.

6. Legislate and get rid of the pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies have to cover, they can not deny you due to a pre-existing condition.

Regulate the private insurers, mandate that it's the law for everyone to have coverage, even if it's a simple major medical plan, get tort reform and we will have a nation of people that have the health insurance that we need and the competition in place to keep everyone honest.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 28, 2009)

Maple said:


> "SSA is the most efficiently run insurance program ever conceived. That's why the health insurance industry is lobbying so hard to keep their gravy train to themselves - they would fold under the competition."
> 
> You are kiddin, aren't you? You want the government to compete with private enterprize, ain't gonna work bubba.


Why not?


----------

