# Democrats:  the more people know about government run healthcare, the less they like



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 3, 2009)

Why the hurry?  Here's why.

Why the Health Care Rush? - WSJ.com



> Democrats have so far succeeded in conjuring an illusion of political inevitability, which has kept industry groups in line lest they be shut out of the negotiations. *But once the policy details of Mr. Obama's new foundation are poured -- above all for a public insurance program run by the government that will run private carriers out of the market and eventually fix medical prices -- even shell-shocked CEOs might stir up their courage to resist.* Democrats are of course acutely aware of how industry opposition chewed through HillaryCare in 1994.
> 
> The reality is that Democrats are contemplating the most sweeping restructuring of the health markets since Medicare in 1965, and they don't want to let the details slow them down. Or to be more precise, they don't want to let the details let others slow them down. Better to grab what they will portray as a major domestic achievement while President Obama is at the height of his popularity and before anyone understands what it will mean in practice. The consequences and the cost can be explained later.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 3, 2009)

Um ... yeah. Starting to see that knee jerk is bad now? Both sides?


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jun 3, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Um ... yeah. Starting to see that knee jerk is bad now? Both sides?



Nothing intelligent is ever done in a hurry.   Witness TARP.

Most government run health plans are an exercise in Euthanasia anyway.  Maybe 0bamacare will be the solution to the solution to the Social Security funding problem and the issue of medicare funding as well.  

So they will try and push this fast.  They have the votes, as long as they move quickly.

Hillarycare died because they let it hang out too long, and people saw what was actually there.  0bama won't make the same mistake.


----------



## Lycurgus (Jun 3, 2009)

By the time Obama is finished, his US National Line of credit won't be good enough to fund any damn national healthcare plan!  LOL


----------



## Sarah G (Jun 3, 2009)

The rush?  Half of America will be poverty stricken if we continue with the hmo driven healthcare that currently exists for people.  

Obama has already said there will be a better way to cover Americans with affordable healthcare for those who need it by the end of the year and he'd better do it.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 3, 2009)

the government can't do anything less expensively than the private sector why would health care be any different?


----------



## editec (Jun 3, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> the government can't do anything less expensively than the private sector why would health care be any different?


 
No?

You sure about that, are you?

Perhaps you should compare the *admin costs of Medicare v the admin costs of private insurers.*

They're in _exactly_ the same business, but the Medicare, you will discover if you bother to look it up, is about 500% more efficient than the private companies.

That is about the most compelling argument that the _single payer_ folks have for implementing that system, actually.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 3, 2009)

editec said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > the government can't do anything less expensively than the private sector why would health care be any different?
> ...



Junk stat, even if 500% is accurate.  Which I doubt.  Medicare administers only one benefit, and shifts costs to private insurance.  So private insurance picks up the "administrative" cost of the same services.

The single payer will be the government.  The more people understand government will make their health care decisions, the less they want this.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 3, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> the government can't do anything less expensively than the private sector why would health care be any different?



You have tunnel vision. Even major health care providers are on board with the health care *INSURANCE* program (which is the only one on the table). 

US Health Care Bleeds $1T, But Can Be Saved - Science & Health News Briefs | Newser


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 3, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> The rush?  Half of America will be poverty stricken if we continue with the hmo driven healthcare that currently exists for people.
> 
> Obama has already said there will be a better way to cover Americans with affordable healthcare for those who need it by the end of the year and he'd better do it.



Sarah,, he can't afford medicare now, how does he do it when 350 million Americans plus 30 or 40 million illegals go on it.. now remember he *promised * tax cuts for 95% of us.. remember that! and hold him to it okay?


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 3, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > the government can't do anything less expensively than the private sector why would health care be any different?
> ...



Stockholm syndrome.

When people figure out government will make their healthcare decisions, they won't want this.

They are being lied to that this will not be the case.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 3, 2009)

editec said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > the government can't do anything less expensively than the private sector why would health care be any different?
> ...



  and is medicare not going bust?? or isn't that what they are telling us???


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 3, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > The rush?  Half of America will be poverty stricken if we continue with the hmo driven healthcare that currently exists for people.
> ...



How about he takes care of his deficits, THEN figures out how to pay for healthcare?


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 3, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



  let Sarah answer!


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 3, 2009)

He reiterated his support for allowing people to keep the plans they get through their jobs if they want, but also to offer the new public health insurance plan to compete against private insurers. "This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest," Obama wrote.

Obama urges Kennedy, Baucus to press ahead on healthcare - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com

WASHINGTON (AP) &#8212; President Barack Obama is leaving the door open to taxing health care benefits, something he campaigned hard against while running for president, according to senators who met with him Tuesday.

The Associated Press: Obama said to be open to taxing health benefits

So let me see if I can understand this correctly, we have a record deficit, a massive debt, growing unemployment,  large compaines  going backrupt, and  along with the so called stimulus package that has created to my knowlegde at least a few jobs for the mice that are being studied in California. We  are now proposing  healthcare for all and not only that we will pay for it by taxing everyone? and  forcing them to have healthcare if they want it or not? Further, what private enterprise wants to compete with the very entity that regulates it? Eventually the only game in town will be the Federal Govt. as private insurers will not wish to compete with Fed.  The fact is that the Federal Govt. has a dismal record on  healthcare and the VA should be a good indication of that. While it's a noble thing to want the Govt. to provide healthcare for all, there are simply people out there that do not want healthcare coverage. Here is a novel idea, how about  paying down the debt and putting the economy back on it's feet and letting Americans make their own healthcare choices there's a novel idea.  If the Govt. really wanted to be in the business of helping the American public  with reforming an industry, they would regulate as they are entitlied to do under the commerce clause  and perhaps  more companies would want to get into the  healthcare  insurance business. There are many solutions  other than a draconian edict from on high that demands everyone has healthcare.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 3, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> He reiterated his support for allowing people to keep the plans they get through their jobs if they want, but also to offer the new public health insurance plan to compete against private insurers.



Bullshit. 

He said bankruptcy was not an option for GM and Chrylser.  And that he would reveal US "state secrets."  And release prisoner abuse photos.

Nobody on either side should trust him.


----------



## Sarah G (Jun 3, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Willow, he didn't promise tax cuts for 95% of Americans, he said they intended to raise taxes on people who make over $250,000 a year.  

Not certain where you get 30 or 40 million illegals going on Medicare...


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 3, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Fraulein Hilda said:
> ...






what do you call free medical care for illegals?? I'm going to search for obamalma telling us 95 % would get tax cuts..


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 3, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=757UebP6euE&feature=related]YouTube - Politifact: Fact checking Obama's tax cut for 95% Americans[/ame]



what percent of Americans pay little or no income tax??


----------



## Sarah G (Jun 3, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Do you work?


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 3, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



No


----------



## Sarah G (Jun 3, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Ok, there was a tax cut in the stimulus where working Americans are getting about $13 a week extra in their paycheck.

It was a concession to the three R senators who were planning to vote for the stimulus.

Not sure if that's what he is talking about.  I can't view the YouTube vid, I'm on my work laptop.  

As for the illegals, we have around 11 million who actually live here.  I don't know if they can or will get medicare.  If they are paying in, adding to tax revenue, which some do actually, they can get it.

The IRS will take their money with a tax id number and they don't know or want to know whether anyone is an illegal.  The reason an illegal would pay into it voluntarily is because they understand that amnesty in inevitable and they may have to pay a certain amount anyway when that happens.

Best I can do in answering your questions right now.  I have to go.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 3, 2009)

Ameritocracy | Barack Obama said: "I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Becaus...



> "I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class."


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 3, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Ok, there was a tax cut in the stimulus where working Americans are getting about $13 a week extra in their paycheck.



No, he was flapping his lips about tax cuts for 95% of Americans since the campaign.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 3, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



basically what the you tube says is,, that 95% everyone thought they heard,, amounts to about 81% of us getting tax breaks.. so I still question our ability to pay for this.. no one is sure how many illegals are here,, I've heard anywhere from 10 million to thirty,, and more keep coming,, so I take the high estimate,, if they have work visa and tax ID they are legal aren't they? It's the one's who come and steal ID or work with no ID that concern me.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 3, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Ok, there was a tax cut in the stimulus where working Americans are getting about $13 a week extra in their paycheck.



YES!!....i got my 13 bucks.....but i had to give it to the State of California....plus some....so.....BIG FUCKING DEAL.....oh im sorry....am i supposed to be excited?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > the government can't do anything less expensively than the private sector why would health care be any different?
> ...



What the hell is Newser?  

And the government will NOT be able to improve and expand care.  

We might not be getting what we're paying for, according to Newser, but government involvement will make certain we will be getting even less than what we pay for.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 4, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> He reiterated his support for allowing people to keep the plans they get through their jobs if they want, but also to offer the new public health insurance plan to compete against private insurers. "This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest," Obama wrote.
> 
> Obama urges Kennedy, Baucus to press ahead on healthcare - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com
> 
> ...



hey the government now owns auto companies that will compete with private businesses, why not just let the government open an insurance company as well.

before you know it, we'll have government owned retail stores


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 4, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > He reiterated his support for allowing people to keep the plans they get through their jobs if they want, but also to offer the new public health insurance plan to compete against private insurers. "This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest," Obama wrote.
> ...



Which will destroy the auto industry, since the government makes the regulations they can regulate all the competition out of business then set the price to anything they want. Oh well, I hear the Japanese and Germans have some awesome automobile choices.


----------



## editec (Jun 4, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


----------



## editec (Jun 4, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


 
It could be if it isn't funded, that's for damned sure.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 4, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > He reiterated his support for allowing people to keep the plans they get through their jobs if they want, but also to offer the new public health insurance plan to compete against private insurers. "This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest," Obama wrote.
> ...






Listen I watched the Senate hearings last night with the ceo of GM and Chrysler..we are into GM for 50 Billion bucks,, thousands of people will be without jobs at GM and then thousands of dealerships will be closed.. oh a couple dealer guys there too,, stand to lose millions,, they have a deadline in which to sell the cars or then they cannot legally sell them.. now GM and Chrysler say they will take the inventory back, as well as parts and special tools but the dealers say they have not been advised of such,, so as one Senator put it,, now all this wheeling and dealing went down without benefit of oversight or a vote from the legislatiure,, the WH did it. Now what have the democwats been bitching about for 8 years????? Ya hear anything from them now? anywho,, the losers in this game are the taxpayers,, (cause we ante up the stimulus money but get nothing) the bondholder,,(they get pennies on the dollar) the dealerships (they pretty much get zero their words) and anybody who had stocks in either company get almost zero,, the winner (I"m hoping for a very short time) are the unions.. I would'nt buy a car from these goddamn theives if my life depended on it. Oh and after they have closed these dealerships (who cost them no money) they are gonna turn around and open their own somewhere else.. so ya know what.. I don't want the goddamn government touching health care either.. This is the biggest CF I have ever seen.. oh and to add, the only benefit I see to the Nationalized Health care would be to benefit GE and another union Seic.. and ACORN,, so no,, it's just another buttF.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 4, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> He reiterated his support for allowing people to keep the plans they get through their jobs if they want, but also to offer the new public health insurance plan to compete against private insurers. "This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest," Obama wrote.
> 
> Obama urges Kennedy, Baucus to press ahead on healthcare - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com
> 
> ...



In other words, business usual. Unfortunately, one of the reasons the economy is tanking on main street is because of the ever-increasing costs of private health care. While people are justified in objecting to the cost involved in any government program, and so am I, the projections are just as scary if left as is. 

More and more people are being denied personal plans or can only get health coverage with a high deductible, getting dropped from their employer plans, going bankrupt due to exhorbitant catastrophic medical costs even WITH private insurance, and are unable to sustain the average monthly premiums which are often higher than their mortgage or rent. 

The GAO gave it's opinion on the *health* of health care about a year ago, and although it doesn't offer solutions, it does outline the overall problem which does not have an easy, nor cheap, answer.

Long-Term Fiscal Outlook: 
Long-Term Federal Fiscal Challenge Driven Primarily by Health Care
GAO-08-912T June 17, 2008

*Summary*
[excerpts]

GAO was asked to provide its views on the long-term fiscal outlook. This statement addresses four key points: (1) the federal government's long-term fiscal outlook is a matter of utmost concern; (2) this challenge is driven primarily by health care cost growth; (3) reform of health care is essential but other areas also need attention which requires a multipronged solution; and (4) the federal government faces increasing pressures yet a shrinking window of opportunity for phasing in needed adjustments. 

...

Long-term fiscal simulations by GAO, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and others all show that despite a decline in the federal government's unified budget deficit between fiscal years 2003 and 2007, it still faces large and growing structural deficits driven primarily by rising health care costs and known demographic trends. Simply put, the federal government is on an unsustainable long-term fiscal path. Although Social Security is important because of its size, over the long term health care spending is the principal driver--Medicare and Medicaid are both large and projected to continue growing rapidly in the future. 

*Rapidly rising health care costs are not simply a federal budget problem.* Growth in health-related spending is the primary driver of the fiscal challenges facing state and local governments as well. 

Unsustainable growth in health care spending also threatens to erode the ability of employers to provide coverage to their workers and undercuts their ability to compete in a global marketplace. 

Public and private health care spending continues to rise because of several key factors: (1) increased utilization of new and existing medical technology; (2) lack of reliable comparative information on medical outcomes, quality of care, and cost; and (3) increased prevalence of risk factors such as obesity that can lead to expensive chronic conditions. 

*Addressing health care costs and demographics--and their interaction--will be a major societal challenge. The longer action on reforming heath care and Social Security is delayed, the more painful and difficult the choices will become. The federal government faces increasing pressures yet a shrinking window of opportunity for phasing in adjustments. *In fact, the oldest members of the baby-boom generation are now eligible for Social Security retirement benefits and will be eligible for Medicare benefits in less than 3 years. Additionally, in addressing this fiscal challenge it will be important to review other programs and activities on both the spending and revenue sides of the budget.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 4, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Oh my, where's her usual prattle? I think you've asked the magic question. Sarah, that will shut her up. (Now she'll try to tell us she's rich and doesn't have to work, or collects alimony--anything but admitting she probably lives off some gubmit program or her mummy & daddy.)


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 4, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, there was a tax cut in the stimulus where working Americans are getting about $13 a week extra in their paycheck.
> ...



Not you, but $13.00 a week, or $52 a month, probably pays *somebody's* phone bill.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 4, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



"Newser" is an online news brief published by The Washington Post. Why ask? Do you think I made it up? And I know what you *think* about government involvement in health care. Tough. It's long overdue, so say the majority of thinking Americans who KNOW it is going to be costly but also consider it a top priority.

Skip over the first 3 polls having to do with swine flu and read the rest of the polls. Deal with it.

Health Policy


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 4, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...






why? she didn't ask for details donkeyface,, it was a "yes" or "no" question.. my my my how you do extrapolate..   wassamatter? somebody put a new tweak in yer beak???


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 4, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



So who should own the auto companies? Nobody? It's an interim solution, just exactly as what happened to Chrysler in 1979 only on a larger scale because GM is much larger. But there is no reason to believe that with innovation and belt-tightening to produce cars that people WANT and will buy, that the government won't eventually be paid back (again, as it was paid back by Chrysler in 1980).

Chrysler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*Government loan guarantees*

A Dodge Aries. The "K-cars" are generally credited with saving Chrysler from bankruptcy. On September 7, 1979, *The Chrysler Corporation petitioned the United States government for US$1.5 billion in loan guarantees to avoid bankruptcy.* At the same time former Ford executive Lee Iacocca was brought in as CEO. He proved to be a capable public spokesman, appearing in advertisements to advise customers that "If you find a better car, buy it." He would also provide a rallying point for Japan-bashing and instilling pride in American products. His book Talking Straight was a response to Akio Morita's Made in Japan.

*The United States Congress reluctantly passed the "Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979"* (Public Law 96-185) on December 20, 1979 (signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on January 7, 1980), prodded by Chrysler workers and dealers in every congressional district who feared the loss of their livelihoods. The military then bought thousands of Dodge pickup trucks which entered military service as the Commercial Utility Cargo Vehicle M-880 Series. With such help and a few innovative cars (such as the K-car platform), especially the invention of the minivan concept, Chrysler avoided bankruptcy and slowly recovered.

In February 1982 Chrysler announced the sale of Chrysler Defense, its profitable defense subsidiary to General Dynamics for US$348.5 million. The sale was completed in March 1982 for the revised figure of US$336.1 million.[19]

*By 1983, the loans were fully repaid,[20] several years ahead of time, resulting in a profit of $350 million to the U.S. government.[*21] New models based on the K-car platform were selling well. A joint venture with Mitsubishi called Diamond Star Motors strengthened the company's hand in the small car market. Chrysler acquired American Motors Corporation (AMC) in 1987, primarily for its Jeep brand, although the failing Eagle Premier would be the basis for the Chrysler LH platform sedans. This bolstered the firm, although Chrysler was still the weakest of the Big Three.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 4, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



  Learned a new one at the ol' watering hole last night? Bet you fell off your barstool over THAT keeper.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 4, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



yeah undoubtably.....unless they live in California.....the legislature out here,fighting for the poor guys they tell us,are in the process of FUCKING THE WHOLLY SHIT out of people already having a rough time.....but hey....life is good...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Why the hurry?  Here's why.
> 
> Why the Health Care Rush? - WSJ.com
> 
> ...



Good. I hope that we completely run the present Health Care Parasites right out of business. We spend twice as much for a health care system that leaves out 50 million or so of us, and delivers care inferior to that in the European and Asian industrialized nations.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 5, 2009)

The government of the United States has no damned business targeting legal businesses and running them out of business.  What part of that don't you understand?

The parasites are in government, and want to make your healthcare decisions.  

Republicans are fighting the good fight, against creation of yet another new government healthcare benefit, designed to destroy private health care, something half the Democrats lie through their teeth about, and the other half freely admit.

GOP Senators Say Bipartisan Health Deal in Jeopardy - Political News - FOXNews.com



> A public plan that would compete with private insurers is opposed by nearly all Republicans. Obama long has supported it, but he had avoided going into detail about his health goals, leaving the specifics to Congress and emphasizing hopes for a bipartisan bill.
> 
> That changed when Obama released a letter Wednesday to two Senate Democrats saying he believed strongly in the need for a new public plan.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > Why the hurry?  Here's why.
> ...



The healthcare giants have gotten to enough Dems that it is going to be very difficult to solve this problem.  ESPECIALLY because right wing voters won't help us solve this or any other problem we have.

Think about every problem we have right now.  The bankers, the corporations going overseas, oil companies gouging us, healthcare, the wars, global warming.  On every issue, the righties in this country favor the status quo.  

See how things work when they join us?  Bush tried to sell a port to dubai and they joined us in stopping that.  Or they joined us in kicking illegals out so congress passed a bill.  It was a shitty bill, but at least they did something.

So when right wing voters defend out of control for profit healthcare, there is nothing we can do.  And they'll blame Obama.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

course we blame obama,, it's his watch,, pot?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> course we blame obama,, it's his watch,, pot?



And that proves you haven't a clue how we got in this mess.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 5, 2009)

If you want a government that exists to assault private enterprise, move to Venezuela, pal.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> If you want a government that exists to assault private enterprise, move to Venezuela, pal.



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

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

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


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


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 5, 2009)

How many of them want government rationing their healthcare?


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 5, 2009)

How many of them want higher taxes and trillions more in government debt to do it?


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 5, 2009)

People are being lied to and told someone else will pay for their healthcare.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> How many of them want higher taxes and trillions more in government debt to do it?




If I can get rid of my $1200 a month healthcare costs and my taxes go up $300, sure, go for it!!!!  And they won't deny me healthcare?  

We'll save money.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> People are being lied to and told someone else will pay for their healthcare.



No, we'll all pay some.  And it'll be less than it is now.

Rich people have better healthcare than you.  Your healthcare sucks.  Wake up.  

No amount of information is going to change your mind.  So you can keep your healthcare and we'll opt for the public plan.  

It'll lower your cost too, because your for profit provider will have to compete. 

Trust me, you'll join too.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> How many of them want government rationing their healthcare?



Why would they have to ration it?  Will we not have enough doctors?  That is a problem we are having now with your capitalism/free market/for profit healthcare.  

And talk about rationing.  What do you consider insurers denying coverage to people because they are not in the business of helping people.  They are in the business of making money.  

The more they deny you care, the more they make.  Wake up!!!


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

I think we should wait awhile and see how well the dumb democwats and the uaw can run a car company (which they shit all over everybody to steal) before we let them run health care!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> I think we should wait awhile and see how well the dumb democwats and the uaw can run a car company (which they shit all over everybody to steal) before we let them run health care!



They already run healthcare.  Well too.  You just can't have it.  You have to get fucked by the for profits.  Look at McCain's healthcare plan.  Its great.  And my grandmothers is pretty good too.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > I think we should wait awhile and see how well the dumb democwats and the uaw can run a car company (which they shit all over everybody to steal) before we let them run health care!
> ...





they run it well? is that what ya said????? last I read it was nearly bankrupt you got something different than that to show me???? welldoyahuh??


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > How many of them want government rationing their healthcare?
> ...



Healthcare providers will be eliminated in the name of cost cutting.  And drones like you will applaud that. The government will have no more reluctance doing this than they did downsizing auto manufacturers and closing dealers in the name of SAVING THEM.

You can buy healthcare from anyone you want now.  Nobody will deny you anyting you want to pay for.  It won't work that way when government runs it.  You know that.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > How many of them want higher taxes and trillions more in government debt to do it?
> ...



Bobo according to some on the other thread about NAT.HEALTH CARE....and these people are very much for it,it seems anyway,....they claim that they CAN and VERY LIKELY WILL deny health care for certain diseases....the disease apparently has to be an "AFFORDABLE DISEASE".....so for these poor folkes....nothing will change.....what say you?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


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



I can't figure out the people in CA these days. They rejected an increase in taxes to pay for some of the overruns, then when the only other option was to cut programs that caused the overruns, they protested in the streets. Is anyone living there anymore an adult? *It's either or, people.* (Not talking about you, personally.)

Not that this has a thing to do with their current budget problems, but I've always thought California needed to be divided, even when I lived there 35 years ago. People living in the vast agricultural and mountainous regions of Northern California don't have the same interests as the sprawling urban areas of Southern California.


----------



## Red Dawn (Jun 5, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Why the hurry?  Here's why.
> 
> Why the Health Care Rush? - WSJ.com
> 
> ...




Please post some quotes from Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, John McCain, General David Patreus, and Newt Gingrich where they complained about how horrible the government financed healthcare they received was. 

I'll check back. 

And if you can't find any quotes of them denouncing their horrible government healthcare, I'm going to assume all those gentlemen and lady were pretty happy with their tax payer financed healthcare.    

And I'm also going to assume you are a tool who thinks only what the wall street journal editorial page orders you to think.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > Why the hurry?  Here's why.
> ...



According to the experts discussing this on C-Span this morning, $.40 of every $1.00 spent on private private practice health care is wasted, either through ordering and/or conducting unnecessary and/or duplicate "test" procedures, insurance overbilling, or administrative costs which require five people to do the job of one if all the paperwork were consolidated IN EVERY OFFICE AND HOSPITAL/CLINIC FACILITY.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Medicare isn't going broke because it isn't administered well (nor is Social Security). It's going broke because too many people are living longer and getting added to the system. Fraud does exist, as it will with any giant operation where money changes hands, but there is now in place a sub-agency specifically assigned to ferret out and prosecute Medicare and Medicaid fraud around the country (Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team).


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Fraulein Hilda said:
> ...



The type of procedures that will be denied will be for a 90-year old man with emphysema who wants a hip replacement, for example. Insurance companies ALREADY deny those kinds of procedures in similar circumstances.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


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



i agree with ya about the split Maggie....they are 2 different regions and usually vote opposite each other.....for the past 20 years i have voted no on ANYTHING that is a tax increase or one of those wonderful bonds they like to throw around....the legislature in this state feel the only way to solve a problem is to throw more money at it,and if that doesnt work,it must need more money....no one up there thinks about maybe NOT spending more than what they got...or going to the crux of the matter and ACTUALLY solving the dam problem......when you lived here 35 years ago this state was still a great place to live....you got out in time....


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



In contrast to private insurers Medicare doesnt have to spend millions on marketing, advertising, and Washington lobbyists.  On top of that, private insurers must generate profits for their shareholders. In 2003, the HMO industry as a whole reported total earnings of $5.5 billionup 83 percent from $3 million in 2002 , according to Weiss Ratings, a firm that assesses the financial strength of banks and insurance companies.

Private/For Profit is worse than Medicare!!!  

But its not just the cost of marketing, advertising, lobbying and providing profits for investors  that makes a private insurers overhead so much higher. Insurers also have higher administrative costs because they are constantly enrolling and disenrolling customers as people change plans. (The average turnover in an employer-sponsored insurance plan is 20% to 25% a year. By contrast, Medicare patients stay put. Even if they could switch, most prefer Medicares coverage to the coverage they had under a private insurer.)


Whats interesting is that, in the course of interviewing doctors for Money-Driven Medicine, I found that the majority preferred Medicareeven when it paid lessbecause it was so much less hassle. As The New York Times recently pointed out, private insurers make a game out of delaying reimbursement,  and designing the forms so that the doctor leaves out one detail, he or she wont be paid.


Do I really need to continue?  You're wrong.  

The Health Care Blog: POLICY: Why Medicare is More Efficient Than Private Insurers By Maggie Mahar


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Fraulein Hilda said:
> ...



I'd say they are wrong and that's a lie.  According to who?  some on the other thread???  Oh, then it must be true.

They are liars or swallowing lies.  

Show me what diseases my grandmother might come down with that medicare will deny her coverage for.

Let me settle this for you Harry.  FOR PROFIT healthcare is bad.  Do you have a solution better than single payer, or do you want the status quo?

You think/fear that single payer will suck, but thats because the FOR PROFITS who actually do suck are telling you lies.  It can't be worse than what we have now.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


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



Not by choice, but I'm glad now that I did. I'm a strong believer in "everything happens for the best in the long run." (Something you can apply to just about everything.)


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...





What I'm totally missing out on is either your unwillingness to see or hear,, about how well this dosen't go in the countries who have done it??? and we are talking relatively small countries in comparison to the numbers of people you want this to work out on in your fantasy world.. what you get for medical care in exchange for your 70% tax rate is the *opportunity to get in line and wait for care.* that's all you get.. some die waiting.. and yes those countries have a shortage of doctors and beds why do you think Canadians bolt across the border and come here for care??? Why don't they go to the mythical land of Cuba for the best care in the world?? doyathink??


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I'd love to take credit for the blog, but it's not one of mine!! Kudos to another Maggie!!


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



And of course, you've only looked at the "right" side (in this case the "wrong" side) of the issue. There's more than enough evidence that the people living in countries who have universal care WOULD NOT TRADE IT for a return to privately run health care. But there's nothing more to say when trying to debate a brick wall.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Canadians come here?  Where do we go when we are denied coverage?  

Actually, you guys are exaggerating the problems in other countries.  I heard a guy from Canada talk about it.  And we have the same shit happening here, and it happens just about as often.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...





I can disagree with her without even reading it.. they are going broke,, clearly they do not run efficiently..


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Fraulein Hilda said:
> ...



Maggie im sorry i dont buy that....if the whole reason you are there is too make buck,many of those things mentioned would be cut....and in the private sector they would not have 5 people doing the job that 1 guy can do.....now at first when i read that,i had thought you must be a fellow Postal Employee,i see this shit every day here....ordering and doing things that cost a lot but dont do a dam thing to move the mail,matter of fact MANY times, it HINDERS it.....paying a hunk of cash to get something done from a private co.,and all kinds of corners are cut by the co. hired....and the PO definitely has jobs were one person can do it,but there are 3-4 walking around like they are doing something vital,each making 60-70 thou. a year.....right now in the PO they are trying to eliminate routes in each office and give pieces of it to the remaining routes because of diminishing mail volume,due to the countries problems......each of us was brought to the station managers office to tell us how each of our routes may be affected.....there were 5 people in there to tell me this...and it took an avg of 5 min. per carrier......each person in that room was at least making min.50 thou. a year.....i dont think you would see this kinda shit in the private sector.....they have someone counting the money,and most importantly...asking questions....at least in the successful ones....


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

As a matter of fact the whole total government is broke so how you can hitch your health care wagon to that start is just downright bumfuzzling!


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

As a matter of fact the whole total government is broke so how you can hitch your health care wagon to that star is just downright bumfuzzling!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



The For Profits are worse.  Checkmate!!!  

Under for profit healthcare, we're going broke.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> As a matter of fact the whole total government is broke so how you can hitch your health care wagon to that star is just downright bumfuzzling!



This was the GOP's mission.  They bankrupted us so they could do away with social programs like social security!!!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


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



thats not what these people were saying....i got out of it,if a 30 year old had to have vital ongoing  treatments for the rest of his life....i was told they may pay for this,but not that......and these people did not seem to be too bothered by this in the least.....but yet they were when private Co. did this.....i guess there must be a difference.....


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > As a matter of fact the whole total government is broke so how you can hitch your health care wagon to that star is just downright bumfuzzling!
> ...






get over it pigface.. Lyndon B. Johnson was the democwat who started pilfiering our money from socialble security..


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...






your mortar has cracks in it donkeyface!  so Canada wouldn't trade it but they come here for care?? that's rich.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> In contrast to private insurers Medicare doesnt have to spend millions on marketing, advertising, and Washington lobbyists.  On top of that, private insurers must generate profits for their shareholders. In 2003, the HMO industry as a whole reported total earnings of $5.5 billionup 83 percent from $3 million in 2002 , according to Weiss Ratings, a firm that assesses the financial strength of banks and insurance companies.
> 
> Private/For Profit is worse than Medicare!!!
> 
> ...



thats funny Bobo....i hurt my knee on the job.....i went to see MY doc. not theirs....his office as i found out along with many others will not treat any on the job injuries were they have to deal with the govt....ITS A MONSTER HASSELL with them im told.... if i was to use my private Ins., i was told no prob....mmmm?


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 5, 2009)

Despite a weakening economy, Massachusetts continued to measure gains in the share of residents who reported having a steady source of health care in 2008, its second year of near-universal coverage, a new study has found.

But the annual survey, taken each fall since 2006, *also raised red flags regarding the ability of residents to actually use that care, with growing numbers saying they could not afford needed treatments and many reporting shortages of primary care physicians*.

The study&#8217;s authors wrote that there were lessons for Washington, where Congressional committees are incorporating much of the Massachusetts model into federal health care legislation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/health/policy/28massachusetts.html

"Nothing is more fatal to health than an over care of it."

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec &#8212; then the largest and most affluent in the country &#8212; adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies. 

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast. 

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. *But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."*
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits

*THIS NEXT ONE IS AN EXAMPLE OF A U.S. Govt. RUN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.*
Fayetteville, NC: When William complained about stomach pains Alice B. took her husband to the VA hospital on several occasions, but he was sent home with heartburn medicine. Finally she took him to a civilian hospital: the diagnosis was pancreatic cancer and the diagnosis for the VA hospital was Veteran Medical Malpractice: the cancer clinic said it was too late for treatment.
Veteran Medical Malpractice Misdiagnosed Cancer VA hospital heartburn medicine needle biopsy |LawyersandSettlements.com

As you can easily see that while it is noble to wish that your fellow citizen not suffer and have access to medical care, perhaps the way to reform it is to motivate those who represent you to provide a marketplace more friendly to competetion. I have made many suggestions  here that are well within the scope  of the  Govts. constitutional powers. As many on both sides have  pointed out no one can be turned away from an Emergency room for care  in this nation by law.  It does cause the costs of care to rise , however  costs are a part of commerce and commerce is something that is well within the powers of the Govt. to regulate. Now while it may sound cruel , this nation was not founded on the principles of  providing every citizen all their needs. It was founded on providing a free framework for allowing any citizen who wishes to work hard enough and is self reliant to go provide for themselves and their family. It is not the  healthcare system I suggest is broken but it is the  free framework that needs to be  adjusted to meet the demands of its citizens.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


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



i have NO problems with my Ins.Co. Bobo....my wife has to see 2-3 specialist and has to periodically go through what i would think is fairly expensive tests,she is an epileptic that they have never been able to fully control her seizures the way they should,she falls into a 10% of all epileptic group,  since she developed this 30 years ago.....Kaiser was absolutely horrible with their coverage....Blue Shield....fantastic,never bats an eye....


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Got a link to back that up?  Didn't think so.  NEXT!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



but you did not answer her question Maggie about the amount of people to cover...20-50 mill.compared to 300 mill.....and the size of the countries....how good is China's ,Russia's Brazil,India and any other 100 million plus countries health care?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


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



Who's paying?  How much does it cost?  Perhaps you haven't come down with something yet that they will deny coverage for?  

Also, you corporate defenders can't seem to understand that our corporations can't compete with other countries because they are forced to pay for healthcare.

You should be outraged that corps are forced to pay for healthcare!  That's not free market capitalism!!


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...






you don't think period,, you just drink the kool aid.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



if it happens just as often as it does here,in a country with 30 mill people as compared to one with 300 mill.....then Canada's system is not as good as you seem to think it is....


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Didn't think you'd have/find anything to back  up your drivel.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Whatever you say Harry.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...






Fucking bullseye!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


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




What color panties are you wearing?


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...






oh I can back it up,, trouble is can you string two consecutive thoughts together,, that's real hard on pigs ya know..


http://www.uurestoration.us/sermons/On_Social_Security.pdf


http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/5135131/


http://www.shadowstats.com/article/federal_deficit_reality



no surprise that you cannot be bothered to find out information on your own though.. no surpise


----------



## Meister (Jun 5, 2009)

Britain has only one-fourth as many CT scanners per capita as the U.S., and one-third as many MRI scanners. The rate at which the British provide coronary-bypass surgery or angioplasty to heart patients is only one-fourth the U.S. rate, and hip replacements are only two-thirds the U.S. rate. The rate for treating kidney failure (dialysis or transplant) is five times higher in the U.S. for patients between the ages of 45 and 84, and nine times higher for patients 85 years or older. 

Overall, nearly 1.8 million Britons are waiting for hospital or outpatient treatments at any given time. In 2002-2004, dialysis patients waited an average of 16 days for permanent blood-vessel access in the U.S., 20 days in Europe, and 62 days in Canada. In 2000, Norwegian patients waited an average of 133 days for hip replacement, 63 days for cataract surgery, 160 days for a knee replacement, and 46 days for bypass surgery after being approved for treatment. Short waits for cataract surgery produce better outcomes, prompt coronary-artery bypass reduces mortality, and rapid hip replacement reduces disability and death. Studies show that only 5 percent of Americans wait more than four months for surgery, compared with 23 percent of Australians, 26 percent of New Zealanders, 27 percent of Canadians, and 36 percent of Britons.
Do the Uninsured in the U.S. Lack Access to Health Care? 

Of the 46 million nominally uninsured, about 12 million are eligible for such public programs as Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP). They can usually enroll even at the time of treatment, arguably making them de facto insured. About 17 million of the uninsured are living in households with annual incomes of at least $50,000. More than half of those earn more than $75,000, suggesting that they are uninsured by choice. 
Socialized failure: dissecting health-care data from Britain, Canada, and elsewhere. - Free Online Library

Bobo really won't want to look at this part of socialized healthcare vs. private sector healthcare.  We are the best in the world, and I mean best in the world.  The second site gives you links to worldwide socialized healthcare information.
The Problems with Socialized Health Care


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 5, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> the government can't do anything less expensively than the private sector why would health care be any different?



Medicare...administrative cost..3%

You are a neo con tool.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Also, you corporate defenders can't seem to understand that our corporations can't compete with other countries because they are forced to pay for healthcare.



before all this shit started Bobo they were doing just fine competing,as a matter of fact MANY foreign corps. could not compete against these guys.....and they were paying for health care,i never heard anyone crying back then......so what caused the change?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



What the fuck is that you twit? 

Lyndon B. Johnson was the democwat who started pilfiering our money from socialble security is what you said, you goofy dingbat.  

What the fuck is that blather you linked?

http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/redneck4-300.jpg


Here is you stupid.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Also, you corporate defenders can't seem to understand that our corporations can't compete with other countries because they are forced to pay for healthcare.
> ...



Ha!  I say the same thing when you guys cry about unions.  The Big 3 were profitable in 1999.

What changed?  Healthcare costs skyrocketted, no one is buying anything and your party makes our American companies compete against 3rd world slave labor.  

Why in 2005 were corporate profits up but wages went down?


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...






didn't figure you could put it together libtard.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


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


so i get the last word?.....Bobo let me put it to you like this.....i would love to see a great best on the planet health care system here.....But you and others who are all for this...NO MATTER WHAT....are not doing a good job of convincing me....the reason?....no matter what you put up here,i find just as many things countering your claims....and like i said in the other post on this, i know 4 from Canada,ones a nurse....she said there are way two many negatives about it,for it to be a model....so your not convincing me what you want will be better than what i got...


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> He reiterated his support for allowing people to keep the plans they get through their jobs if they want, but also to offer the new public health insurance plan to compete against private insurers. "This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest," Obama wrote.
> 
> Obama urges Kennedy, Baucus to press ahead on healthcare - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com
> 
> ...



Could not have said it better myself, Navy...

You are indeed a voice of reason on this and see the issues very clearly on why many of us are very concerned about this nonsense


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 5, 2009)

Are you kidding me,  all this talk about how well the Govt. runs things, obviously none of the people doing the talking have ever had any treatments at  a VA hospital or for that matter ever taken Amtrak just to name a few. The number of Govt. run programs that have failed  or cost 10 times more than the private sector are staggering. 

VA Hospital Problems to be Examined by Congressional Panel - AboutLawsuits.com
A congressional panel will look into the recent problems at VA Hospitals that occurred in at least three states, where thousands of veterans were potentially exposed to HIV, Hepatitis C and other diseases caused by unsterilized equipment. 

The U.S. House Committee on Veterans&#8217; Affairs oversight and investigations subcommittee scheduled a hearing for June 16, 2009, to inquire about the issues that resulted in letters being sent to10,555 former VA hospital patients recommending that they obtain blood tests because they were treated with equipment that was not properly cleaned between patients.

 The VA is a good example of a Govt. run healthcare system and what not to do with one.  There you have patients waiting forever for treatment and medications, being misdiagnosed time after time. 

Want a really good example, of how the Govt. spends you money wisely, as I won't post it hear but it is easily searchable. Take a good long look at how long and how much the Govt. has spent on trying to replace the US Air Force  Tanker and still not a single new aircraft is in service after billions of dollars have been spent.  Yes there are a lot of people employed in DC working on this , pushing paper from one cubicle to another and it's a classic case of over tasking a mission. Which the US Govt.  has made a science out of.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Are you kidding me,  all this talk about how well the Govt. runs things, obviously none of the people doing the talking have ever had any treatments at  a VA hospital or for that matter ever taken Amtrak just to name a few. The number of Govt. run programs that have failed  or cost 10 times more than the private sector are staggering.
> 
> VA Hospital Problems to be Examined by Congressional Panel - AboutLawsuits.com
> A congressional panel will look into the recent problems at VA Hospitals that occurred in at least three states, where thousands of veterans were potentially exposed to HIV, Hepatitis C and other diseases caused by unsterilized equipment.
> ...






Navy Navy Navy!  we digress.. the very people in here now lauding the ability of the government to run things,, were bitching a blue streak just months ago.. and,, they've managed to double the deficit.. now see? don't wade in too deep,, they'll pull you under! Remember how miserable the care was the vets got???


----------



## Meister (Jun 5, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > the government can't do anything less expensively than the private sector why would health care be any different?
> ...



3% administrative cost, and still they have all sorts of finacial woes...care to comment?

The trust fund that pays hospital bills is expected be exhausted by 2019, leaving Medicare to limp along with payroll tax collections that would cover only 78 percent of estimated hospital expenditures. And the trust funds that pay for doctors services and prescription drugs will face rising costs that will inevitably drive up premiums and require infusions of money from general tax revenues. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/opinion/28fri2.html

You have your head stuck in the sand, Huggy


----------



## Meister (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Are you kidding me,  all this talk about how well the Govt. runs things, obviously none of the people doing the talking have ever had any treatments at  a VA hospital or for that matter ever taken Amtrak just to name a few. The number of Govt. run programs that have failed  or cost 10 times more than the private sector are staggering.
> 
> VA Hospital Problems to be Examined by Congressional Panel - AboutLawsuits.com
> A congressional panel will look into the recent problems at VA Hospitals that occurred in at least three states, where thousands of veterans were potentially exposed to HIV, Hepatitis C and other diseases caused by unsterilized equipment.
> ...



Navy, thanks for bringing up this good information on what we can expect from our government in the form of healthcare. I brought this up on another thread, and no one on the left really wanted to comment on the subject of the VA hospital. 
Having said that I think that as long as Barry signs a bill that will give us this type of healthcare, they will be lauding his brilliance and compassion.  I know, I don't understand it either.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 5, 2009)

Willow I belive this next quote pretty much says everything I need to say I suppose.

*Benjamin Franklin:
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
*


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


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



The negatives you bring up are made up.  And our current system has more negatives that are REAL.  

Why do you think most Doctors and nurses want what I want?  Because they know your worries are lies that were fed to you from the very insurance companies that are gouging us.

And we don't need to convince you.  Some people are just stubborn.  We didn't need you to get Obama elected so we don't really need you for this.

First, the partisan dynamics have changed in Congress. While some Republicans might vote for single payer, they wouldn't need to. The Democratic leadership could persuade enough Democrats to vote to pass it without a single Republican, if they chose to. 

A massive, well-organized public movement has been built that is pressing right now for single payer. In the House of Representatives, the leading advocate is Congressman John Conyers, D-Mich., whose bill H.R. 676 had 93 cosponsors in the last Congress. Conyers provides a useful FAQ here, and Physicians for a National Health Program has provided a longer one on single payer. 

Other advocates include: Labor for Single Payer, Healthcare Now, the California Nurses Association and the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care, which boasts dozens of major organizational members.

http://www.alternet.org/healthwelln...single-payer_health_care_has_become_possible/


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 5, 2009)

Meister I can tell you I don't use the VA unless I have too. The VA is one FUBAR'D  outfit  and  I am pretty much done with them. My recent experience with the civilian hospital though has been a good one and  all of the people there were professional and  top notch.  I find it really amazing that when you have a long time example of US Govt. run healthcare right before your eye's that should  be  enough to tell everyone no thank you. Rather like  if anyone recalls the Yugo and what a disaster of car that was  and everyone knows it but now  the whole country wants the Govt. to provide them Yugo's anyway.  If I need to go to the clinic on base I can do that too but Im quite happy not having to go to the VA.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you kidding me,  all this talk about how well the Govt. runs things, obviously none of the people doing the talking have ever had any treatments at  a VA hospital or for that matter ever taken Amtrak just to name a few. The number of Govt. run programs that have failed  or cost 10 times more than the private sector are staggering.
> ...



Progressive Democrats of America has mobilized tremendous grassroots pressure through its Healthcare Not Warfare campaign. This is essentially a campaign for single-payer health coverage, but it also organizes the peace movement to participate and communicates an important selling point. The financial cost of creating a single payer-system would be a fraction of what we spend each year merely on the occupation of Iraq, which Congress and the president have committed to ending. 

Checkmate bitch!!


----------



## Red Dawn (Jun 5, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > He reiterated his support for allowing people to keep the plans they get through their jobs if they want, but also to offer the new public health insurance plan to compete against private insurers. "This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest," Obama wrote.
> ...




okay, so you all are propogandized by fox news.   no surprise there. 

Of course the rightwing wants to compare single payer, government financed healthcare to the VA.   The VA isn't single payer health care, it socialized medicine.  The government owns the hospitals and the government employs the doctors.    that's socialized medicine.    And no one is proposing that, despite what rush limbaugh told you.  the VA is a health provider of last resort for veterans, and they do a pretty damn go job at filling that niche. 

But no democrat has ever proposed allowing the governments to own the hospitals and employ the doctors. 

You only think that, because World Nut Daily told you to think that. 


If you really want to debate this, you should learn the difference between socialized government healthcare, and single payer healthcare. 

The difference is ginormous.  In one, the government runs every thing.  In the other, the government just pays the bills to private doctors and hospitals. 

Which is the kind of health insurance John mcCain and Sarah Palin get.   Government financed health care.   And i fucking guarantee you they are happy with their government financed healthcare.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Meister I can tell you I don't use the VA unless I have too. The VA is one FUBAR'D  outfit  and  I am pretty much done with them. My recent experience with the civilian hospital though has been a good one and  all of the people there were professional and  top notch.  I find it really amazing that when you have a long time example of US Govt. run healthcare right before your eye's that should  be  enough to tell everyone no thank you. Rather like  if anyone recalls the Yugo and what a disaster of car that was  and everyone knows it but now  the whole country wants the Govt. to provide them Yugo's anyway.  If I need to go to the clinic on base I can do that too but Im quite happy not having to go to the VA.



We are very sorry for how the GOP said they supported you troops but didn't back up their words with action.

McCain voted against funding you guys 80% of the time and Obama voted to fund you 80% of the time.  And McCain said he was pro troops?  

Walter Reed hospital was an embarrassment.  

And the GOP purposely tried to deny you guys benefits.  Lets say you were 50% disabled.  They would try to lower your score so you would get less benefits.  They told workers at VA administration offices to NOT help you with getting you benefits.  

This is a great example of the GOP not only saying government doesn't work, but they also proved it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Ed Schultz made a great point yesterday.  This issue shows just how out of touch Washington is with America.  They can't relate to the problems we have because they have great healthcare.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Willow I belive this next quote pretty much says everything I need to say I suppose.
> 
> *Benjamin Franklin:
> They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
> *



I completely agree with Benjamin Franklin. We have people on this board who are willing to trade their freedom for what they believe will be "security" in their healthcare. So they deserve neither their freedom to choose their own provider or security in government controled health care.

Ironically, anyone who understands power and how governments obtain power knows that there will be no security in government run health care. People will still be unable to get proceedures. The government will soon be determining who should live and who should die. This is dangerous power to be giving to Washington. Its a dangerous power in anyones hands. How long before Eugenics becauses an even more acceptible practice? "Oh you're old, you cost too much to keep alive, so you cant get this treatment."

We are about to see the Revenge of the Sith.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...






LIES pig.. everyone knows you will never be anything but a pig.. pig!! me? I'd rather be a bitch,,  oh and btw,, your pig ass is still in Iraq,, you gonna wait til that's over for you execute dumbazz programs????


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Willow I belive this next quote pretty much says everything I need to say I suppose.
> ...



Now the FOR PROFITS are the ones deciding we should die so they can max out their bonus'.  

What a hoot!  First of all, you can have choice.  We'll have a public plan and you can continue paying 4 times more for what you want.  I bet you will come over to the public plan.  Or, it'll help lower your costs because right now its a monopoly.  

This Ben Franklen quote is silly.  You can't apply it here.

So if we break up the Healthcare monopoly, or if we take away the Federal Reserve from the rich bankers that own it, you think thats sacraficing freedom?

You righties are sooo stupid.  Remember you kept saying we were in Iraq fighting for freedom?  You guys overuse that word.  

This is about fascism.  

I like Will Rogers quote.  "I don't belong to any organized political party.  I'm a democrat"


----------



## Red Dawn (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


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





no one is proposing having the government own hospitals, and turn doctors and nurses into government employees. 

Its either dishonest, or just plain ignorant to suggest that liberals are proposing a VA type system.  The VA provides a niche service to veterans, that Blue Cross wont.   You think Blue Cross is going to insure a veteran with two legs missing and pre-existing health conditions?  LOL

Liberals are proposing that every one have access to the same health care plan John McCain and Sarah Palin enjoy. 


I've been waiting for like 12 months for one single Con, to post one single quote from McCain or Gingrich explaining why their government financed healthcare is horrible


----------



## Gunny (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Willow I belive this next quote pretty much says everything I need to say I suppose.
> 
> *Benjamin Franklin:
> They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
> *



We always have.  Where do you draw the line?


----------



## Gunny (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


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



You're stupid.  Shut up.  Quesitons?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



Navy and Harry truly don't understand that their thinking is the culmination of 30 years of brainwashing.  Reagan started with that bullshit line, "the worst words you can hear is, "hi I'm from the government and I'm here to help"

Its frustrating because it is so obvious that they're being misled and lied to.  But you can't convince them. 

And willow, well, she's just a retarded housewife who doesn't know shit.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...





yes,, just like *no one wants abortion or no one wants to run the car companies,, go peddle that shit somewhere else *


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Now the FOR PROFITS are the ones deciding we should die so they can max out their bonus'.
> 
> What a hoot!  First of all, you can have choice.  We'll have a public plan and you can continue paying 4 times more for what you want.  I bet you will come over to the public plan.  Or, it'll help lower your costs because right now its a monopoly.
> 
> ...



Um how the hell can you give government the power to provide health care with tax payers dollars and somehow claim you are breaking up a monopoly? You are the ones _creating_ it!

You do not create freedom by giving up your power to government. 

You are right about one thing. This is about fascism. This is about you and your friends in government seizing control of the industry. Which is why we are opposed to you.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Willow I belive this next quote pretty much says everything I need to say I suppose.
> ...



I draw it right in between us and I dare you to cross it big boy.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 5, 2009)

editec said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > the government can't do anything less expensively than the private sector why would health care be any different?
> ...



Perhaps you should read this excellent work done by someone that actually knows something about the subject, because your oversimplification and bogus "500% more efficient" number are complete and utter nonsense. 

*Medicare's Hidden Adminstrative Costs:* _A Comparison of Medicare and the Private Sector_ by Merrill Matthews, Ph.D. published 1/10/2006. 


Happy Reading.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



  You are here to help? you can't help the toilet paper find your asshole! who the fuck you gonna help!!!!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Now the FOR PROFITS are the ones deciding we should die so they can max out their bonus'.
> ...



Because they won't be for profit. 

And the gov won't provide healthcare.  

Is medicare facist?

And you'll be able to stay with your private insurer.  But without government, the insurance companies are all in collution with each other.  

One of the biggest $ drains on our healthcare are poor people using emergency rooms.  So give them healthcare if they want it, and charge them $10 a month.  Charge you $30 a month and charge people who make a lot of money a little more.

In the end, our corporations are more competitive and profitable, we have more money in our pocket, etc.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



You could toss my salad?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Because they won't be for profit.



And why exactly is profit bad? Especially when its the biggest incentive to keep costs down. If you arent worried about making money then you dont give a damn how much people have to spend.



> And the gov won't provide healthcare.



So we are getting government run healthcare using tax payer money that isnt provided by the government.... do you know how absolutely stupid that sounds?



> Is medicare facist?



I suggest that you learn what fascism is. When the government takes over an industry we are seeing fascism. You obviously dont have any clue what fascism is.



> And you'll be able to stay with your private insurer.  But without government, the insurance companies are all in collution with each other.



Right, because every company wants people to do business with their competitors. Talk about stupid conspiracy theories.



> One of the biggest $ drains on our healthcare are poor people using emergency rooms.  So give them healthcare if they want it, and charge them $10 a month.  Charge you $30 a month and charge people who make a lot of money a little more.



Here's an even better idea:

Government gets out of medicine

Poor people go to free clinics. Like they did for hundreds of years prior to government screwing everything up.



> In the end, our corporations are more competitive and profitable, we have more money in our pocket, etc.



Let's be honest, you know about as much about business as Obama's new appointee over GM. You just hate rich people and think that somehow attacking them should make your life better.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 5, 2009)

Okay sealy let me see if I can explain to you one more time,  You, Me, and everyone else in this country have NO RIGHTS under the constitution that provide us for healthcare.  Those rights not in constitution are reserved for who? the people and the states!! So if healthcare is what you want so desperatly, then perhaps put it on your statewide ballot or an even better idea , buy it for yourself. As for it not benig welfare  please read the following:

The Democratic bill is likely to include a requirement for people to carry health insurance, *subsidies for those who cannot afford it*, and a requirement for employers to contribute to the cost.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/us/politics/05health.html?ref=us

You do know what that is don't you? so the goal is to cover everyone and the so called 47 million people that don't have insurance . I say so called because no one seem to know who these 47 million people are.  Are 20% of them simply people who don't want it. or is that number higher.  are the 12 million or so illegal aliens included in this figure.  so yes sealy it is a welfare program.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Because they won't be for profit.
> ...



You're wrong on every single fucking point.  Punch yourself in the face idiot.

Fascism comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology.

Pot meet kettle.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Okay sealy let me see if I can explain to you one more time,  You, Me, and everyone else in this country have NO RIGHTS under the constitution that provide us for healthcare.  Those rights not in constitution are reserved for who? the people and the states!! So if healthcare is what you want so desperatly, then perhaps put it on your statewide ballot or an even better idea , buy it for yourself. As for it not benig welfare  please read the following:
> 
> The Democratic bill is likely to include a requirement for people to carry health insurance, *subsidies for those who cannot afford it*, and a requirement for employers to contribute to the cost.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/us/politics/05health.html?ref=us
> ...



Yea, they don't want it.  

So you want to do away with medicare then, huh?  Or have your state run it?  Fine with me.  In America you are free and should have choices.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 5, 2009)

Red If you cannot see that I'm using the VA as an example for the way Govt. manages Govt. healthcare then I cannot help you.   I would suggest however you take the time to read the Healthcare proposal and the fact that  President Obama has proposed a Govt. based insurance program that will compete directly with private one's. So to help you make the connection here, as it seems to not sink in for those of you so willing to run to the Federal Govt. for all of your ills because of this entitlement mentality that seems so much a part of those that support idiotic legislation like this,here it is.  When the Govt. which is the same  one that regulates Free enterprise i.e. the insurance  industry is in direct comepetition with it, how long do you think those private carriers will continue to carry or offer health insurance?  the end result will be, a Govt run healthcare program. Where everything  associated with the medical industry is decided in Washington DC. So tell me again  who is brainwashed here?  Seriously Red it would do you  and others that believe as you do, to take your  healthcare battles to your respective states and let the voters there decide if that is what they wish. That is  the legal and correct way to approach this issue.  Not to essentially hand over your freedoms to the Govt. willingly.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 5, 2009)

Gunny, It has to stop someplace if these young people don't get an education about the country in which they live soon and stop this notion that by being born here and sucking oxygen they have a right to just about everything under the sun. Soon all those Freedoms that everyone talks about will be a distant memory and  every single decision they want or DONT want will be made for them.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> You're wrong on every single fucking point.  Punch yourself in the face idiot.
> 
> Fascism comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology.
> 
> Pot meet kettle.



Let's see:

This administration is both radical and authoritarian.

And they are seizing control of industries and mandating that they follow what they want.

If it looks fascist it probably is.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 5, 2009)

sealy, I honestly think states should run medicare for their respective seniors and disabled.  It's my humble opinion they would most likely do a much better job locally than the Fed. ever could.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> You're wrong on every single fucking point.  Punch yourself in the face idiot.
> 
> Fascism comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology.
> 
> Pot meet kettle.



Avatar was correct government control of private enterprise is inherently fascist (Federal Government take over of General Motors anyone?), the nationalist and radical portions are completely optional.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Gunny, It has to stop someplace if these young people don't get an education about the country in which they live soon and stop this notion that by being born here and sucking oxygen they have a right to just about everything under the sun. Soon all those Freedoms that everyone talks about will be a distant memory and  every single decision they want or DONT want will be made for them.






*parasites who are retarded and are unable to care for themselves.. they have to be fed and watered cradle to grave,, not men meece.*


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You're wrong on every single fucking point.  Punch yourself in the face idiot.
> ...




Do you understand what led the government to taking over GM?

Do you think Obama wants to run a car company?

The bankers owning this country is fascism.  CORPORATE IDEOLOGY.  And the authoritarian nationalistic part is how the GOP used 9-11 to push their radical agenda on us.  

Banal nationalism refers to the everyday representations of the nation which build an imagined sense of national solidarity and belonging amongst humans. The term is derived from Michael Billig's 1995 book of the same name. Today the term is used primarily in academic discussion of identity formation and geopolitics.

Examples of banal nationalism include the use of flags in everyday contexts, sporting events, national songs, symbols on money, popular expressions and turns of phrase, patriotic clubs, the use of implied togetherness in the national press, for example, the use of terms such as the prime minister, the weather, our team, and divisions into "domestic" and "international" news, etc... Many of these symbols are most effective because of their constant repetition, and almost subliminal nature.

Are you wearing your LAPEL PIN?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny, It has to stop someplace if these young people don't get an education about the country in which they live soon and stop this notion that by being born here and sucking oxygen they have a right to just about everything under the sun. Soon all those Freedoms that everyone talks about will be a distant memory and  every single decision they want or DONT want will be made for them.
> ...



You sit at home all day on your fat ass and your hubby takes care of you.  Fucking joke.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> sealy, I honestly think states should run medicare for their respective seniors and disabled.  It's my humble opinion they would most likely do a much better job locally than the Fed. ever could.



What's the stimulus for then?  Seems to me a lot of states are broke.  So the Fed Gov has to handle this problem.

Is it a problem you know.  Maybe not for you.  But for millions it is.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...






yes,, my husband,, not the taxpayer.. like you..sitting on your fat ass cheating your boss outta yer wages and screaming somebody owes you something.. parasite


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 5, 2009)

frankly sealy if you can tell me other than the 300.00 dollars  I have heard some are getting what exactly is the Stimulus doing?  From what I gather if you look at the job losses from March till now  it hasn't stimulated very much.   I do like the idea  of high-speed rail though and think thats  an outstanding idea whos time  has come.   I would imagine especially in the places like Mi. thats hard hit  construction on something like that would be a big benefit to the economy.  Then again so would building  Nuclear plants too.  I will wait and see on the  stimulus though.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> frankly sealy if you can tell me other than the 300.00 dollars  I have heard some are getting what exactly is the Stimulus doing?  From what I gather if you look at the job losses from March till now  it hasn't stimulated very much.   I do like the idea  of high-speed rail though and think thats  an outstanding idea whos time  has come.   I would imagine especially in the places like Mi. thats hard hit  construction on something like that would be a big benefit to the economy.  Then again so would building  Nuclear plants too.  I will wait and see on the  stimulus though.





yes, when the democrats get through fucking over the car  companies dealerships, suppliers, there's going to be a significant rise in the unemployment.. and remember they besssseeeeeeched us the taxpayer to save the jobs..  I forgot to mention the bondholders, pensions, and shareholders,, they got it in the rump too.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Do you understand what led the government to taking over GM?


Absolutely, do you understand that the reasons for GM's failure are completely non sequitur with respect to justifying the actions the administration has and is in the process of taking?  



sealybobo said:


> Do you think Obama wants to run a car company?


Absolutely he does, for a gang of statists like the ones in the Obama Administration direct control of a global manufacturing giant is a dream come true.... I'm sure Richard Nixon is jealous as hell since all he to play with after his foray into fascism was Amtrak. Now if you believe that "at some point we'll sell GM back to private investors" nonsense, I've got a bridge in brooklyn and a railroad company to sell you. 



> The bankers owning this country is fascism.  CORPORATE IDEOLOGY.


Well depends on which bankers you're talking about, private or central with respect to the question of facism, in either case I'm a big advocate of ending the federal reserve and the fractional reserve banking system, so you're preaching to the choir. 



> And the authoritarian nationalistic part is how the GOP used 9-11 to push their radical agenda on us.


So in your estimation it's perfectly ok for the Democrats to attempt to do the same thing only a more rapid and expansive scale? 



> Banal nationalism refers to the everyday representations of the nation which build an imagined sense of national solidarity and belonging amongst humans. The term is derived from Michael Billig's 1995 book of the same name. Today the term is used primarily in academic discussion of identity formation and geopolitics.
> 
> Examples of banal nationalism include the use of flags in everyday contexts, sporting events, national songs, symbols on money, popular expressions and turns of phrase, patriotic clubs, the use of implied togetherness in the national press, for example, the use of terms such as the prime minister, the weather, our team, and divisions into "domestic" and "international" news, etc... Many of these symbols are most effective because of their constant repetition, and almost subliminal nature.


Thanks for that but for future reference I can find Wikipedia on my own if I need to. 



> Are you wearing your LAPEL PIN?


How is that relative to anything ? but to answer your question, no I don't even own any lapel pins.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You're wrong on every single fucking point.  Punch yourself in the face idiot.
> ...



In the early 1980s, Reagan also credentialed a young generation of neocon intellectuals, who pioneered a concept called perception management, the shaping of how Americans saw, understood and were frightened by threats from abroad.

Many honest reporters saw their careers damaged when they resisted the lies and distortions of the Reagan administration. Likewise, U.S. intelligence analysts were purged when they refused to bend to the propaganda demands from above.

To marginalize dissent, Reagan and his subordinates stoked anger toward anyone who challenged the eras feel-good optimism. Skeptics were not just honorable critics, they were un-American defeatists or  in Jeane Kirkpatricks memorable attack line  they would blame America first.

Nationalism.  Either you're with us or against us.  Brainwashing. Whetever you want to call it.  

Obama is not making a Fascist play on purpose.  But Bush, yes, he did it all on purpose.  Obama is simply reacting to the situation Bush put him in.  What did you want to do?  Let GM go belly up?  And all its suppliers?  Even Ford would have gotten fucked.  But you don't care.  You only care about Japan & China corporations.  Those you suck their cocks.  

Consortiumnews.com


----------



## Meister (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Bobo, you don't know what the fuck your talking about.  The private insurer will be run out of town eventually leaving only the government run disaster that you cherish.  Nice try dumbshit, but go peddle your wares at the Huffington Post, they'll listen to your crap.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Do you understand what led the government to taking over GM?
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



If they can't compete, FUCK EM!!!  

And they won't be run out of town.  They'll just have to cut costs.

Before Reagan, corporate CEOs earned less than 50 times the salary of an average worker. By the end of the Reagan-Bush-I administrations in 1993, the average CEO salary was more than 100 times that of a typical worker. (At the end of the Bush-II administration, that CEO-salary figure was more than 250 times that of an average worker.)

You're a fool.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Obama is not making a Fascist play on purpose.


ROFLMAO !!! Wow how blindly partisan and foolish must one be to make a statement like this?



> What did you want to do?  Let GM go belly up?  And all its suppliers?


Absolutely ! an orderly and non politicized unwinding of GM's malinvestments through the bankruptcy court would have given the company a chance to survive on it's own, what we will end up with instead is a permanent drag on our economy as the tax payer foots the bill for GMs operational loses. If you want to see how this turns out from a financial perspective just go look at Amtraks books then multiply the numbers by a thousand and you'll have some idea of what these wonderful people in Washington just put you and your children on the hook for.  



> Even Ford would have gotten fucked.


Ford IS getting fucked since they're now being forced to compete with a tax payer subsidized, government controlled manufacturer. Essentially they are being forced to subsidize their own competitor who is controlled by the very entity that also controls fiscal policy and has regulatory authority.


----------



## Meister (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You are one stupid ass leach...it ain't competing, it's the government mandating them.  For the love of God, get your head out of your sorry ass and take a breath of fresh air.  I don't give a shit about a CEO's pay, and ain't the fucking governments business to get into the policies of the private sector.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

*GM failed for no other reason than the unions priced themselves right the hell outta competition and don't ever let anyone tell you differently.. and that's the only reason comrade obama bought the car companies as a gift for electing him.. and don't ever let anyone tell you anything different.. *


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Once again, everyone seems to be under the mistaken impression that the health care program being debated now is universal coverage. *IT IS NOT*. So the questions are hypothetical at this point. (I have a feeling that it will be a cold day in hell before true universal care *is* instituted, and that cold day will be when the skyrocketing costs of doing health care _as usual _begins to hit the pocketbooks of millionnaires.) 

As for INSURING Americans, which is what the current health care issue is about, I can see the cost advantages right away if more people feel they can now see a doctor for a small problem rather than waiting until it gets out of control, and then they become a part of the "free" system which taxpayers pay for anyway. The way I understand it, people can buy all sorts of coverage, including policies that cover bare bones, which would include X-number of visits per year for preventive care.

As for the countries Willow asks ME to compare, I still say she asks stupid questions that, if she was really interested in answers, she would look 'em up herself. I get sick of doing her homework for her, only for her to come back at me with some illiterate childish remark using her retarded vocabulary.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Obama is not making a Fascist play on purpose.
> ...



More people are now buying Ford because they didn't take any government $.  They have increased their output of F150's and they expect sales to pick up.

Their only problems are:

GM and Chrysler are offering really really low prices, especially dealerships that are closing.  

And, Ford has debt.  Chrysler and GM got to just wipe out their debt.  

But Ford supported the bailout because they knew if GM and Chrysler went under, so would a lot of Ford's parts suppliers.

You really don't know what you are talking about son.  And you clearly don't know what led us to this mess.

Obama is a great man and a great leader.  He cares.  He wants what is best for all Americans.  The GOP, Reagan/Bush/Bush/Rudy/Mitt/MCCain/Gindal/Boehner/etc.  They only want what is best for the rich.  

Are you rich?  Probably not rich enough to be voting GOP.  Fucking fool.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


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



  Fuckin Amen!!


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> As for INSURING Americans, which is what the current health care issue is about, I can see the cost advantages right away if more people feel they can now see a doctor for a small problem rather than waiting until it gets out of control,



So you can see the cost advantages of increasing demand without a corresponding increase in supply? I'm assuming you do realize that medical care is a FINITE resource, right?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Yes it is.  The government makes the rules.  You are one dumb son of a cock sucker.


----------



## Meister (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


There's only one person who doesn't get it, and it's not Stand4Liberty, It's you fool.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


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



then don't do my homework for me,, i stated an opinion,, it won't work,, if you're too lazy to support your allegations that's on you not me.. so there tweakers.  I already looked up my answers,, all my answers,, they are the right answers yours are the wrong answers..


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > As for INSURING Americans, which is what the current health care issue is about, I can see the cost advantages right away if more people feel they can now see a doctor for a small problem rather than waiting until it gets out of control,
> ...



We're trying to figure out just how much you don't realize.


----------



## Meister (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



In your world it is...but you would feel comfortable in a communist country.  By the way...the best part of you ran down your daddy's leg.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


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



I'm sorry, but you are a ****.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



They don't. Drag your own elephant trunk away from your right-wing peanut galleries, and you would know that Canadians DO NOT come to the US in droves for their health care, and the majority would not want to see it abolished. 

The Real News Network - Canadians talk to Americans about health care


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > In contrast to private insurers Medicare doesnt have to spend millions on marketing, advertising, and Washington lobbyists.  On top of that, private insurers must generate profits for their shareholders. In 2003, the HMO industry as a whole reported total earnings of $5.5 billionup 83 percent from $3 million in 2002 , according to Weiss Ratings, a firm that assesses the financial strength of banks and insurance companies.
> ...



That's just weird. I'd suggest getting another doctor. One who hasn't forgotten his Hippocratic Oath in favor of dollar signs.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



*it's late friday bobo aren't you done yet? screwing your boss over for your wages???*


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Yep, that's it, I'm a commy, you stupid little bitch.

This was written in 2004.  Back then, you were probably telling us how great the economy was going to be in just a couple years.  And it was, for the rich.  But their wages went up and ours went down.  

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

Here are a couple of headlines for those who haven't had the time to study both economics and history: 

1. There is no such thing as a "free market." 

2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering). 

The conservative belief in "free markets" is a bit like the Catholic Church's insistence that the Earth was at the center of the Solar System in the Twelfth Century. It's widely believed by those in power, those who challenge it are branded heretics and ridiculed, and it is wrong. 

In actual fact, there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government. 

what part of copyright violation don't you get?


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 5, 2009)

Maggie,  I'm afriad I have to disagree with your  assertion that this is "Not Universal HealthCare" .  As  I have stated many times on here, no matter how noble the intentions, when the Govt. gets into the business of medical insurance and  directly competes with other private carriers who they also regulate.  Those other carriers will eventually  simply not offer healthcare coverage to anyone  that is deemed a "risk" or eventually just  go out of the  business of providing insurance all together.  The end result will be a single payer, single managed, Govt. run  Universal Healthcare program.  However, I am somewhat brightened by the fact that the Govt. does not have the capacity to run healthcare for an entire nation without private contractors as they do now with medicare.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Despite a weakening economy, Massachusetts continued to measure gains in the share of residents who reported having a steady source of health care in 2008, its second year of near-universal coverage, a new study has found.
> 
> But the annual survey, taken each fall since 2006, *also raised red flags regarding the ability of residents to actually use that care, with growing numbers saying they could not afford needed treatments and many reporting shortages of primary care physicians*.
> 
> ...



Swell. Shall I research some horror stories about U.S. patient care? I can do that. And enough with the fucking "America was founded on" ideological bullshit. We've now become a nation of over 300,000,000 people, not under one million when the "founders" were FRAMING *THE FUTURE *of their nation. They didn't expect the population to remain stagnant.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > STAND4LIBERTY said:
> ...



I'm going to leave 15 minutes early because my boss is gone.  Cats away, Sealy will play.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...





you remember that movie Deliverence! you remind me of that fat little guy.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Maggie,  I'm afriad I have to disagree with your  assertion that this is "Not Universal HealthCare" .  As  I have stated many times on here, no matter how noble the intentions, when the Govt. gets into the business of medical insurance and  directly competes with other private carriers who they also regulate.  Those other carriers will eventually  simply not offer healthcare coverage to anyone  that is deemed a "risk" or eventually just  go out of the  business of providing insurance all together.  The end result will be a single payer, single managed, Govt. run  Universal Healthcare program.  However, I am somewhat brightened by the fact that the Govt. does not have the capacity to run healthcare for an entire nation without private contractors as they do now with medicare.



You're an idiot.  Sooo sick of going over things with you and then find you saying the same bullshit a post or two later.  MORON Alert!!!


----------



## Meister (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




I never called you a commie, dumbass, I said you would feel comfortable in a communist coutry.  Don't put words in my posts...they are stated the way I intended to be stated.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Ned Beatte?

When I fantasize about you, I tie your neck around a tree like those hicks did the other one.  And then I say, "willow, you're gonna do some prayin, and you better pray good".

And you don't have to be told to squeal like a pig.

God you must be ugly.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



YOu would feel comfortable with Bush's cock in your mouth.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> Britain has only one-fourth as many CT scanners per capita as the U.S., and one-third as many MRI scanners. The rate at which the British provide coronary-bypass surgery or angioplasty to heart patients is only one-fourth the U.S. rate, and hip replacements are only two-thirds the U.S. rate. The rate for treating kidney failure (dialysis or transplant) is five times higher in the U.S. for patients between the ages of 45 and 84, and nine times higher for patients 85 years or older.
> 
> Overall, nearly 1.8 million Britons are waiting for hospital or outpatient treatments at any given time. In 2002-2004, dialysis patients waited an average of 16 days for permanent blood-vessel access in the U.S., 20 days in Europe, and 62 days in Canada. In 2000, Norwegian patients waited an average of 133 days for hip replacement, 63 days for cataract surgery, 160 days for a knee replacement, and 46 days for bypass surgery after being approved for treatment. Short waits for cataract surgery produce better outcomes, prompt coronary-artery bypass reduces mortality, and rapid hip replacement reduces disability and death. Studies show that only 5 percent of Americans wait more than four months for surgery, compared with 23 percent of Australians, 26 percent of New Zealanders, 27 percent of Canadians, and 36 percent of Britons.
> Do the Uninsured in the U.S. Lack Access to Health Care?
> ...



LOL -- Clicking on the link, I see you cherry picked only the part that supported your personal opinion. I invite everyone to read the whole thing (including imbedded links), specifically regarding preventive care in the United States.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...





I am,,, real ugly.. very ugly,,extremely ugly..that's why I don't have to go to work and rip money off from my boss..


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> [
> 
> We're trying to figure out just how much you don't realize.



What don't I realize ? please enlightment me ? I understand the practice of when you can't make a valid point just throw out vague insults but do you understand how transparent your tactic is? 

What I do realize is that the current nationalized health care plan that we already have in place (Medicare) is currently running in the red and is carrying a projected long term UNFUNDED liability of $36.3 trillion, which if left unchecked threatens to bankrupt the nation. How long do you figure we can continue to keep monetizing debt to pay for all these social experiments? Do you care about the financial future of your country ? Does plundering the property of your fellow citizens and their children who may not want or need this "program" seem like justice to you?


----------



## del (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Maggie,  I'm afriad I have to disagree with your  assertion that this is "Not Universal HealthCare" .  As  I have stated many times on here, no matter how noble the intentions, when the Govt. gets into the business of medical insurance and  directly competes with other private carriers who they also regulate.  Those other carriers will eventually  simply not offer healthcare coverage to anyone  that is deemed a "risk" or eventually just  go out of the  business of providing insurance all together.  The end result will be a single payer, single managed, Govt. run  Universal Healthcare program.  However, I am somewhat brightened by the fact that the Govt. does not have the capacity to run healthcare for an entire nation without private contractors as they do now with medicare.
> ...



i suspect navy has had bowel movements with more native intelligence than you possess, but he's too polite to say so. i, however, am not.
pinhead


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



*Check out Del's signature line.. *


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 5, 2009)

sealy, you know what makes me laugh, when you start resorting to name calling it means  that  that you have nothing further to say.  I wasn't aware that your name was  Maggie?   No matter,  I often repeat things where your concerned because the massive amounts of sources I've given you which you don't read or seem to dismiss because  the source does not fit in with your agenda to give up your freedoms to the nanny state.  I'd be happy to have a reasoned and civil debate with you at anytime you wish sealy and  give you credit when credit is due, however even though you wish to willingly  give up your freedoms allow that some of us don't and  if you cannot respect  yourself please respect others opinions and they will respect yours.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Are you kidding me,  all this talk about how well the Govt. runs things, obviously none of the people doing the talking have ever had any treatments at  a VA hospital or for that matter ever taken Amtrak just to name a few. The number of Govt. run programs that have failed  or cost 10 times more than the private sector are staggering.
> 
> VA Hospital Problems to be Examined by Congressional Panel - AboutLawsuits.com
> A congressional panel will look into the recent problems at VA Hospitals that occurred in at least three states, where thousands of veterans were potentially exposed to HIV, Hepatitis C and other diseases caused by unsterilized equipment.
> ...



_Sigh..._once again, picking and choosing which horror stories to post in order to pump up your belief system is always suspect. I come from an entire family of veterans of all wars and conflicts since WWII, and not a single one has EVER, _EVER_ complained about the quality of treatment. The only problem some of them have is the distance to a VA hospital (and surprise surprise, that's gonna change too, where vets can get preventive care by any doctor). 

The heavy influx of new veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have put an enormous strain on the VA system. Ever think that might be part of the current problem? Exposure to HIV happens in EVERY hospital. Exposure to the deadly MRSA virus is even more common in civilian hospitals. You simply cannot single out the VA as having unique problems, because they do not.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Willow I belive this next quote pretty much says everything I need to say I suppose.
> 
> *Benjamin Franklin:
> They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
> *



And yet Thomas Jefferson said this:

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 5, 2009)

I'm not picking and choosing  Maggie, and this problem with the VA goes back for many many years this is nothing new. If your family members have had good  luck with the VA then god bless them because  that is not  the  impression most  vets get from the VA.  Now  as a matter of course Maggie I didnt want to put every single story about them I could find but I am sure that everyone here is capable of doing  a little research on the subject.  I will however agree that the  influx of new  Vets to the system is going to make it even harder to get any quaility care at the VA and may just provide the motivation to after many years  to finally fix a very broken system. Which I for one would be very happy to see, until that time I will not use the VA unless I have too.  I can assure  you Maggie I'm not alone in my thinking.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Meister I can tell you I don't use the VA unless I have too. The VA is one FUBAR'D  outfit  and  I am pretty much done with them. My recent experience with the civilian hospital though has been a good one and  all of the people there were professional and  top notch.  I find it really amazing that when you have a long time example of US Govt. run healthcare right before your eye's that should  be  enough to tell everyone no thank you. Rather like  if anyone recalls the Yugo and what a disaster of car that was  and everyone knows it but now  the whole country wants the Govt. to provide them Yugo's anyway.  If I need to go to the clinic on base I can do that too but Im quite happy not having to go to the VA.



Hey! What's wrong with a Yugo?! I owned one of the first, which was a box with wheels and a 4-cylinder engine stick shift, no radio. (I think it had a heater.) It cost me $3,800 in 1984 which was all I could afford to get me around LA just fine. Except on Christmas Day, not too many folks there can do 0-60 in 3 minutes anyway. I did try to take it up to Lake Arrowhead one weekend, though, and it was like the Little Engine That Could. 

My point is, most Americans can't afford transportation vehicles that cost as much as a small condominium.


----------



## Soaring (Jun 5, 2009)

I'm a Vietnam vet, and was wounded.  I go to the VA hospital quite often, and have generally received good service.  My wife goes to the local hospital, and I don't see a great deal of difference except what the services cost.  I'm wondering how my care at the VA hospital will change with Obama's national health care system.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Willow I belive this next quote pretty much says everything I need to say I suppose.
> ...



Freedom Shmeedom. The word is bandied about so much it's lost its meaning. When I think of the "freedom" of Americans, I think of not living in a country where martial law rules, where government dictates television/radio programming, where I could be arrested for infidelity, go to debtor's prison because I owe more than I earn, or _[gasp]_ tax avoidance. It has very, very little (no, NOTHING) to do with how my health care gets paid for.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> sealy, you know what makes me laugh, when you start resorting to name calling it means  that  that you have nothing further to say.  I wasn't aware that your name was  Maggie?   No matter,  I often repeat things where your concerned because the massive amounts of sources I've given you which you don't read or seem to dismiss because  the source does not fit in with your agenda to give up your freedoms to the nanny state.  I'd be happy to have a reasoned and civil debate with you at anytime you wish sealy and  give you credit when credit is due, however even though you wish to willingly  give up your freedoms allow that some of us don't and  if you cannot respect  yourself please respect others opinions and they will respect yours.


LOL when DOESNT he resort to name calling

now i wont say i dont do it, because i do
but only after its got to the point when its clear the person is too fucking stupid to get it


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Do you wear a black leather jacket and combat boots?


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 5, 2009)

and yet Maggie, with those thoughts the care of life  was not a right  given in the constitution but mentioned in the preamble. Even then it was mentioned has having a right to Life and not the care thereof.  

The "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to require prisoners, as part of their humane treatment during detention, to be guaranteed the right to health care. (2)

So  the only group of americans entitled to healthcare as a right under the constitution are  prisioners. 

Wonderful quote by Jefferson by the way, here's another..

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."  George Washington


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I often wondered if Reagan regretted making that off-handed remark, since he was no doubt collecting a military pension for his service in the Army's First Motion Picture Unit.


----------



## Meister (Jun 5, 2009)

Let them read the whole thing Maggie.  I wasn't cherry picking.

THE health-care systems of all developed countries face three unrelenting problems: rising costs, inadequate quality, and incomplete access to care. A slew of recent articles, published mainly in medical journals, suggest that the health-care systems of other countries are superior to ours on all these fronts. Yet the articles are at odds with a substantial economic literature. 

What follows is a brief review of the evidence. As other writers demonstrate elsewhere in this issue, the American health-care system has plenty of problems. But it is not inferior to other developed countries' systems--and we should therefore not be looking to these systems, most of which are characterized by heavy government intervention, for inspiration. 

Does the U.S. Spend More on Health Care? 

Taken at face value, international statistics show that the United States spends more than twice as much per person on health care as the average developed country. But these statistics are misleading. Other countries are far more aggressive than we are at disguising and shifting costs--for example, by using the power of government purchase to artificially suppress the incomes of doctors, nurses, and hospital personnel. This makes their aggregate outlays look smaller when all that has really happened is that part of the cost has been shifted from one group (patients and taxpayers) to another (health-care providers). This is equivalent to taxing doctors, nurses, or some other group so that others may pay less for their care. 


Normal market forces have been so suppressed throughout the developed world that the prices paid for medical services rarely reflect the services' actual cost. As a result, adding all these prices together produces aggregate numbers in which one can have little confidence. One gets a better measure of how much countries spend by looking at the real resources used; and by that measure, the U.S. system is pretty good. For example, we use fewer doctors than the average developed country to produce the same or better outcomes. We also use fewer nurses and fewer hospital beds, make fewer physician visits, and spend fewer days in the hospital. About the only thing we use more of is technology. (See below.) 

Spending totals aside, the U.S. has been neither worse nor better than the rest of the developed world at controlling spending growth. The average annual rate of growth of real per capita U.S. health-care spending is slightly below the OECD average over the past four decades (4.4 percent versus 4.5 percent). It appears that other developed countries are traveling down the same spending path we are. 

Are U.S. Health Outcomes Worse? 

Critics point to the fact that U.S. life expectancy is in the middle of the pack among developed countries, and that our infant-mortality rate is among the highest. But are these the right measures? Within the U.S., life expectancy at birth varies greatly between racial and ethnic groups, from state to state, and across counties. These differences are thought to reflect such lifestyle choices as diet, exercise, and smoking. Infant mortality varies by a factor of two or three across racial and ethnic lines, and from city to city and state to state, for reasons apparently having little to do with health care. 

All too often, the heterogeneous population of the United States is compared with the homogeneous populations of European countries. A state such as Utah compares favorably with almost any developed country. Texas, with its high minority population, tends to compare unfavorably. But these outcomes have almost nothing to do with the doctors and hospitals in the two states. 

It makes far more sense to look at the diseases and conditions to which we know medical science can make a real difference--cancer, diabetes, and hypertension, for example. The largest international study to date found that the five-year survival rate for all types of cancer among both men and women was higher in the U.S. than in Europe. There is a steeper increase in blood pressure with advancing age in Europe, and a 60 percent higher prevalence of hypertension. The aggressive treatment offered to U.S. cardiac patients apparently improves survival and functioning relative to that of Canadian patients. Fewer health- and disability-related problems occur among U.S. spinal-cord-injury patients than among Canadian and British patients. 
Do Patients in Other Countries Have Better Access to Care? 

Britain has only one-fourth as many CT scanners per capita as the U.S., and one-third as many MRI scanners. The rate at which the British provide coronary-bypass surgery or angioplasty to heart patients is only one-fourth the U.S. rate, and hip replacements are only two-thirds the U.S. rate. The rate for treating kidney failure (dialysis or transplant) is five times higher in the U.S. for patients between the ages of 45 and 84, and nine times higher for patients 85 years or older. 

Overall, nearly 1.8 million Britons are waiting for hospital or outpatient treatments at any given time. In 2002-2004, dialysis patients waited an average of 16 days for permanent blood-vessel access in the U.S., 20 days in Europe, and 62 days in Canada. In 2000, Norwegian patients waited an average of 133 days for hip replacement, 63 days for cataract surgery, 160 days for a knee replacement, and 46 days for bypass surgery after being approved for treatment. Short waits for cataract surgery produce better outcomes, prompt coronary-artery bypass reduces mortality, and rapid hip replacement reduces disability and death. Studies show that only 5 percent of Americans wait more than four months for surgery, compared with 23 percent of Australians, 26 percent of New Zealanders, 27 percent of Canadians, and 36 percent of Britons. 

Do Other Countries Do a Better Job of Delivering Preventive Care? 

If people have to pay for care directly, it is often claimed, they will be inclined to skimp on preventive care--care that can catch diseases in their early stages, saving lives and money. Yet the proportion of middle-aged Canadian women who have never had a mammogram is twice that of the U.S., and three times as many Canadian women have never had a Pap smear. Fewer than a fifth of Canadian men have ever been tested for prostate-specific antigen, compared with about half of American men. Only one in ten adult Canadians has had a colonoscopy, compared with about a third of adult Americans. 

These differences in screening may partly explain why the mortality rate in Canada is 25 percent higher for breast cancer, 18 percent higher for prostate cancer, and 13 percent higher for colorectal cancer. In addition, while half of all diabetics have high blood pressure, it is controlled in 36 percent of U.S. cases, compared with only 9 percent of cases in Canada. 
Do the Uninsured in the U.S. Lack Access to Health Care? 

Of the 46 million nominally uninsured, about 12 million are eligible for such public programs as Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP). They can usually enroll even at the time of treatment, arguably making them de facto insured. About 17 million of the uninsured are living in households with annual incomes of at least $50,000. More than half of those earn more than $75,000, suggesting that they are uninsured by choice. 

Like unemployment, uninsurance is usually transitory: 75 percent of uninsured spells last one year or less, and 91 percent last two years or less. Although the fraction of the population with health insurance rises and falls with the business cycle, it has been fairly constant for the past two decades, despite an unprecedented influx of immigrants with an uninsurance rate 2.5 times that of the native-born population. Guaranteed-issue laws, state high-risk pools, and retroactive Medicaid eligibility make it increasingly easy to obtain insurance after becoming ill. 

Are Low-Income Families More Disadvantaged in the U.S. System? 

Aneurin Bevan, father of the British National Health Service (NHS), declared, "The essence of a satisfactory health service is that rich and poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability and wealth is not advantaged." More than 30 years after the NHS's founding, an official task force found little evidence that it had equalized health-care access. Another study, 20 years later, concluded that access had become more unequal in the years between the two studies. 

In Canada, the wealthy and powerful have significantly greater access to medical specialists than do the less well-connected poor. High-profile patients enjoy more frequent services, shorter waiting times, and greater choice of specialists. Moreover, non-elderly, white, low-income Canadians are 22 percent more likely to be in poor health than their U.S. counterparts. 

In developed countries generally, among people with similar health conditions, high earners use the system more intensely, and use costlier services, than do low earners. It seems likely that the personal characteristics that ensure success in a market economy also enhance success in bureaucratic systems. 

Mr. Goodman is the founder, president, and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis. A fuller survey of these and similar data is available at Free-Market Solutions | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA. 

Socialized failure: dissecting health-care data from Britain, Canada, and elsewhere. - Free Online Library


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> And yet Thomas Jefferson said this:
> 
> "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."



You know when you quote from somebody, it's probably a good idea to find out what they meant when they said it, instead of just attempting to adapt the words to the meaning that suits your own purposes. 

Given his stance on centralized government and government largesse Thomas Jefferson would have been the last person to support any sort of national healthcare system, especially given this nations current financial situation. As far as your quote goes how does forcing some people to pay for something that they neither want nor need (and potentially cannot afford) at the point of a government sword NOT constitute destruction of their happiness? I don't no many individuals who upon being forcibly robbed of the fruits of their labor find any happiness in the fact.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Because they won't be for profit.
> ...



Then why are so many "rich" people on board with this? Like doctors.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 5, 2009)

Stockholm Syndrome.  But it will pass.

It's a subsidy for doctors and insurance companies.

But the dirty little secret is that Obama will fire doctors and will put insurance companies out of business.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Okay sealy let me see if I can explain to you one more time,  You, Me, and everyone else in this country have NO RIGHTS under the constitution that provide us for healthcare.  Those rights not in constitution are reserved for who? the people and the states!! So if healthcare is what you want so desperatly, then perhaps put it on your statewide ballot or an even better idea , buy it for yourself. As for it not benig welfare  please read the following:
> 
> The Democratic bill is likely to include a requirement for people to carry health insurance, *subsidies for those who cannot afford it*, and a requirement for employers to contribute to the cost.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/us/politics/05health.html?ref=us
> ...



The insurance won't be mandated. If you like your existing policy, you can keep it. Yes, for people who want insurance and can't afford it, subsidies will be available. As for illegals, I expect _in order to _apply for any health insurance (bear in mind, the insurers will be the same ones who exist now), an applicant will need to provide a bevy of personal information. If someone is here illegally and wants to remain in the shadows, I can't see him applying for health insurance because he would be reported. Or should be anyway.

Those who don't sign on for any insurance at all, and then decide they want to at a later date, can do so but will be penalized a small percentage of the lowest monthly premium of available policies.

All details can be found here, but keep in mind that these are the PROPOSED clauses for the Health Care bill. Skip to about Page 30 to read the options proposed.

Expanding Health Care Coverage: Proposals to Provide Affordable Coverage to All Americans


----------



## Maple (Jun 5, 2009)

Do you know anyone who is on Medicare????? Hmmmmmm, it may be less costly, but guess what, some physicians are refusing to see Medicare patients because the government is very sloooooowwwwww to pay the bill, and the reimbursement is very low. Thats' why all those medicare patients go out and pay to get supplemental health insurance. Maybe you need to check your facts.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...






Yes!


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You're wrong on every single fucking point.  Punch yourself in the face idiot.
> ...



None of this is being done for some sort of Hitler-esque power control. It's being done out of _necessity_ to keep the economy from collapsing in the immediate future. If you think deficit spending looks out of sight because of the fixes already put in place and those planned to keep the economy from spiraling out of control, you ain't seen nothin like what the deficit spending would be if the country was forced to climb back up the mountain after crash landing to the bottom. The term "foreign aid" would take on a whole new meaning. WE would suddenly need some ourselves.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay sealy let me see if I can explain to you one more time,  You, Me, and everyone else in this country have NO RIGHTS under the constitution that provide us for healthcare.  Those rights not in constitution are reserved for who? the people and the states!! So if healthcare is what you want so desperatly, then perhaps put it on your statewide ballot or an even better idea , buy it for yourself. As for it not benig welfare  please read the following:
> ...


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 5, 2009)

Yes it is, it's all about power.  It's an effort to crush the private healthcare industry and make one monolithic government run system.

Democrats know when people learn of the details of this, it's dead.  That's what the hurry is all about.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You're wrong on every single fucking point.  Punch yourself in the face idiot.
> ...



People still working at General Motors will not be receiving government paychecks. As Sealy pointed out, true fascism means everyone (EVERYONE) except the rulers works for the government. That isn't the case with GM, that isn't the case with the banks, and it won't be the case with health care.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny, It has to stop someplace if these young people don't get an education about the country in which they live soon and stop this notion that by being born here and sucking oxygen they have a right to just about everything under the sun. Soon all those Freedoms that everyone talks about will be a distant memory and  every single decision they want or DONT want will be made for them.
> ...



You're just too hilarious, Willow. I've come to the conclusion that you're the USMB's mascot--running the field and waving wildly to the crowd in your funny animal suit.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Yes they will.  Taxpayers are still pumping billions into that company and there is no end in sight.

Barack Obama will run it from top to bottom.   He already is.  With the exception of some Harvard pinheads who know nothing about the automotive industry he will appoint at a later date.

It is the case with GM.  And banks.  And will be so with health care.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Your husband's probably in Seventh Heaven now that you've found you can do all your screeching at your computer.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...





well,, we can see you haven't done your homework,, you need to check out GE,, and what they gain,, Seiu and what they gain,, ACORN and what they gain,, yep,, that's exactly what it is a marxist power grab. from start to finish.. quit swallowing the economy collapse kool aid,, remember your tax evading democwats put it best  "never waste a good crisis"


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...






yes,, he pretty much likes it that way,,


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



But she prolly looks better nekkid in her mascot suit than you do.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> frankly sealy if you can tell me other than the 300.00 dollars  I have heard some are getting what exactly is the Stimulus doing?  From what I gather if you look at the job losses from March till now  it hasn't stimulated very much.   I do like the idea  of high-speed rail though and think thats  an outstanding idea whos time  has come.   I would imagine especially in the places like Mi. thats hard hit  construction on something like that would be a big benefit to the economy.  Then again so would building  Nuclear plants too.  I will wait and see on the  stimulus though.



Tracking the stimulus money is now set up on Recovery.gov, or you can go here and see project-by-project, state-by-state, town-by-town, day-by-day. All anyone needs to do is LOOK for this kind of information, rather than just assuming it doesn't exist.

Stimulus Watch: Keeping an Eye on Economic Recovery Spending


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 5, 2009)

Almost none if it has been spent, and the money that has been spent has been on broke welfare programs in states.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Almost none if it has been spent, and the money that has been spent has been on broke welfare programs in states.



Have the states who were forced to take the money figured out what they are gonna do when the money runs out and they are still expected to provide the entitlements that will then be unfunded??


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > As for INSURING Americans, which is what the current health care issue is about, I can see the cost advantages right away if more people feel they can now see a doctor for a small problem rather than waiting until it gets out of control,
> ...



Exactly. Eventually, the cost factor will level out at numbers far less than the public (taxpayer) currently pays in hidden costs in order to care for uninsured as well as insured. That's the whole idea. (Although I've a feeling you didn't intend to actually agree with me.)


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 5, 2009)

Obama projected unemployment to be at 8% at this time after having passed his stimulus.

His own numbers.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


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



my negatives are all made up...but your positives are right on....like i said Bobo,you will be for this even if you know it will be a disaster....your a terrible salesman for this plan....maybe you better talk about something your better at selling....like BULLSHIT...


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



And you remind me of the guy's wife who did him.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 5, 2009)

Why are Democrats afraid people will find out this is government controlled healthcare?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Maggie,  I'm afriad I have to disagree with your  assertion that this is "Not Universal HealthCare" .  As  I have stated many times on here, no matter how noble the intentions, when the Govt. gets into the business of medical insurance and  directly competes with other private carriers who they also regulate.  Those other carriers will eventually  simply not offer healthcare coverage to anyone  that is deemed a "risk" or eventually just  go out of the  business of providing insurance all together.  The end result will be a single payer, single managed, Govt. run  Universal Healthcare program.  However, I am somewhat brightened by the fact that the Govt. does not have the capacity to run healthcare for an entire nation without private contractors as they do now with medicare.
> ...



I don't think Navy is a moron. He's just got tunnel vision.

I can understand why a lot of people are really scared of more government intervention, but I still think that we're now living in such a weird, unfamiliar world of convoluted globalness (is that a word?) that it's impossible for national governments NOT to intervene in those areas that will affect great numbers of its people because all it will take are a few loose threads and the whole thing can unravel very quickly (as we've already seen with the overnight crash of major financial institutions). At this point in the 21st Century, more government is scary, but no government would be foolish.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 5, 2009)

Now, more than ever, is the time to beat back government control of our lives and their plans to make us permanently dependent on them.

Free people are not dependent on government.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...





this is a good sign,, least now we know the kool aid ain't killed off all yer brain cells,, better slow up though yer getting there..


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...





oh,, and btw,, it wasn't a "wife" who did him,, just saying is all


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Um, yeah, that was a pretty big deal.  A pretty big part of the movie to get wrong.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > And yet Thomas Jefferson said this:
> ...



I know, I know. It was Jefferson v. Madison having the same conversations over different but same ideological issues as we debate here. The Jefferson quote was in an address to the Republican citizens of Washington County, MD, on March 31, 1809.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...






well,, ya know what ronnie reagan said bout libral,, "they know so much that isn't so."


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



What's so funny? Like you actually read close to 100 pages. Now THAT'S funny!!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Navy and Harry truly don't understand that their thinking is the culmination of 30 years of brainwashing.  Reagan started with that bullshit line, "the worst words you can hear is, "hi I'm from the government and I'm here to help"
> 
> Its frustrating because it is so obvious that they're being misled and lied to.  But you can't convince them.
> 
> And willow, well, she's just a retarded housewife who doesn't know shit.



geez Bobo now your starting to sound like Chrissy with his gun bullshit.........
bobo if you show me something and i can turn around and find plenty of stuff countering your shit....WHY should i believe you?....there are MANY people in these wonderful plans from countries around the world,that you site, that are not that happy with what they got....they are there,why should i believe you over them?....because your telling me too?.....because Obama told me too?.....your problem Bobo is you want this so bad,that you cant look at the negatives of this,because to you they dont exist.....and Michael Moore no doubt told you this....


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...





is it as funny as when yer congresscritters who you entrust with yer life to run yer health care signed a 950 page stimulus bill they never read thereby endowing AIG with billions in bonus money and then turned around and had a witch hunt to hunt them down and beat them over the head to recover it.. you mean funny like that???  and you want to call us stupid?? well? how about that,, sure I laugh and


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> As for INSURING Americans, which is what the current health care issue is about, I can see the cost advantages right away if more people feel they can now see a doctor for a small problem rather than waiting until it gets out of control, and then they become a part of the "free" system which taxpayers pay for anyway. The way I understand it, people can buy all sorts of coverage, including policies that cover bare bones, which would include X-number of visits per year for preventive care.



Maggie many of these people will not go see a doctor until its to late,there are plenty of people who have ins. and something going on and won't go until it's a problem....prostrate cancer is one disease i can think of....men dont want a finger up their ass,so they wont go....i have heard plenty of guys make fun of me cause i had a preventative colonoscopy....i hear "no one is sticking a hose up my ass"....and these are guys 50+ in age.....so this preventative thing wont fly with many people....


----------



## Chris (Jun 5, 2009)

Every other Western democracy in the world has a single payer healthcare system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and cover everyone. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma.

Read the article at this link....

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


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Obama is a great man and a great leader.  He cares.



only 5 months in and hes got ya hook line and sinker........whos the fool?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



....sorry Bo.....


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Obama is a great man and a great leader.  He cares.
> ...


Chris was fooled long before Obama was elected


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> Every other Western democracy in the world has a single payer healthcare system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and cover everyone.


Yet none of them seems to have a Constitution that mandates all rights lie with the people and the government is given only that authority explicitly defined within... hmmm.. why is that? could it be that those nations have governments that are inherently authoritarian in nature? Another significant factor is that those nations do not share either the scale of our population nor it's diversity, nor are it's citizens American who's shared heritage is one of self reliance and individualism, not collectivism. 



> Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma.


Yeah so when the gub'ment doctor royally screws you over, you have no legal remedy, you get to just stay screwed. 

The "Other nations have it, so should we" arguement is so flawed that it's hard to believe that anybody still parrots it anymore. Exporting European socialism to the United States wasn't a good idea in the 20th Century and it's an even worse idea in the 21st.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


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



you did not get that did ya maggie.....and here i was just thinking your fairly reasonable.....it has nothing to do with how much....it has EVERYTHING to do with dealing with the Dept of Labor....i ended up going to a Doc. recommended by my Union.....cause this guy puts up with their shit....he doesnt care....but he did say that even here in his clinic THEY ARE TOUGH TO DEAL WITH and take forever to pay ya.....AND they screw up the paper work ...A LOT....so you and Bobo go get that Ins.....i will stick to what i got for now...


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 5, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> The "Other nations have it, so should we" arguement is so flawed that it's hard to believe that anybody still parrots it anymore. Exporting European socialism to the United States wasn't a good idea in the 20th Century and it's an even worse idea in the 21st.



No kidding. The fact that other nations due something is the stupidest justification there is for anything. We are a free people. We arent like other nations for a reason. If we wanted to be like them we wouldnt have spent centuries fleeing those countries and established a Constitutional Republic with limited government authority in this land.

Chris, if you think Europe is so wonderful, why dont you move there instead of changing our lives here?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > STAND4LIBERTY said:
> ...



he doesnt post on the weekends come to think of it......you do all this posting on the clock Bo?..........


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Maggie,  I'm afriad I have to disagree with your  assertion that this is "Not Universal HealthCare" .  As  I have stated many times on here, no matter how noble the intentions, when the Govt. gets into the business of medical insurance and  directly competes with other private carriers who they also regulate.  Those other carriers will eventually  simply not offer healthcare coverage to anyone  that is deemed a "risk" or eventually just  go out of the  business of providing insurance all together.  The end result will be a single payer, single managed, Govt. run  Universal Healthcare program.  However, I am somewhat brightened by the fact that the Govt. does not have the capacity to run healthcare for an entire nation without private contractors as they do now with medicare.
> ...



you do the same shit Bobo what the hell you talking about?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

del said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



...sorry Bo....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> Every other Western democracy in the world has a single payer healthcare system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and cover everyone. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma.
> 
> Read the article at this link....
> 
> Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org



oh geez here comes THE BOBOITES....


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 6, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Funny the pubs read enough of the 950 pages to pick out the parts they didn't like, eh?


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 6, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...






and what about entrusting your life to these people Dummie Donut??


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 6, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > As for INSURING Americans, which is what the current health care issue is about, I can see the cost advantages right away if more people feel they can now see a doctor for a small problem rather than waiting until it gets out of control, and then they become a part of the "free" system which taxpayers pay for anyway. The way I understand it, people can buy all sorts of coverage, including policies that cover bare bones, which would include X-number of visits per year for preventive care.
> ...



Count me as one who won't have a colonoscopy, but not because it's invasive, because at my age if they do find *something* I'm not about to drag around a bag of shit tied to my waist. If I have colon cancer, just give me the drugs for pain and let me die.

That said (ewwwww), there are people who won't see a doctor when they have, say, bronchitis which can easily turn into life-threatening pneumonia if not treated. That's the kind of preventive care I'm talking about.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 6, 2009)

Chris said:


> Every other Western democracy in the world has a single payer healthcare system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and cover everyone. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma.
> 
> Read the article at this link....
> 
> Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org



Thanks for the link. It's a keeper. Funny that we used to say "every *industrialized* nation in the world has a single player plan." Hell, we're not even an _industrialized_ nation anymore.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 6, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Every other Western democracy in the world has a single payer healthcare system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and cover everyone.
> ...



They will be "government" doctors? And here I thought you were such a genius.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 6, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


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







Maggie Maggie Maggie.. don't think of colonoscopy as a diagnostic tool,, think of it as a screening tool,, what they like to find and find early are "polyps" easily removed before they become cancer.. so you won't need a bag.. Colonoscopy is right up there with pap smears and mammograms in yer arsenal against cancer.  My beautiful young 40 year old cousin,, died of colon cancer..


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 6, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


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



I still say your incident is a rarity. I've lived in Vermont, Oklahoma, California, Mississippi and Texas and seen my share of injuries on the job (as well as dealt with Workers Comp paperwork on the employer end) but never heard a story about a doctor who refused to treat the injury.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 6, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Every other Western democracy in the world has a single payer healthcare system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and cover everyone. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma.
> ...



Yeah, it's just a normal part of our day to get smacked down when we post OUR backup information. You guys think you're always right, all the time because you are so tightly restricted by your own backup reading. So tell us again? If you're so "right" about everything, how come you're all running around sans a party to call your own with no cohesive alternatives? I keep Jack Kemp's quotation visible for a purpose. Think about it for a change.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 6, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWWNrbEano]YouTube - Cinco the Donkey[/ame]






woke up cranky today did we???


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 6, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


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


yeah, some dumbassed progress/liberal asshole site says it so it MUST be true


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 6, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


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



my Doc. would have....its his medical corp. that he is part of that wont,he wasnt to happy about it, but,thats his employer.....when i was doing the therapy at the clinic i was at,everyone Maggie,and i mean EVERYONE i talked to while doing therapy.....said the same thing about why they are here instead of at their own Doc.....their docs. did not wanna deal with the Dept of Labor.....they said the same as mine....they used to,but these guys are just horrible to deal with,especially the paper work......and they either misplace something or say they never got this or that....when the Doc. doing the post surgery care on me was telling me how tough they are to deal with,and his group is set up to deal with them,cause they do a lot of federal cases,sounds like a nightmare.....he wants national health care,BUT....he said if our govt has their hands in this,and sticks their noses in....he said it will be a nightmare....he said many Docs.wanna know....WHOM is going to run the show.....the feds or a non-govt agency....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 6, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


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



Chris can go fuck himself.....hes a dipship....


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



I see you're really just too stupid to see how _utterly_ stooooopid that comment was.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 7, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


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



I'm not disputing your own personal experiences. But I still do not think the majority of physicians are that hard-nosed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say most of them are comfortable enough with their financial status that the red tape, although expected, doesn't dramatically effect their bottom line. 

Physicians for a National Health Program - Health Care is a Human Right

Physicians Can Lead Health Care Reform Through Payment And Delivery System Reforms


----------



## jreeves (Jun 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Every other Western democracy in the world has a single payer healthcare system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and cover everyone. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma.
> 
> Read the article at this link....
> 
> Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org



Yes Canada with their great government ran health care.....


Canadian patients face long waits for low-tech healthcare Opinion Articles - Special Editorial Reports | Editorials on Top News Stories | Washington Examiner

KEY DATA: The average patient waiting period between referral and actual treatment for 12 most-frequently needed specialties was nearly four-and-one-half months in 2008, double the average from 15 years ago.

KEY DATA: A third of Canada's gamma cameras, used in nuclear medicine imaging, and a quarter of its angiography and cardiac catheterization labs, for heart-related ailments, are more than 10 years old.
 Canadians have significantly lower levels of access to several key medical technologies than citizens in other developed countries. Among member nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada ranks a dismal 19th out of 26 for the number of CT scanners per million residents. It ranks 14th out of 25 for MRI scanners, and 19th out of 21 for lithotripters, which are used to treat kidney and gall stones.

Limited access to high-tech equipment has resulted in lengthy wait times for care. After visiting a primary care physician, the average Canadian has to wait more than a month to get a CT scan and more than two months to get an MRI.

*According to Canadas Fraser Institute, roughly 800,000 of Canadas 33 million citizens are currently on a waiting list for some medical treatment. For 12 specialties across the country's 10 provinces, the average waiting period between referral from a general practitioner and actual treatment was nearly four and a half months in 2008. Thats double what the average wait time was 15 years ago.*


Has it ever occurred to you, the reason we pay more is because we have a better health care system? The reason we have a shorter lifespan in this country is due to unhealthy lifestyles, where fast food reigns king?


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 7, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


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



Right has nothing to do with it.  This poster thinks his insults better input than a factually supportive response.

Asking a neo con to think for his or her self is a non starter.  They let thier idols do the thinking.  Thier job is to scorch the earth on those that can't be conned.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 7, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


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



There are alternatives to turning our country's health care over to Washington, who has wrecked SS, Medicaid, and Medicare all of which have serious problems.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 7, 2009)

HUGGY said:


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



A lot of people, right and left, don't particularly like the ideal of turning their health care over to crooks(politicians). Some people actually like to be able to get CT scans when they need them. Some people like to get Mri's when they need them....etc....

Some people like to be treated when they are injured or sick....

Those crazy neo cons want to get treated when their sick.....the nerve of them.


----------



## Meister (Jun 7, 2009)

HUGGY said:


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



I'm waiting for the day the libs do their thinking for themselves, and quit thinking that our government is the answer.  The brightest people in this great nation aren't in our government...they're in our private sector.
Huggy you let the government do your thinking for you...that's where it starts and ends for you. The government has problems with SS, they have problems with medicare, and you want them to take over the healthcare?  I see no thought process on your end with that.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 7, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Right has nothing to do with it.  This poster thinks his insults better input than a factually supportive response.
> 
> Asking a neo con to think for his or her self is a non starter.  They let thier idols do the thinking.  Thier job is to scorch the earth on those that can't be conned.



And how many times have you resorted to insults on this board? I suppose according to your own statements here that we should concluse that you dont think for yourself.

I guess thats a convenient way to ignore the arguments you cant respond to. Declare moral superiority and pretend as though they arent made.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 7, 2009)

jreeves said:


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






 think about it,, obamalama has tasked nanci pop up pelosi with writing the legislation for health care reform dosen't that just  the shit outta you??


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 7, 2009)

Meister said:


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



THE PROBLEM is that there is no viable alternative. I'd gladly climb on board for some new, _proven less costly _solutions. I have never been a strong advocate for universal health care, for the very reasons you state. IF it could be done in a cost-effective manner, however, I would probably be all for it. But I do advocate the health care insurance being proposed. To me, that's a decent compromise because THE PROBLEM is the number of Americans caught between a rock and a hard place--they aren't old enough for Medicare and earn too much to qualify for Medicaid--yet their personal out-of-pocket expenses for health care are breaking their backs.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 7, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



She didn't write squat. Which is another total MISCONCEPTION. There is absolutely NOTHING, NADA, ZIP that has been sealed in concrete. The entire health care debate is currently only now being drafted in various versions by various congressional committees, the most recent (Friday) was Ted Kennedy's _proposed_ plan. The entire subject has yet to be put in any type of form for floor debate, and thereafter there will be numerous amendment offerings, debate on those, etc., etc.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 7, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...






fuck yew!


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 7, 2009)

for anybody who is truly interested in who is writing your health care reform?? 



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LvJmGHoy04]YouTube - President Obama on Health Care Reform: Urgency and Determination[/ame]




dipshit pelosi is.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 7, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



So you are for universal coverage and crappy health care for all? There are alternatives to spending ourselves into bankruptcy, this program will cost over 1 trillion dollars in the first 10 years. 1 trillion dollars that our government doesn't have.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 7, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


talkin about yourself again


----------



## editec (Jun 7, 2009)

No solution, government or private, is going to end the problem as long as the cost of HC is increasing at a rate twice the rate of inflation, folks.

The private insurance system we had worked fairly well back when most Americans actually worked for a living and the median age in this nation was about ten years less than it is now.

But now, now that age-demographics and rising prices of continuously more complex (and slightly better) HC are eroding our ability to pay (regardless of what system we have in place) we are facing a real problem, and one that neither capitalism OR socialism seems to have any REAL long term solution for.

The median salary *for a GP* in the usa is $135,000. Many medical MD specialites have median incomes twice that amount.  And that's SALARIES, not what they're making in private practices!

The median salary for nurses is $41, 642.

The median salary for Americans overall is $21,587.

And the incomes of HC providers is only a small part of the problem, too.

Through in the cost of highly specialized technicians, the rising prices of new drugs, and medical equipment, and the problem become obvious.

HC gets more expensive because it gets better, and the market demand for it is increasing as the media age of Americans get older, too.

It's ONLY going to get worse, folks.

An aging population, and a population whose incomes are declining combine to make HC a real problem regardless of what solutions we apply or don't apply.

Tryingot blame liberals or capitalists or socialism or capitalism for this state of affairs might be satisfying for some of you ideaologues, but it is simply _wrong. _


----------



## jreeves (Jun 7, 2009)

editec said:


> No solution, government or private, is going to end the problem as long as the cost of HC is increasing at a rate twice the rate of inflation, folks.
> 
> The private insurance system we had worked fairly well back when most Americans actually worked for a living and the median age in this nation was about ten years less than it is now.
> 
> ...


Maybe you are talking about individuals, instead of households but....
Are you sure about this number? $21,857?
Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The median income divides households in the US evenly in the middle with half of all household earning more than the median income and half of all households earning less than the median household income. *In 2004 the median household income in the United States was $43,389.[citation needed] *According to the US Census Bureau, the median is "considerably lower than the average, and provides a more accurate representation."[55] Considering other racial and geographical differences in regards to household income, it should come as no surprise that the median household income varies with race, size of household and geography. The state with the highest median household income in the United States as of the US Census Bureau 2005/06 is New Jersey with $66,752, followed by Maryland, Hawaii and Connecticut, making the Northeastern United States the wealthiest area by income in the entire country.[56] In terms of region the median household income was as follows: "Northeast ($47,994), West ($47,680) and South ($40,773)." Median household income in the Mid-West declined by 2.8% to $44,657.[57] While median household income has a tendency to increase up to four persons per household, it declines thereon after. This indicated that while four person households have larger incomes than those with one, two or three members, households seem to earn progressively less as their size increases beyond four persons. According to the US Census Bureau 2004 Community Survey, two-person households had a median income of $39,755, with $48,957 for three-person households, $54,338 for four-person households, $50,905 for five-person households, $45,435 for six-person households, with seven-or-more-person households having the second lowest median income of only $42,471..[58] In terms of race, Asian-Americans households had the highest median household income of $57,518, European-American households ranked second with $48,977, Hispanic or Latino households ranked third with $34,241. African American or Black households had the lowest median household income of all races with $30,134.[57]


----------



## jreeves (Jun 7, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



You are aware of the 47 million uninsured, reported by Obama, that 10 million are not American citizens? 

Furthermore, we could reduce costs drastically if we prevented chronic disease through education and better diet.
THE ROOT CAUSE OF RISING HEALTH CARE COSTS: CHRONIC DISEASE
Recently, President Barack Obama has reaffirmed his conviction that we must have quality, affordable health care for every American.  This is an important goal.  But as lawmakers move forward, they must be aware of the facts.  And they must be clear on the precise causes of America's health care woes, says Peter Pitts, president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.

Take the president's claim that the number of uninsured "now totals 45.7 million Americans."  Although the Census Bureau puts the number of uninsured U.S. residents at approximately 46 million, its report clearly states that 10 million of them are noncitizens, and almost 18 million make $50,000 a year or more, yet have chosen not to purchase health insurance.

What's most concerning is that these inflated statistics are distracting us from addressing the root causes of our nation's ballooning health care costs, says Pitts:

    * *Of the $2.2 trillion America spends each year on health care, 75 percent of that money goes to fighting chronic diseases, many of which are preventable but require regular treatment; it's for this reason that treating chronic conditions carries such a hefty price tag.*
    * *And the problem is getting worse; between 1980 and 2006, the incidence of diabetes tripled, triggering a massive increase in health care spending; heart disease and related illnesses will cost Americans over $304 billion this year alone.*
    ** In 2005, nearly half of all Americans were suffering from at least one chronic disease.
*
Luckily, huge strides can be made toward this goal by empowering Americans through better health education.  Informing citizens about good diet and exercise habits would go a long way toward curbing the incidence of obesity, a condition that often deteriorates into more costly chronic illnesses, says Pitts. 


It's not so much that American health care costs more, its that Americans live more unhealthy lives.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 7, 2009)

HUGGY said:


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



for you to refer to me as a NEO-CON Huggy tells me your as stupid as many on this board claim you are....and Chris does not have "factually supportive responses" he gets shot down time and time again because he uses the same dam old arguments every time.....but then....so do you....so why dont YOU try thinking for yourself and come up with something new,instead of what your NEO-LEFTIST idols tell you....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 7, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


it dont scare Huggy or Chrissy because Michael Moore told them "dont worry about it"


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 7, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



and you make some good points Maggie....but having our Uncle Sam have a say in this may make things worse OR just as bad....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 7, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



and having the "BLOB" have a say in this is just as scary....


----------



## Soaring (Jun 7, 2009)

I am 65 and retired from government service.  I make less than 40,000 a year, and although I am on medicare which I pay 96 bux a month for, I also am able to pay for a secondary medical insurance for my wife and me.  I have grown so frustrated with hearing people gripe about health insurance and the cost of it.  Face it, the democrats want what they consider "Free" healthcare.  There ain't jackshit on this earth that is "Free."  Instead of paying what I am currently affording, I will be required to pay more and receive less service.   I will be paying more because I and others will be subsidizing the lazy assed drunks and welfare recipients who refuse to  contribute to the welfare of our country monitarilly. The AMA needs to get off its' ass and tell congress they are against any government interference in the medical field.  I have done the only thing that I can do as a sheeple.  I have contacted my reps and stated that I do not want the government to interfere in the current medical field, and if they vote for Obama's proposal, I will vote for their competitor in 2010.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 7, 2009)

First jreeves good post, after reading the information which I had known already,what it all boils down to at least in my mind is a self management issue. Discounting, the fact after the numbers have been run that we have  85 plus percent of Americans convered and  I suspect that number is higher if you take into account the factors presented above, does not sound much like a  crisis due to lack of coverage.  It does however sound like Govt. does not have a firm grasp on what their  responsibilites are which is nothing new, and as a result are over-stepping , again nothing new.  If our Govt. would get back into the business of  creating a friendly environment for comeptetion i.e. regulating commerce then through competetion, prices would  come down. One more factor, here is prevention, again this is an educational issue and  for those who choose to not listen and continue lifestyles  that are unhealthy then scream for  healthcare to offset that at the taxpayers expense, that needs to be stopped.  This  call for  Govt. mandated healthcare when it comes  down to it is nothing more  than the Govt.s inability to actually solve the problem and further add fire to a generation of individuals that feel as if the Govt. is there not only to represent them but is also there to take care of them.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 7, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> First jreeves good post, after reading the information which I had known already,what it all boils down to at least in my mind is a self management issue. Discounting, the fact after the numbers have been run that we have  85 plus percent of Americans convered and  I suspect that number is higher if you take into account the factors presented above, does not sound much like a  crisis due to lack of coverage.  It does however sound like Govt. does not have a firm grasp on what their  responsibilites are which is nothing new, and as a result are over-stepping , again nothing new.  If our Govt. would get back into the business of  creating a friendly environment for comeptetion i.e. regulating commerce then through competetion, prices would  come down. One more factor, here is prevention, again this is an educational issue and  for those who choose to not listen and continue lifestyles  that are unhealthy then scream for  healthcare to offset that at the taxpayers expense, that needs to be stopped.  This  call for  Govt. mandated healthcare when it comes  down to it is nothing more  than the Govt.s inability to actually solve the problem and further add fire to a generation of individuals that feel as if the Govt. is there not only to represent them but is also there to take care of them.



Good then you won't mind if we dump that costly vet medical care and let you "manage" your own health.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 7, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > First jreeves good post, after reading the information which I had known already,what it all boils down to at least in my mind is a self management issue. Discounting, the fact after the numbers have been run that we have  85 plus percent of Americans convered and  I suspect that number is higher if you take into account the factors presented above, does not sound much like a  crisis due to lack of coverage.  It does however sound like Govt. does not have a firm grasp on what their  responsibilites are which is nothing new, and as a result are over-stepping , again nothing new.  If our Govt. would get back into the business of  creating a friendly environment for comeptetion i.e. regulating commerce then through competetion, prices would  come down. One more factor, here is prevention, again this is an educational issue and  for those who choose to not listen and continue lifestyles  that are unhealthy then scream for  healthcare to offset that at the taxpayers expense, that needs to be stopped.  This  call for  Govt. mandated healthcare when it comes  down to it is nothing more  than the Govt.s inability to actually solve the problem and further add fire to a generation of individuals that feel as if the Govt. is there not only to represent them but is also there to take care of them.
> ...



Ah yes, when all else fails attack someone's vet status? What a fucking low move, you do realize he served to earn that benefit?
You piece of shit....show some gratitude


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 7, 2009)

Huggy do you know the difference between my TRICARE and  let's say a single payer system where a person can apply for a "waiver" and not have to pay for Govt. sponsored healthcare and  the taxes  I pay now would go to pay for their medical insurance?  The difference is actually quite simple, I and many like me earned  what we have it was not given to us, just like a person who would work daily to pay for their familes healthcare that too is not given to them they earn it.  What I have always proposed is an environment where people who WISH to have medical insurance be able to find it and purchase it.  With the proper incentives. an environment can established where  competetion brings down the cost, making it affordable to those who don't have it.  Those  who do not wish to have medical insurance do so by choice and  exercise a freedom they are allowed to in this nation.


----------



## Chris (Jun 7, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> First jreeves good post, after reading the information which I had known already,what it all boils down to at least in my mind is a self management issue. Discounting, the fact after the numbers have been run that we have  85 plus percent of Americans convered and  I suspect that number is higher if you take into account the factors presented above, does not sound much like a  crisis due to lack of coverage.  It does however sound like Govt. does not have a firm grasp on what their  responsibilites are which is nothing new, and as a result are over-stepping , again nothing new.  If our Govt. would get back into the business of  creating a friendly environment for comeptetion i.e. regulating commerce then through competetion, prices would  come down. One more factor, here is prevention, again this is an educational issue and  for those who choose to not listen and continue lifestyles  that are unhealthy then scream for  healthcare to offset that at the taxpayers expense, that needs to be stopped.  This  call for  Govt. mandated healthcare when it comes  down to it is nothing more  than the Govt.s inability to actually solve the problem and further add fire to a generation of individuals that feel as if the Govt. is there not only to represent them but is also there to take care of them.



I agree, Navy.

Therefore, I suggest you forgo your military pension and healthcare.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > First jreeves good post, after reading the information which I had known already,what it all boils down to at least in my mind is a self management issue. Discounting, the fact after the numbers have been run that we have  85 plus percent of Americans convered and  I suspect that number is higher if you take into account the factors presented above, does not sound much like a  crisis due to lack of coverage.  It does however sound like Govt. does not have a firm grasp on what their  responsibilites are which is nothing new, and as a result are over-stepping , again nothing new.  If our Govt. would get back into the business of  creating a friendly environment for comeptetion i.e. regulating commerce then through competetion, prices would  come down. One more factor, here is prevention, again this is an educational issue and  for those who choose to not listen and continue lifestyles  that are unhealthy then scream for  healthcare to offset that at the taxpayers expense, that needs to be stopped.  This  call for  Govt. mandated healthcare when it comes  down to it is nothing more  than the Govt.s inability to actually solve the problem and further add fire to a generation of individuals that feel as if the Govt. is there not only to represent them but is also there to take care of them.
> ...



As soon as you put yourself in harm's way for your country's sake. Then you will be able to reject your medical coverage. Until then you can STFU because you haven't earned medical coverage through your service....


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 7, 2009)

gee, why am i not surprised

chris and huggy both pissing on vets

fucking morons they are


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> gee, why am i not surprised
> 
> chris and huggy both pissing on vets
> 
> fucking morons they are



Michael Moore told them too....


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 7, 2009)

Chris,  I'd be happy to comply with your wishes if you would be so kind as to ask Congress and the President to forgo their salaries and pensions  as well, when I get the memo. You will see me in line to do my part.  Seriously though Chris, the difference here is actually quite simple,  I'm not taking what I have not earned and did not contract for and did not  sacrifice for.  It's not like I was elected to represent California as the democrat from San Francisco for  8 years sitting on my ass then get a nice pension and benefits afterwards. We actually had to earn ours, a concept that seems lost on the about half the American public  these day's, hard work, sacrifice, and  serving something greater than yourself.  These days simply by consuming space  and  absorbing oxygen one feels entitled to things they do not earn. So again Chris call your Congressman, Senator and President Obama and once I get the news  I'd be only too happy to comply with your wishes.


----------



## Chris (Jun 7, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Chris,  I'd be happy to comply with your wishes if you would be so kind as to ask Congress and the President to forgo their salaries and pensions  as well, when I get the memo. You will see me in line to do my part.  Seriously though Chris, the difference here is actually quite simple,  I'm not taking what I have not earned and did not contract for and did not  sacrifice for.  It's not like I was elected to represent California as the democrat from San Francisco for  8 years sitting on my ass then get a nice pension and benefits afterwards. We actually had to earn ours, a concept that seems lost on the about half the American public  these day's, hard work, sacrifice, and  serving something greater than yourself.  These days simply by consuming space  and  absorbing oxygen one feels entitled to things they do not earn. So again Chris call your Congressman, Senator and President Obama and once I get the news  I'd be only too happy to comply with your wishes.



Thanks for proving my point.

The only people who are supported for life by the government are politicians and retired military.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 7, 2009)

Actually Chris I think you missed my point, let me try it again,  my point was that  my pension was not GIVEN to me it was  earned as a result of my meeting the criteria set down by the US Navy and the DoD.  Had I not done that I would not have EARNED it and would therefor not be receiving it.  I used the  political anaology to show you that your ire should be directed to the Congress that makes the laws not those of us who protected you in order  for you to exerise your rights to do so.  I also hoped that you would  see that when one earns something in this country through self sacrifice, and hard work, the things they receive are a result of that. However. lately that principle has changed because as I had said above about half of the country would want these things without having to work for them and thus the reason someone would see my pension and others like mine as some sort of gift from the Govt.


----------



## Chris (Jun 8, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Actually Chris I think you missed my point, let me try it again,  my point was that  my pension was not GIVEN to me it was  earned as a result of my meeting the criteria set down by the US Navy and the DoD.  Had I not done that I would not have EARNED it and would therefor not be receiving it.  I used the  political anaology to show you that your ire should be directed to the Congress that makes the laws not those of us who protected you in order  for you to exerise your rights to do so.  I also hoped that you would  see that when one earns something in this country through self sacrifice, and hard work, the things they receive are a result of that. However. lately that principle has changed because as I had said above about half of the country would want these things without having to work for them and thus the reason someone would see my pension and others like mine as some sort of gift from the Govt.



It is always funny to me to see retired military, and people on Social Security complain about people getting money from the government. 

My Dad does it all the time.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually Chris I think you missed my point, let me try it again,  my point was that  my pension was not GIVEN to me it was  earned as a result of my meeting the criteria set down by the US Navy and the DoD.  Had I not done that I would not have EARNED it and would therefor not be receiving it.  I used the  political anaology to show you that your ire should be directed to the Congress that makes the laws not those of us who protected you in order  for you to exerise your rights to do so.  I also hoped that you would  see that when one earns something in this country through self sacrifice, and hard work, the things they receive are a result of that. However. lately that principle has changed because as I had said above about half of the country would want these things without having to work for them and thus the reason someone would see my pension and others like mine as some sort of gift from the Govt.
> ...



I find it funny every time you post, your nonsense, which is every post.....
The military that serves earns their health care as was previously stated. If they are willing to sacrifice their lives for the defense of this nation. They have earned their health care.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 8, 2009)

jreeves said:


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



meanwhile NO politician has earned this by just being a fucking politician....


----------



## Meister (Jun 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually Chris I think you missed my point, let me try it again,  my point was that  my pension was not GIVEN to me it was  earned as a result of my meeting the criteria set down by the US Navy and the DoD.  Had I not done that I would not have EARNED it and would therefor not be receiving it.  I used the  political anaology to show you that your ire should be directed to the Congress that makes the laws not those of us who protected you in order  for you to exerise your rights to do so.  I also hoped that you would  see that when one earns something in this country through self sacrifice, and hard work, the things they receive are a result of that. However. lately that principle has changed because as I had said above about half of the country would want these things without having to work for them and thus the reason someone would see my pension and others like mine as some sort of gift from the Govt.
> ...



Why are you such a doofus, Chris?  Getting money out of the government?  Seems to me that they earned it by willing to put their lives on the line.  An E1 military personal gets around 1,450 dollars a month.  I bet you wouldn't even get out of bed for that amount, Chrissy.  They're willing to die for that amount of money, so when you go dissing the military on their acceptance to recieving healthcare, you just look like the moron that you are.


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2009)

Meister said:


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



I didn't diss the military. I just stated a fact.

No one gets money from the government for life except politcians, civil servants, and the military.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 9, 2009)

jreeves said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



*10 million are not American citizens*

That is a lie.

47 million americans means 47 million americans.  Illegals are not americans.  You have every right to voice your own opinion as we all do.  You don't have a right to make up your own facts.  Thats Fox TVs job.


----------



## Meister (Jun 9, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...




Take the president's claim that the number of uninsured "now totals 45.7 million Americans."  Although the Census Bureau puts the number of uninsured U.S. residents at approximately 46 million, *its report clearly states that 10 million of them are noncitizens, *and almost 18 million make $50,000 a year or more, yet have chosen not to purchase health insurance.
THE ROOT CAUSE OF RISING HEALTH CARE COSTS: CHRONIC DISEASE

Next time try reading Jreeves source, it clearly stated what he posted.  You came off looking a little bad on this one Huggy.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 9, 2009)

Meister said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Moi?  A mistake?  BLASPHAMY!!!  I didn't look at his stupid "Source".  I was using the "logic" angle.  Silly me thinking that illegals ARE NOT AMERICANS.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 9, 2009)

This may sound somewhat of a backwards question on this 47 million Americans debate and if it is you iwll have to pardon me please.  However, I'm just curious as to how that figure is actually arrived at and by whom?  Is it an est. from the last census?  If this is the case  then is this just an est. and does not reflect accurate data and is based on a cross section of data taken.  Or is it an est. used by the insurance industry? To my knowledge it is one used by the last census so again how accurate is this data? 

Meanwhile, the nation&#8217;s official poverty rate declined for the first time this decade, from 12.6 percent in 2005 to 12.3 percent in 2006. There were 36.5 million people in poverty in 2006, not statistically different from 2005. The number of* people without health *insurance coverage rose from 44.8 million (15.3 percent) in 2005 to 47 million (15.8 percent) in 2006.

US Census Press Releases

Funny doesn't mention the word Americans, just mentions the word people. 

The number of people with health insurance increased to 253.4 million in 2007 (up from 249.8 million in 2006).  The number of people covered by private health insurance (202.0 million) in 2007 was not statistically different from 2006, while the number of people covered by government health insurance increased to 83.0 million, up from 80.3 million in 2006. 
Health Insurance Coverage: 2007 - Highlights

So again is the crisis in medical costs and insurance cost? if so this is a regulation issue and not a  converage issue. What percentage of those in that data actually prefer not to be covered?  In order to drive down costs you need to promote competetion not decrease it.  By doing so, you provide an avenue for people to purchase their own.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 9, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


except jreeves didnt say they were illegals, you moron
learn to read


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 9, 2009)

QUOTE=Navy1960;1265185]This may sound somewhat of a backwards question on this 47 million Americans debate and if it is you iwll have to pardon me please.  However, I'm just curious as to how that figure is actually arrived at and by whom?  Is it an est. from the last census?  If this is the case  then is this just an est. and does not reflect accurate data and is based on a cross section of data taken.  Or is it an est. used by the insurance industry? To my knowledge it is one used by the last census so again how accurate is this data? 

Meanwhile, the nations official poverty rate declined for the first time this decade, from 12.6 percent in 2005 to 12.3 percent in 2006. There were 36.5 million people in poverty in 2006, not statistically different from 2005. The number of* people without health *insurance coverage rose from 44.8 million (15.3 percent) in 2005 to 47 million (15.8 percent) in 2006.

US Census Press Releases

Funny doesn't mention the word Americans, just mentions the word people. 

The number of people with health insurance increased to 253.4 million in 2007 (up from 249.8 million in 2006).  The number of people covered by private health insurance (202.0 million) in 2007 was not statistically different from 2006, while the number of people covered by government health insurance increased to 83.0 million, up from 80.3 million in 2006. 
Health Insurance Coverage: 2007 - Highlights

So again is the crisis in medical costs and insurance cost? if so this is a regulation issue and not a  converage issue. What percentage of those in that data actually prefer not to be covered?  In order to drive down costs you need to promote competetion not decrease it.  By doing so, you provide an avenue for people to purchase their own.[/QUOTE]

*Funny doesn't mention the word Americans, just mentions the word people*

So what.  No one is advocating for free health care for illegal aliens.  All you idiots can do is fear monger.  Don't you know that we are totally done with you and your anti american agenda?  Maybe the next two elction cycles will make an impression on your little brains.

Even your old money generators have abandoned you ...RNC down over 33% in contributions?

What a sad bunch of mealy mouthed losers.


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2009)

I think the 47 million figure is probably low. 

I know a lot of people without health insurance including myself.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> I think the 47 million figure is probably low.
> 
> I know a lot of people without health insurance including myself.


it's your own damn fault you don't have any
get yourself a policy


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> I think the 47 million figure is probably low.
> 
> I know a lot of people without health insurance including myself.



Screw that trollup divecunt.  Don't give those vampires another nickle.  The only way to force a change is to *FORCE* a change.  Do like I do and go to emergency any time you need attention.  Don't wait till it is a big problem.  Force thier weak ass hand.

The sons of bitches fucked my uncle over spacing out his cancer treatment and it killed him.  Fuck them and fuck any that support the HMOs.  Uncle Johnnie was the head Forester for the state of Washington with supposedly the best program you could get.  I really liked him.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 9, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> What a sad bunch of mealy mouthed losers.



and we are all standing behind YOU ...the biggest mealy mouth loser of them all....


----------



## jreeves (Jun 9, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Really now, argue with the Census Bureau dipshit....
Uninsured in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The US Census Bureau annually reports statistics on the uninsured. According to its most recent figures, in 2007, nearly 37 million of the uninsured were employment-age adults (ages 18 to 64), and more than 27 million worked at least part time. Approximately 61% of the roughly 45 million uninsured live in households with incomes under $50,000 (13.5 million below $25,000 and 14.5 million at $25,000 to $49,000).[1] And 38% live in households with incomes of $50,000 or more (8.5 million at $50,000 to $74,999 and 9.1 million at $75,000 or more.

According to the Census Bureau, people of Hispanic origin were the most affected by being uninsured; nearly a third of Hispanics lack health insurance. However, this rate decreased slightly from 2006 to 2007, from 15.3 to 14.8 million, a decrease of 2 percentage points (34.1% to 32.1%). The state with the highest percentage of uninsured was Texas (24.1% average for three years, 2004-2006). New Mexico has the second highest percentage of residents without health insurance at 22%.[3]

It has been estimated that nearly one fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, almost one quarter is eligible for public coverage, and the remaining 56% need financial assistance (8.9% of all Americans).[4] An estimated 5 million of those without health insurance are considered "uninsurable" because of pre-existing conditions.[5] A recent study concluded that 15% of people shopping online for health insurance are considered "uninsurable" because of a pre-existing condition, or for being overweight. This label does not necessarily mean they can never get health insurance, but that they will not qualify for standard individual coverage. People with similar health status can be covered via employer-provided health insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid.[6]

According to the Census Bureau, in 2007, there were 8.1 million uninsured children in the US. Nearly 8 million young adults (those aged 18-24), were uninsured, representing 28.1% of their population. Young adults make up the largest age segment of the uninsured, are the most likely to be uninsured, and are one of the fastest growing segments of the uninsured population. They often lose coverage under their parents' health insurance policies or public programs when they reach age 19. Others lose coverage when they graduate from college. Many young adults do not have the kind of stable employment that would provide ongoing access to health insurance.[7][8]

*Non-citizens are more likely to be uninsured than citizens, with a 43.8% uninsured rate. This is attributable to a higher likelihood of working in a low-wage job that does not offer health benefits, and restrictions on eligibility for public programs. However, most of the uninsured in the US are citizens (78%).*[9] The longer a non-citizen immigrant has been in the country, the less likely they are to be uninsured. In 2006, roughly 27% of immigrants entering the country before 1970 were uninsured, compared to 45% of immigrants entering the country in the 1980s and 49% of those entering between 2000 and 2006. Most uninsured non-citizens are recent immigrants; almost half entered the country between 2000 and 2006, and 36% entered during the 1990s. Foreign-born non-citizens accounted for over 40% of the increase in the uninsured between 1990 and 1998, and over 90% of the increase between 1998 and 2003. One reason for the acceleration after 1998 may be restrictions imposed by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. Almost six out of ten (68%) of uninsured non-citizens live in California, Texas, Florida, or New York.[10]

A report by the Kaiser Family Foundation in April 2008 found that US economic downturns place a significant strain on state Medicaid and SCHIP programs. The authors estimated that a 1% increase in the unemployment rate increase Medicaid and SCHIP enrollment by 1 million, and increase the number uninsured by 1.1 million. State spending on Medicaid and SCHIP would increase by $1.4 billion (total spending on these programs would increase by $3.4 billion). This increased spending would occur while state government revenues were declining. During the last downturn, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) included federal assistance to states, which helped states avoid tightening their Medicaid and SCHIP eligibility rules. The authors conclude that Congress should consider similar relief for the current economic downturn.[11]


If 78% of the uninsured are US citizens that would mean that 22% are non citizens. Which if we there is approximately 46 million uninsured, then the 10 million non citizen uninsured number would be accurate. Why don't you get the facts before you go accusing others of lying. By the way, I can provide a ton of sources with the same 10 million uninsured number if you would like.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 9, 2009)

jreeves said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Furthermore of the total 46 million over 40% expected to get health insurance during the next 4 months, which means the lapse in coverage was due to a job change.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> I think the 47 million figure is probably low.
> 
> I know a lot of people without health insurance including myself.



Of course, but the Census Bureau begs to differ with you.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jun 9, 2009)

When I become King I am going to fix up the health care industry...  There will be no more worries about aspirins and bandaids.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Why the hurry?  Here's why.
> 
> Why the Health Care Rush? - WSJ.com
> 
> ...


Ask your mother to give up her Medicare and Social Security, then get back to us.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 10, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > Why the hurry?  Here's why.
> ...



He might not have to ask her to give them up. Unless something drastic is done they will both go bankrupt.


----------



## Nik (Jun 10, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > I think the 47 million figure is probably low.
> ...



Of course neither you, nor the census bureau take into account the underinsured.

60% of all bankruptcies are healthcare related.  And more than 75% of those individuals had medical insurance....


----------



## jreeves (Jun 10, 2009)

Nik said:


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



So instead of individuals going bankrupt the whole federal government will go bankrupt...good idea


----------



## jreeves (Jun 10, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



I'm sure the extra wait time for a simple CT scan will help save their lives also....


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 10, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...


Are you putting the government ahead of the individual? Not very Republican of you.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 10, 2009)

You will have a choice of your private insurance or the public one. 
Why do Republicans support multi-billion dollar insurance companies at the expense of their own well-being?


----------



## Meister (Jun 10, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> You will have a choice of your private insurance or the public one.
> Why do Republicans support multi-billion dollar insurance companies at the expense of their own well-being?


I see not much thought went into your post.  The universal health will push out private insurance through mandates on the private sector.
  Have you even taken a poll on who wants universal health coverage, and private insurance coverage with party lines?  You talk like all democrats want socialized healthcare.  You can't really be this stupid, or did you go to school with Chris?


----------



## jreeves (Jun 10, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



I think they are all crooks Republicans included I only support their position in opposition of universal health care. But conservatives, which would include myself, are for a smaller government.

I know and you should know that the federal government doesn't have 1 to 1.5 trillion dollars to spend on a false utopia.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 10, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> You will have a choice of your private insurance or the public one.
> Why do Republicans support multi-billion dollar insurance companies at the expense of their own well-being?



I kind of like knowing if I need a specialist or if I need some type of diagnostic equipment that I won't have to wait for months. If I do have to get a CT scan or MRI I want to know that the equipment is reliable and not ancient equipment. Now how does that run contrary to my own well-being?


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 10, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > You will have a choice of your private insurance or the public one.
> ...


If you get all the care you want without question, you are lucky, indeed. It's a rarity.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 10, 2009)

Political Junky said:


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



Yeah I know its a wonder, I have medical insurance provided through my employer.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 11, 2009)

jreeves said:


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



*false utopia. *???

How is it that the entire industrial world with the exception of our "great human commodity" system enjoys this "false utopia" without going bankrupt or rioting in the streets from all the long lines and denied coverage?

No, my belief is that the pharms and hmo's that have spent BILLIONS in congress to hang on to the teats of this immoral cash cow are represented everywhere including here to once again dupe america into going against our own best interests.  I think thats why the "dude and fraulien" have tag teamed thier way into your neo con hearts.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 11, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Right now bureaucrats in the insurance industry make the decisions as to whether you get a treatment.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 11, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


no, they determine only if your policy covers it
if it does, then you get the treatment, if it doesnt, then you have to find an alternative or pay for it yourself

you'd rather have the government tell your Doctor what they can and cant do?


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 11, 2009)

jreeves said:


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


If you change jobs you might be faced with finding other insurance .. what happens if you or a child gets sick then? 
Even though insured, a bureaucrat in the industry can refuse a treatment that your doctor deems necessary.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 11, 2009)

Political Junky said:


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


again, you repeat that lie
the Insurance companies only say if it is something you are covered for in your policy
nothing more
if you dont have coverage for it, then you either have to look for an alternative treatment, or pay for it yourself

and if you dont think the government run healthcare would be the same damn thing(or much much worse) then you are too naive


----------



## jreeves (Jun 11, 2009)

Political Junky said:


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



I actually read through those health care packets that you get during open enrollment. I pick the insurance that best fits the needs of my family. If a procedure is covered by your insurance company, they can't deny coverage, what are you talking about? 

Ummm...there is Cobra you know. I am in favor of making Cobra more affordable during short lapses in health coverage due to job transitions.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 11, 2009)

HUGGY said:


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


Britain no longer a AAA nation? It could happen, S&P warns | Money & Company | Los Angeles Times
From Bloomberg News:

    "We have revised the outlook on the U.K. to negative due to our view that, even assuming additional fiscal tightening, the net general government debt burden could approach 100% of gross domestic product and remain near that level in the medium term," S&P analysts led by David Beers in London said in the report.

    Bigben "The downgrade highlights the precarious fiscal outlook the U.K. economy faces," said Nick Stamenkovic, a strategist in Edinburgh at RIA Capital Markets. "The huge amount of issuance to face the [bond] market in the coming months will push yields to the upside. Were bearish." 


One of those great nations, instituting government health care.

Pay attention, I have already posted Canada's problems with health care. The long lines and antiquated medical equipment.....


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > You will have a choice of your private insurance or the public one.
> ...


Hell, private insurance should be forced to compete or close shop. What are you talking about?


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 11, 2009)

Political Junky said:


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


thats what most conservatives have been saying
competition will bring the price down


----------



## Chris (Jun 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



Every other Western country has a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because a single payer system is more efficient.

For profit healthcare makes it more expensive.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 12, 2009)

Chris said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


and everyone with the means comes HERE for healthcare


another FAIL


----------



## jreeves (Jun 12, 2009)

Chris said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



You troll, they wait for treatment and their medical technology is behind the US.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 12, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The US also leads the world in medical research, if we socialize health care, meaningful medical research breakthroughs will slow down drastically.


----------



## editec (Jun 12, 2009)

jreeves said:


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


 
Yup, likely true.

If one takes the profit motive out of medical research it will slow down.

Of course much of the so called research done right now isn't really all that much about advancing medicine, either, is it?

It's about finding a chemical/medince which is essantially the same as other chemical/medicines, but which is just chemically different enough to make it patentable so that it can replace the chemical which is losing its patent.

Still in the greater picture the complaint that removing the profit motive from medical research is still sound.

This is actually the number one problem of socializing medicine. It's not the only problem with it, but it stands as what I consider the worst outcome of it.


----------



## Annie (Jun 12, 2009)

I'm becoming less concerned about the health care changes at least for the time being. The costs involved are becoming more apparent by the hour, even to the drones in government. If Obama & Comrades implement such, they will be raising taxes to historical levels, at the cost of his more important pledge, to not tax those under $200k.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20090611_JCTLettertoBaucus6209.pdf


----------



## editec (Jun 12, 2009)

Annie said:


> I'm becoming less concerned about the health care changes at least for the time being. The costs involved are becoming more apparent by the hour, even to the drones in government. If Obama & Comrades implement such, they will be raising taxes to historical levels, at the cost of his more important pledge, to not tax those under $200k.
> 
> http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20090611_JCTLettertoBaucus6209.pdf


 
ACtually I agree with you on this, Annie.

The HC system IS going to change because what we have now is rapidly becoming unsustainable.

But remember the old chessmasters' caveat:

All the mistakes are there, waiting to be made.​ 
If we think (as we thought when we created Medecade and Medicare) that a government payment system feeding into a capitalist market is the solution to rising HC costs, then the cost of HC is going to go through the ceiling when we put that system in place.​ 
It will start slowly at first because the government WILL use its power to force some HC providers to keep costs down.​ 
But inevitably HC establishment will petition our POLS (exactly as the PPharma and insurance companies have already done) to insure that they continue to rise costs and put the burden to pay their outrageous profits on the back of the taxpayers.​ 
Mark my words, folks, everytime the government decides to pay the capitalists for their services, the PRICE of stuff goes up until every NEW dollar put into the market is gone.​ 
*Simple economics....if you increase demand (by giving everyone HC insurance) but you do not increase supply, then the cost of stuff will escalate to capture the new dollars that are circulating in that market.*​ 
We saw that in HC and higher education already have we not?​ 
If you doubt this, just look at how those two things have continued to rise in costs compared to all other thing in this society.​ 
And why did they rise faster than everything else?​ 
Because the government decided to help people who couldn't afford it, get into those markets.

DAmn! I ought to go to work for the CATO insititute!

I sound exactly like they do as it regards this issue.
​


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



Aside from the fact that you are an ignorant ****...allow me to ask what your point is in general.  Without getting too personal...what is your health care situation?  I'm honestly curious why you are so adament about neglecting and rejecting the health of others.

What do you have now that you think you will lose?


----------



## Yukon (Jun 12, 2009)

Why dont you just give your pay cheque to the HMO and let them look after everyting for you? hahahahahahahahahaha.......you people are so sad, so pathetic, so gullible, so passe.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


No, everyone with means does not come here for treatment. Not everyone wants to live in the US either ... I know this goes against every conservative talking point.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 12, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


you are nothing but a moronic troll
fuck off


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Thats all you ever offer.  What a pathetic loser.   I bet you still sleep with the light on.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 12, 2009)

Government programs directly cover 27.8% of the population (83 million),[34] including the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and some of the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. U.S. government programs accounted for over* 45% of health care expenditures*, making the U.S. government the largest insurer in the nation. Per-capita spending on health care by the U.S. government placed it among the top ten highest spenders among United Nations member countries in 2004.[44]
Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So here is a thought , everyone agree's that the costs in healthcare makes access to healthcare insurance unaffordable for some who wish to obtain it as a general rule ?  It follows then if the Federal Govt. is responsible for  45% of this healthcare, is not the  Federal Govt. at least partially responsible for 45% of the rising costs of healthcare in this country? So why then would you wish the Federal govt. to have an even bigger role  if they have failed to manage their share  in keeping costs down?  Here is another thought,  perhaps, the Federal Govt. could  find way's through it's Federal programs , grants,  tax incentives to promote competetion and establish healthcare co-ops that will offer low costs health insurance  that is backed by the Federal Govt. much like the FDIC? just a thought?  I think the difference here is actually quite simple, many here see healthcare as a "right" well so be it,  use our form of Govt. call for a constitutional amendment and make it one. Otherwise, work within the framework of our existing system, starting with the  Federal Govt. who is responsible for 45% of it.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 12, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


projecting again


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 12, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Government programs directly cover 27.8% of the population (83 million),[34] including the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and some of the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. U.S. government programs accounted for over* 45% of health care expenditures*, making the U.S. government the largest insurer in the nation. Per-capita spending on health care by the U.S. government placed it among the top ten highest spenders among United Nations member countries in 2004.[44]
> Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> So here is a thought , everyone agree's that the costs in healthcare makes access to healthcare insurance unaffordable for some who wish to obtain it as a general rule ?  It follows then if the Federal Govt. is responsible for  45% of this healthcare, is not the  Federal Govt. at least partially responsible for 45% of the rising costs of healthcare in this country? So why then would you wish the Federal govt. to have an even bigger role  if they have failed to manage their share  in keeping costs down?  Here is another thought,  perhaps, the Federal Govt. could  find way's through it's Federal programs , grants,  tax incentives to promote competetion and establish healthcare co-ops that will offer low costs health insurance  that is backed by the Federal Govt. much like the FDIC? just a thought?  I think the difference here is actually quite simple, many here see healthcare as a "right" well so be it,  use our form of Govt. call for a constitutional amendment and make it one. Otherwise, work within the framework of our existing system, starting with the  Federal Govt. who is responsible for 45% of it.



Those dots do not connect.  Medicare cost 1-3% administatively.

The hmo's, malpractice ins and emergency visits that could have been prevented with coverage for the poor is where the rising costs come from.


----------



## Meister (Jun 12, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Government programs directly cover 27.8% of the population (83 million),[34] including the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and some of the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. U.S. government programs accounted for over* 45% of health care expenditures*, making the U.S. government the largest insurer in the nation. Per-capita spending on health care by the U.S. government placed it among the top ten highest spenders among United Nations member countries in 2004.[44]
> ...



1-3 % and they still are screwed up finacially.  Well Huggy, there is our government in action.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 12, 2009)

One of the most common, and least challenged, assertions in the debate over U.S. health
care policy is that Medicare administrative costs are about 2 percent of claims costs,
while private insurance companies&#8217; administrative costs are in the 20 to 25 percent
range.
It is very difficult to do a real apples-to-apples comparison of Medicare&#8217;s true costs
with those of the insurance industry. The primary problem is that private sector
insurers must track and divulge their administrative costs, while most of Medicare&#8217;s
administrative costs are hidden or completely ignored by the complex and bureaucratic
reporting and tracking systems used by the government.
This study, based in part on a technical paper by Mark Litow of Milliman, Inc., finds
that Medicare&#8217;s actual administrative costs are 5.2 percent, when the hidden costs are
included.
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf

Huggy, while I tend to agree that healthcare costs are a result of several factors, among them are ones mentioned in previous posts. My feelings are that Govt. intervention into the healthcare insurance business is not the right solution to bring down costs and will further erode healthcare. The Federal Govt. has a role in containing costs  they simply need to address the issues that effect costs and and promote and environment that makes healthcare more affordable and accessable to those who wish it.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 12, 2009)

Meister said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...


he's lying, because that doesnt take into account the costs covered by the private insurance most people buy to supplement medicare


----------



## Yukon (Jun 12, 2009)

I wonder if AIG could effectively eliver health care benefits to ALL Americans - even Negros and Latinos.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 12, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> One of the most common, and least challenged, assertions in the debate over U.S. health
> care policy is that Medicare administrative costs are about 2 percent of claims costs,
> while private insurance companies administrative costs are in the 20 to 25 percent
> range.
> ...



If there was any clue that the costs are rigged.  All you have to do is look at the bill the neo cons passed a few years ago that prevents medicare from negotiating for phamecuticals.

Even if with "hidden" costs medicares ad is up to 5-6% how is that not a 20-30% benefit from hmo's?


----------



## Yukon (Jun 12, 2009)

If I get sick I go to a Doctor, any Doctor I want to see and I dont pay. I dont pay any outrageous medical insurance premiums and everything is FREE. Oh yes, we have problems with our medicare system but we are insured. The problems we have are small. We have in Canada the BEST medical system in the world. America eat your hearts out and if you dont have Insurance you may DIE if you get sick

*God Save the Queen !*


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 12, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > One of the most common, and least challenged, assertions in the debate over U.S. health
> ...



Huggy, I'm not  one to consider costs as anything but what they are and  a benefit is not one of them.  I was pointing out to you that Medicare costs are often times hidden and  to compare the two is not often times a fair comparison is all.  As you can hopefully see, I to want costs to come under control in the healthcare industry and believe strongly it can be achieved through promoting competetion among private companies and  there are many other solutions that can repair the system we have now. I just am not one to believe that the Federal Govt. being the overlord of  anyones choice  be it healthcare, education, autos, whatever is ever a good thing.  I personally believe that the Federal govt.  has a specific task when it comes to healthcare and that is to regulate commerce and so far they have done a pretty poor job of it.  There are also many other things related  to healthcare that cause prices to rise the Federal Govt. can do, that they have so far dragged their heels on as well.  So I suppose in my mind that is where the differences between myself and many others is.


----------



## Meister (Jun 12, 2009)

Yukon said:


> If I get sick I go to a Doctor, any Doctor I want to see and I dont pay. I dont pay any outrageous medical insurance premiums and *everything is FREE.* Oh yes, we have problems with our medicare system but we are insured. The problems we have are small. We have in Canada the BEST medical system in the world. America eat your hearts out and if you dont have Insurance you may DIE if you get sick
> 
> *God Save the Queen !*



It ain't free, Yukon


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 12, 2009)

Meister said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > If I get sick I go to a Doctor, any Doctor I want to see and I dont pay. I dont pay any outrageous medical insurance premiums and *everything is FREE.* Oh yes, we have problems with our medicare system but we are insured. The problems we have are small. We have in Canada the BEST medical system in the world. America eat your hearts out and if you dont have Insurance you may DIE if you get sick
> ...


not to mention that everything he said was a lie


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 12, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



I understand your sense that government can be the worst caretaker.  The evidense I have seen and heard puts the neo cons and the Clinton-Bush administrations squarly at fault for the criminal mismanagement of regulation over the past 16 years.

I have looked into Obamas eyes.  I believe with Obamasw leadership inspite of the overflow of bad people from the last adminisrtation we will pull ourselves out of this mess.

Government has done good things.  IKE built the nations highways...There was Hoover Dam...The panama canal..

Voting is not enough.   Back up your convictions with a letter, an e-mail or a phone call no matter who you voted for.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 12, 2009)

Yukon said:


> If I get sick I go to a Doctor, any Doctor I want to see and I dont pay. I dont pay any outrageous medical insurance premiums and everything is FREE. Oh yes, we have problems with our medicare system but we are insured. The problems we have are small. We have in Canada the BEST medical system in the world. America eat your hearts out and if you dont have Insurance you may DIE if you get sick
> 
> *God Save the Queen !*


Indeed, your system is far better than the US.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 12, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > If I get sick I go to a Doctor, any Doctor I want to see and I dont pay. I dont pay any outrageous medical insurance premiums and everything is FREE. Oh yes, we have problems with our medicare system but we are insured. The problems we have are small. We have in Canada the BEST medical system in the world. America eat your hearts out and if you dont have Insurance you may DIE if you get sick
> ...


i see you like liars


----------



## Meister (Jun 12, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > If I get sick I go to a Doctor, any Doctor I want to see and I dont pay. I dont pay any outrageous medical insurance premiums and everything is FREE. Oh yes, we have problems with our medicare system but we are insured. The problems we have are small. We have in Canada the BEST medical system in the world. America eat your hearts out and if you dont have Insurance you may DIE if you get sick
> ...



I sure do wish you knew what you were talking about.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 12, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > If I get sick I go to a Doctor, any Doctor I want to see and I dont pay. I dont pay any outrageous medical insurance premiums and everything is FREE. Oh yes, we have problems with our medicare system but we are insured. The problems we have are small. We have in Canada the BEST medical system in the world. America eat your hearts out and if you dont have Insurance you may DIE if you get sick
> ...



Your talking to a teenage kid who has been in the hospital and seen a doctor exactly once in their life....


----------



## jreeves (Jun 12, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



When Yukon grows up hopefully he doesn't need a CT Scan, because he'll have to wait about two months to get one, that's if he's alive. Then if he does get one hopefully its reliable cause its probably over 20 years old.....

Yes truly the best in the world...

But you know what its free coverage, hopefully he survives it though.

Dying is free also....


----------



## jreeves (Jun 12, 2009)

jreeves said:


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



Oh yeah a lot of the medical treatments implemented in Canadian hospitals were developed originally in the US. This is yet another reason health care cost so much in the US. We develop nearly all the drugs and treatments for the rest of the world.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 12, 2009)

jreeves said:


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


actually, it isnt free, he just doesnt have to pay for it at the time of service
hes paying for it in his taxes


----------



## oreo (Jun 12, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> The rush?  Half of America will be poverty stricken if we continue with the hmo driven healthcare that currently exists for people.
> 
> Obama has already said there will be a better way to cover Americans with affordable healthcare for those who need it by the end of the year and he'd better do it.




We all know that there needs to be something done about health care costs in this country--but I would sure like to see what they have in mind before committing to it.

I want to see republican/democrat & bipartisan plans--before we just jump out of the frying pan into the fire.


----------



## oreo (Jun 12, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...





There is absolutely nothing the government does than can't be run more efficiently--with less cost in the private sector.  Americans did not care for the Hoover dam back in the 1930's they got rid of Hoover as fast as they could.  That was a work project too--in order to stimulate the economy.  Building one dam--even though we enjoy it today--wasn't that effective to bring Americans out of a recession.

I agree with you--e-mail your representatives--& e-mail them often.


----------



## Yukon (Jun 13, 2009)

Ignorance is bliss, so are Americans..................


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 13, 2009)

oreo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



If you are talking about making widgets you are right.  Health care is not manufacturing or distributing manufactured goods.

Cutting costs works on inanimate objects.  It is a little harder to do with people.  I don't like someone who is thinking about his bonus looking at my "worth" and my health.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 13, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> I think thats why the "dude and fraulien" have tag teamed thier way into your neo con hearts.



see Dude....once again...NEO-CON....soon you will be their spokesperson...Hugfuck...for the 50th time....if someone disagrees with your NEO-LIBERAL agenda.....HE/SHE IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY ....A NEO-CON...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 13, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



so where is the difference going to be?......


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> Every other Western country has a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because a single payer system is more efficient.
> 
> For profit healthcare makes it more expensive.



this is about the 18th time you have said this .....got anything new? different?....how about wording it different so it looks like something new....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 13, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Why dont you just give your pay cheque to the HMO and let them look after everyting for you? hahahahahahahahahaha.......you people are so sad, so pathetic, so gullible, so passe.



homo says what?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 13, 2009)

Yukon said:


> I wonder if AIG could effectively eliver health care benefits to ALL Americans - even Negros and Latinos.



homo says what?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 13, 2009)

Yukon said:


> If I get sick I go to a Doctor, any Doctor I want to see and I dont pay. I dont pay any outrageous medical insurance premiums and everything is FREE. Oh yes, we have problems with our medicare system but we are insured. The problems we have are small. We have in Canada the BEST medical system in the world. America eat your hearts out and if you dont have Insurance you may DIE if you get sick
> 
> *God Save the Queen !*



homo says what?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 13, 2009)

Meister said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > If I get sick I go to a Doctor, any Doctor I want to see and I dont pay. I dont pay any outrageous medical insurance premiums and *everything is FREE.* Oh yes, we have problems with our medicare system but we are insured. The problems we have are small. We have in Canada the BEST medical system in the world. America eat your hearts out and if you dont have Insurance you may DIE if you get sick
> ...



and apparently he hasnt been cured yet....


----------



## jreeves (Jun 13, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Ignorance is bliss, so are Americans..................



Happy waiting, Yuclueless


----------

