# Krugman Poll on Canadian Healthcare



## PoliticalChic (Aug 4, 2009)

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fexz8Ij-OBQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fexz8Ij-OBQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 4, 2009)

You should hand out ice packs with that


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

*oops*


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

How many Americans don't have healthcare at all?
How many Americans are happy with the healthcare they have?


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> How many Americans don't have healthcare at all?
> How many Americans are happy with the healthcare they have?[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> [youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fexz8Ij-OBQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fexz8Ij-OBQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]



Don't ever ask a question you don't know the anwer to. 
He ended up with the true feeling of Canadian healthcare, all he had to do is ask a Canadian.
Good video PC


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > How many Americans don't have healthcare at all?
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> How many Americans don't have healthcare at all?
> How many Americans are happy with the healthcare they have?




Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage. 
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase

	when one digs deep enough, one finds that only 8 million folks can be classified as "chronically uninsured;" that's still a problem, of course, but a much more manageable one, and puts the lie to the canard that our system is irretrievably broken.
InsureBlog: Vindicated!

Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small  perhaps half the reported 47 million or less. (about 7.6%)
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The '47 Million Uninsured' Myth


Enlightened?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > How many Americans don't have healthcare at all?
> ...




no I'm not....and nobody else should be either when you are citing a poll conducted on less than 5000 people on a media call list like it's a real indicator of how all Americans feel....... ABC - they should stick to T.V shows like Full House


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 4, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> [youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fexz8Ij-OBQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fexz8Ij-OBQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]



My soda came out my nose


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

How come your Super Girl avatar doesn't have a huge adams apple?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

You can site all the "personal experiences" you want to about various health care systems.  There will always be someone with a contradictory opinion.

The only thing that you can take into account as factual material are the raw numbers, and the numbers say that among modern industrialized nations, countries with nationalized health care systems have longer life-spans and healthier citizenry in general.

Those are the FACTS.  Everything that the politicians who have been bought out by private healthcare like to site are simply OPINIONS.  And they are usually anonymous opinions (a friend of mine who lives up in canada says, or "Some" say).


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



Not satisfied with having fucked up your own country, you want to advocate others fuck up theirs. I guess you are a living example of how misery loves company.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> sounds like another strawman arguement



It is another strawman argument.  When the 43 million person number is floated around, it refers to AMERICANS, not illegals.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> You can site all the "personal experiences" you want to about various health care systems.  There will always be someone with a contradictory opinion.
> 
> The only thing that you can take into account as factual material are the raw numbers, and the numbers say that among modern industrialized nations, countries with nationalized health care systems have longer life-spans and healthier citizenry in general.
> 
> Those are the FACTS.  Everything that the politicians who have been bought out by private healthcare like to site are simply OPINIONS.  And they are usually anonymous opinions (a friend of mine who lives up in canada says, or "Some" say).



Not if you factor out the number of deaths due to homocide and car accident which are wildly higher in the US.

Nice try though.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



That's hilarious coming from a tard who no doubt voted for Dubya twice.
Most Canadians would argue that having healthcare for everyone is not fucked up that's why we voted for it.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > sounds like another strawman arguement
> 
> 
> 
> It is another strawman argument.  When the 43 million person number is floated around, it refers to AMERICANS, not illegals.



Wrong again. Is this going to be a habit with you? 43 million (or 46 million Obama last week) refers to "people in America" without health care coverage. Not that the number is correct anyway. And, like unemployment there is a frictional component to that number.

Not that I really expect you to understand what that is.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > sounds like another strawman arguement
> 
> 
> 
> It is another strawman argument.  When the 43 million person number is floated around, it refers to AMERICANS, not illegals.



got a link?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

the only plan so far we have from the Neo-tards is a two part plan - lies and no.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



You have health care for whomever your bureaucrats say you have coverage for. More concisely, whatever your 'crats say you have coverage for. How long do you wait for an MRI? How long do you wait to get ortho surgery? How long to get a routine radiation like a mamogram? Once a diagnosis has been rendered, how long do you wait for specialist treatment?

Give me a fucking break, you clearly don't even understand the question let alone know the answer.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 4, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Krugman Poll on Canadian Healthcare





Krugman is such an idiot.  I'm glad the video was so short because I can't stand to listen to him.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> the only plan so far we have from the Neo-tards is a two part plan - lies and no.



The party of KNOW will in fact for NO.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> did ya watch the frickin video.. asswipe?



I watched the video.  It showed that 7 Canadians that went to a health care seminar were unhapy with their health care system.  Big surprise.  Who is going to take the most interest in a seminar like that except people that are concerned about their system?

And the video didn't say anything about your claim, culled from various opinion pieces, that there are 12 million illegal immigrants included in the 40+ million number of un-insured.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 4, 2009)

It doesn't matter what the left or right wingers in this thread say, that video is damn hillarious.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> the only plan so far we have from the Neo-tards is a two part plan - lies and no.



Actually, like always thus far, you have your head in your arse. 

The right has had proposals on health care that have been routinely blocked by the left for over 2 decades as they tried to build momentum for nationalizing. Like knocking down the walls they only  allows health care plans to be offerred on a state by state basis. This artificially raises the rates in many states and on small business that would otherwise be able to form pools to lower costs.

Health Savings Accounts have been implemented but under utilized. They could form the basis for a tax credit funded account that allows individuals to pay for health care with the same cost savings as employers get. (But the Dems blocked that plan as they did the one above).

those are just for starters. I could go on, but you wouldn't read it, so why bother.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> Not if you factor out the number of deaths due to homocide and car accident which are wildly higher in the US.



So now your againsnt the second amendment?  

Feel free to provide a link to numbers that support that little theory of yours, cause it's complete BS.

And wouldn't a better healthcare system be better able to treat attempted homocide and motor vehicle accident victims?  Thus less deaths.  DUH.

You seem to be a very angry person.  Perhaps you've been listening to too much FoxNews and Ruuuush Limbaugh for your own good.  You might want to tone that down a bit before your head explodes from too much right-wing-nut-job brainwashing.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > did ya watch the frickin video.. asswipe?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



why do so many canucks cross the border to seek treatment in the US of KKKA doyathink?? if it's so frickin great up there??? please and thank you


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

so healthcare is the way it is today because of the Democrats. Please tell us another ....you're a funny guy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 4, 2009)

Hey Gay Canuk, 

When the Clintons tried to socialize Healthcare they claimed that there were "47 MM uninsured Americans" now Obama is claiming that there are 47MM people, including 12MM illegals who don't have access to health insurance

That means that since Clinton's failed attempt to nationalize health care 12MM Americans got health insurance"


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Not if you factor out the number of deaths due to homocide and car accident which are wildly higher in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Tell me your not this big of a moron.
Those victims are all treated under our healthcare system.  You think we look to see if they have an insurance card, and if they don't we just leave them.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> so healthcare is the way it is today because of the Democrats. Please tell us another ....you're a funny guy.



Actually it is the way it is today because of the democrats and republicans in congress and the presidents office over the last 30 years.

If we want to be honest about it that is.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Not if you factor out the number of deaths due to homocide and car accident which are wildly higher in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If I'm angry, it's only because I have a president that is more media over-exposed than Britany Spears ever was and thinks he needs to talk (err...lie) to me every other day.

How do you get second amendment? Oh, that's right, you're left wing stalinist. You think the only way that homocide occurs is by gunshot. 

You come in here spouting a bunch of BS and have the timarity to tell me to back my shit up? Sorry, I failed to see your link.

No, our medical care is not good enough to bring DOAs back from the dead wacko


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

Meister said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hey Gay Canuk,
> 
> When the Clintons tried to socialize Healthcare they claimed that there were "47 MM uninsured Americans" now Obama is claiming that there are 47MM people, including 12MM illegals who don't have access to health insurance
> 
> That means that since Clinton's failed attempt to nationalize health care 12MM Americans got health insurance"



I'm guessing Math must be your strong suit!

Gay rhymes with Jay.....damn you're good


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 4, 2009)

Ok ok here are some videos with some canadians giving their opinions in them...actually its a special from 20/20

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I&feature=channel_page]YouTube - John Stossel - Sick in America - Part 1 (of 6)[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsEAVbCkMM&feature=channel_page]YouTube - John Stossel - Sick in America - (2 of 6)[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=refrYKq9tZQ&feature=channel_page]YouTube - John Stossel - Sick in America - Part 3 (of 6)[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzhiG0dcwN8&feature=channel_page]YouTube - John Stossel - Sick in America - Part 4 (of 6)[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp_Jh5EIT0&feature=channel_page]YouTube - John Stossel - Sick in America - Part 5 (of 6)[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_KCLm9cekU&feature=channel_page]YouTube - John Stossel - Sick in America - Part 6 (of 6)[/ame]


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



WHO ratings???


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...





You want sources, you got them.....more than what your sorry ass has brought to this thread.  You seem to act on emotion and no substance.

Quit embarrassing yourself.  I know that's a tough one to do.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> Oh, that's right, you're left wing stalinist.



Yeah, I sure am a "left-wing" Stalinist.  That's me alright.  Right-wing-nut-job propagandist that you are, you fall back on meaningless insults when you're losing an argument.

I'm a veteran, volunteered for the US Army when I was 19.  That means I put my life on the line to protect your right to make retarded accusations like this, and to protect our democratic system.

Meanwhile, I'm sure that, like most Neo-Cons, you're an armchair warrior that was all gung-ho about *spending 3 Trillion dollars to "free" Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, but you don't want to pay one extra dollar to save the lives of your fellow Americans by making sure they have healthcare. * God forbid you should help out a fellow American with your tax dollars, but when it comes to invading other countries *for no reason*, you're fine with that.

Of course you never paid for Iraq either, it was fought on borrowed dollars anyway, so why should you care, right?


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Oh, that's right, you're left wing stalinist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When all else fails, pull out the "I served and you are dirt" card..


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> You want sources, you got them



A link to an opinion piece does not count as a "source".

You might as well just be linking to another posters post.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> pull out the "I served and you are dirt" card



I was called a "Stalinist" and was told I know nothing about firearms.

It was directly relevant.

Besides, when all else fails for right-wingers, they pull out useless variations of McCarthy-era name-calling, like "Stalinist" for instance.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> Only "tards" look at the WHO for their source.



Of course, because everyone knows we should look to Ruuush Limbaugh for all our factual information instead, right?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

I never said all Canadians love their healthcare if you search long enuf you will find a bad story but you could find that in any country and if we are a socialist country like most of the right-wing is trying to sell here then why would we offer private clinics + a system that covers all Canadians....looks like we have all our bases covered to me?


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > You want sources, you got them
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You might try reading the 3 articles...more than just an opinion


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Only "tards" look at the WHO for their source.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, because everyone knows we should look to Ruuush Limbaugh for all our factual information instead, right?



you shouldn't look at anything except your immediate surroundings.. the inside of yer rectum.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> I never said all Canadians love their healthcare if you search long enuf you will find a bad story but you could find that in any country and if we are a socialist country like most of the right-wing is trying to sell here then why would we offer private clinics + a system that covers all Canadians....looks like we have all our bases covered to me?



yes,, it cover all canadians with what?? got a little high risk pregnancy doya?? well guess what??? we have a bed shortage.. we gotta ship yer ass to america,,, got cancer ms. member of parliament?? well guess what yer chances are better in america.. cry us a river canada..


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> You might try reading the 3 articles...more than just an opinion



The first link, which I haven't argued, is a news report.

The second is a BLOG. 

And the third is an editorial in a Business magazine.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> the inside of yer rectum.



Ahh, toilet humor, such a witty retort.  Worthy of a true dittohead.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

Meister said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Oh, that's right, you're left wing stalinist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I got news for you shitbird. I joined at 17 and in the Infantry. You however, smell like a REMF. And my son was in Iraq also as an Infantryman in Mosul and is currently in Afghanistan. I'm a conservative not a neo-con although I doubt you understand the difference. 

Just because you were in the military doesn't mean you aren't a stalinist. I noticed you capitalized the name -- prolly to pay the proper respect to your hero. We didn't spend 3 Trillion. We spent less than one. You can provide a link to prove your point though, if you think I'm wrong.

It isn't the money dumb ass, it's the control. Don't you get that yet?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > pull out the "I served and you are dirt" card
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't say you knew nothing about firearms REMF. I said you assume all homocides were done by gunshot. Now stop being a moron.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> I never said all Canadians love their healthcare if you search long enuf you will find a bad story but you could find that in any country and if we are a socialist country like most of the right-wing is trying to sell here then why would we offer private clinics + a system that covers all Canadians....looks like we have all our bases covered to me?



You don't. Your own government is going after them to shut them down. There are a few brave doctors in Canada willing to face down the government to make a point.


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> I never said all Canadians love their healthcare if you search long enuf you will find a bad story but you could find that in any country and if we are a socialist country like most of the right-wing is trying to sell here then why would we offer private clinics + a system that covers all Canadians....looks like we have all our bases covered to me?



I look at it much different than you, and there are plenty of Canadians that don't like their healthcare.....hence the growth of private clinics. A person doesn't have to look very hard to find the "bad story" in Canada.  Just need to look at the waiting lines for proceedures like chemo, and radiation, not to mention operations.   You sure are trying to sugar coat the failures of your healthcare system.

On the other hand, in America we don't have to overhaul the system, we just need to adjust the system with government oversight, and eliminating torts, along with some incentives.  Most of us on the right don't want to kick the needy to the curb, but we want it done right without a  government takeover.
Here is a piece from Fox....but it does have a video clip from Obama stating he wants to get rid of private insurance....this is his voice, and his words in 2007, so don't hammer the "FoxNation". This is the guy that is our president.  
2007 Video! Did Obama Say He Wants to Kill Private Health Insurance? | The FOX Nation


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > I never said all Canadians love their healthcare if you search long enuf you will find a bad story but you could find that in any country and if we are a socialist country like most of the right-wing is trying to sell here then why would we offer private clinics + a system that covers all Canadians....looks like we have all our bases covered to me?
> ...



you have lived in Canada and experienced healthcare here or do you just have a couple of opinions of the whiners your media has gotten a hold of?

of course nobody who lives in the USA has a complaint about their healthcare.


----------



## Xenophon (Aug 4, 2009)

Didn't seem to go the way paulie hoped.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



are you denying that you send high risk pregnancies to the US OF KKKA? or that a female member of your parliament came to the US OF KKKA to receive treatment for her breast cancer????? really???


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

Meister said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > I never said all Canadians love their healthcare if you search long enuf you will find a bad story but you could find that in any country and if we are a socialist country like most of the right-wing is trying to sell here then why would we offer private clinics + a system that covers all Canadians....looks like we have all our bases covered to me?
> ...



of course you have an opinion and that is neat that you got it from Fox news. Here we go on fact and the fact of the matter is that in Canada a majority of Canadians are happy with their healthcare....now you can try and spin however you like but it's not going to change the fact that your healthcare system needs to fixed and that most Americans feel that way. What is your plan to fix it other than to point your finger at other countries and yabber on about what you think may be?


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...


*You got any idea of how many Americans run to canada to get in line and wait?  welldoyahuh?*


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



no I'm not denying some people who have the money to spend sometimes travel to other nations to recieve treatment from a Dr of their choice and that happens in your nation as well...but I fail to see what that has to do with your crumbling system that allows millions of it's own citizens to go with no coverage at all?


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...




Try and spin this.....are you ready?  It's not because that it's such a good healthcare that Canada has.....*it's about the money they have to pay for it.  That is the begining, and that's the end to why people in Canada think it a good system* *It's not because of the service they receive. * So spin on that sonny.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



So most Canadians are happy that their mortality rate when diagnosed with cancer is 5x that of a someone in the US? Really? Or, maybe they are just uninformed? They are happy that they have to wait months to get needed tests? Really? Or, maybe they are resigned to the fact? They are happy that the health board denies them some medications that would help them because they are too expensive for the health system? Really? Or, maybe they are kinda pissed about that? They are happy that your health system is bankrupting your country and costs are rising out of control? Really? Or, maybe NOT!

Why do you keep asking for solutions when I gave you some in my previous. Is it because you didn't read them like I said you wouldn't?


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



you duck dodge and weave well but that dog don't hunt., the government of Canada sends it's high risk pregnancies to the US OF KKKA because it simply cannot provide the services..


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



No it doesn't! Where the hell do you think Americans would go to get health care? Riiiiight, we wouldn't go to the MAYO Fucking Clinic if we got diagnosed with cancer, we'd go to the fucking Phillipines I suppose. nutjob!


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



no and frankly I don't care....I do remember how many elderly people from the U.S used to come up here for affordable meds though...of course that was before the caring folks in the big pharma lobby put a stop to that.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> I'm a conservative not a neo-con although I doubt you understand the difference.



First of all, if you're going around calling people "Stalinist" instead of arguing the point from a cost based point of view, you're a Neo-Con, adn a dittohead, not a traditional conservative.

Nixon was a traditional conservative, and he was the one who came up with the first plan for Universal Health Care.

Secondly:



> I'm a conservative not a neo-con although I doubt you understand the difference.



If you were actually in the military, I can certainly believe that all you would qualify for was infantry, considering you inability to carry on an intelligent debate (shithead).  

And as far as being REMF, it was one of my MOS that was the first MF killed officially in Vietnam, driving around the front lines with an antenna on the top of our truck like a great big target.

As far as this goes:


> Just because you were in the military doesn't mean you aren't a stalinist.



This is a decent point, since the military is a socialist organization by nature.  But it also means that I fought for our democratic form of government, not a totalitarian state, which would make me, decidedly, not a "Stalinist".



> We didn't spend 3 Trillion. We spent less than one.



Total costs, including reconstruction costs, veteran medical costs resulting from injuries sustained in Iraq, etc, are estimated to be over 3 Trillion Dollars.  One Trillion was simply the cost for the war itself.

There are multiple sources for this, but apparently I'm too new of a poster on this board to post URL's, so Google it.


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



If it's a broken system they would never come here....I laugh when people say it's a broken system.  You know that is just a catch phrase from the left.  Here are a few more things to chew on...10 million or so are illegals, and around 15-20 million are young people who can afford the insurance, but don't purchase it because they are in the peak of health.  That leaves around 20 million or so that do need to have insurance...and the right wants them to get some...if you read my earlier post I showed how that could be attained, but I know you don't read stuff like that, because it doesn't jive with your mantre.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

Meister said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



that is you opinion you have spoon fed to you by Fox News so congrats...I didn't see your plan to fix your own mess yet?


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

High Risk Pregancies?

5x the cancer mortality rate?

LINK PLEASE, and no, again, opinion pieces do not count as valid source material.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



maybe you should find out how many Americans are up there standing in line for your superior health care. it might convince the rest of us..


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I would like to see just where you got your #'s on Cancer mortality rates in Canada vs. the U.S.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

and while yer counting the Americans standing in line would you kindly ask them if they are donkys? I'd be interested if there are any Republicans up there.


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



You are the "tard".  You have just proved to me and the people on this thread that you really don't read the posts.  Go back to post #61, you will see where I stated how we can do it.  You really are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



you sound like a real expert on healthcare in Canada and in the U.S.A (probably around the world too) I would like a credible link to the #'s you are throwing around.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> High Risk Pregancies?
> 
> 5x the cancer mortality rate?
> 
> LINK PLEASE, and no, again, opinion pieces do not count as valid source material.



then find something that suits your taste.. we don't jump through libtard hoops! you don't like the source?? come up with yer own.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

Meister said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



 - get back to the T.V and when I want the opinion Fox news has I will change my T.V channel over there.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC;1394133First of all said:
			
		

> I'll engage just about anyone in a debate if they start from a reasonable and rational place. You can ask anyone on here. I've even engaged some of the notorious dumb asses on here that never have anything reasonable to say. We'll hope you won't prove to be one of those.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



You know the conservative in this thread your arguing with could throw that right back at you and change FOX to MSNBC.

YOUR ARGUMENT


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



except that most of us are wiling to listen to the other side.. I frequently tune in to watch the gyraptions of olberman and maddow,, tuned into CNN even as we speak,, the libtard mantra is "I don't watch Fox News! they are indoctrinated at the fountain of KOS.


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



You are a moron, I have embarrassed you and that's all you got?  These are solutions that have come from the right, and not from Fox News assbite.  Your an ignorant moron at that.  You have not brought one source to this thread and like I said earlier, you are running on emotion and stupidty with no facts.  Go back to your sandbox sonny because you are way out of your league here.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I'm not quoting some blabbermouth from MSNBC as fact. I can tell you right now that a couple of the blowhards on this board are in for a real asskicking if they think a fact = any News commentator opinion.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > High Risk Pregancies?
> ...



In other word you got nothing credible and your arguement is empty.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

Meister said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I am not the one making wild claims about healthcare here or in the USA and rest assured when I do make a claim I will back it up.....as your boyfriend above apparently can't do.


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...




I will let your words speak for themselves.....*talk about irony coming from a moron.*


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...





> Survival Rates for Specific Cancers.   U.S. survival rates are higher than the average in Europe for 13 of 16 types of cancer reported in Lancet Oncology , confirming the results of previous studies.  As Figure II shows:
> 
> Of cancers that affect primarily men, the survival rate among Americans for bladder cancer is 15 percentage points higher than the European average; for prostate cancer, it is 28 percentage points higher. 2
> Of cancers that affect women only, the survival rate among Americans for uterine cancer is about 5 percentage points higher than the European average; for breast cancer, it is 14 percentage points higher.
> ...





> Results for Canada.  Canada's system of national health insurance is often cited as a model for the United States.  But an analysis of 2001 to 2003 data by June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and economist David O'Neill, found that overall cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Canada: 3
> 
> For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
> For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.
> ...



U.S. Cancer Care Is Number&#160;One - Brief Analysis #596


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> You know the conservative in this thread your arguing with could throw that right back at you and change FOX to MSNBC.





> they are indoctrinated at the fountain of KOS.



What I find funny is that Conservatives used to try and argue that all media was left wing except for FoxNews.  They called it the "Liberal MSM" (though they never seemed to mention that radio is entirely right-wing).

Now, that MSNBC has come along, people now see what an actual left-wing media outlet looks like, and their starting to realize that the rest of the media isn't "left-wing" after all.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



suit yerself little canadian asswipe,, we still don't jump through libtard hoops..


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > You know the conservative in this thread your arguing with could throw that right back at you and change FOX to MSNBC.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So let's get this straight....the left have the majority of newspapers in this country, and have the majority of television in this country, and they are bitching because the right has  a majority on the radio,  Hmmm, I get it.
Now tell us why Air America failed so bad?  Because no one listened?  Throw another left leaning station out there.  The airways are for the people right?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > You know the conservative in this thread your arguing with could throw that right back at you and change FOX to MSNBC.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just because some of the pop (aka MSM) media outlets are not actually gently cupping Obama's balls for him as MSLSD is, doesn't mean they aren't left wing, it just means they aren't as blatantly left wing and still like to have the petina of being a legitimate news organization. 

I'll remind you that what you hear when you listen to Fox is what I hear when I listen to CBS. If it frustrates you, GOOD! I've been frstrated by it for more than 30 years. (When I was a kid I didn't know any better, so I'm not counting that).


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly



So, let me see if I have this straight.

The US beats Canada in ONE disease (cancer) by 3-4%?  Wow, that sure proves your point that American health care is way better than Canadian...

And what's the reason for that?  Early Detection!  And what would help save even more lives through early detection?  That's right, everyone having health insurance!

But aside from that, there is no good point to your entire argument, as no-one is currently suggesting full universal health-care in our government right now.

The current plan is to provide a public *option* as far as health insurance is concerned, to drive down prices, *which have been steadily increasing over the past few decades, contrary to what free-market theory dictates should have happened.*


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> So let's get this straight....the left have the majority of newspapers in this country, and have the majority of television in this country, and they are bitching because the right has a majority on the radio, Hmmm, I get it.



Says who?

The right-wing media, that's who.



> doesn't mean they aren't left wing



You keep telling yourself that bub, perhaps someone will believe you at some point that's not already brainwashed.


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You might want to Google Heart Disease, also.  That might surprise you.  just sayin...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> The current plan is to provide a public *option* as far as health insurance is concerned, to drive down prices, *which have been steadily increasing over the past few decades, contrary to what free-market theory dictates should have happened.*



Vast LWC bear with me for a moment while i dig up some statements by several politicians, possibly including Obama himself, that will disprove your assumption about hr3200.

Be forewarned, the quotes and youtube clips I am going to present show politicians publicly stating that the "public option" can be used as a gateway to a single payer, govt controlled, system of health care.


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > So let's get this straight....the left have the majority of newspapers in this country, and have the majority of television in this country, and they are bitching because the right has a majority on the radio, Hmmm, I get it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Look at the major newspapers in America...all across the nation, you would have to be deaf dumb and blind not to to comprehend that.
Looks at the television stations over the last election...again the deaf dumb and blind scenario. 
Look at the radio stations all across the nation, again the deaf dumb and blind scenario....I'm don't know, but you just may fit that ticket.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

Results for Canada.  Canada's system of national health insurance is often cited as a model for the United States.  But an analysis of 2001 to 2003 data by June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and economist David O'Neill, found that overall cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Canada: 3 

not what I would call a recent study by June O'Neill and David O'Neill neither of which have anything to do with medicine..... but hey that's the best you guys can come up with.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> I'll remind you that what you hear when you listen to Fox is what I hear when I listen to CBS.



No, what you hear on MSNBC is what I hear on fox.

FoxNews consists of 90% extreme right wing opinion shows and 10% news.

As one small example:

Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck *regularly* call Mr Obama a "*Socialist*", a "*Facist*", and, most recently, a "*racist*".

If ANY commentator on CBS called President Bush any one of those things, they would have been *fired*, immediately.

*FoxNews is NOTHING like CBS.*  The only major media outlets that come close to Murdoch's bias (but on the liberal side) are MSNBC and perhaps the NY Times Editorial section.  And that being said, even MSNBC has some conservative shows, like Morning Joe, and the NY Times has conservative opinion contributors.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 4, 2009)

Hey PC, I know you're not interested in finding out anything that resembles the TRUTH...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv1FwOCNoZ8&feature=channel]YouTube - BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Preview: Wendell Potter pt 2 | PBS[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Gay Canuk,
> ...



Jay, you're off in the ten millions column...not good..not good at all.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 4, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Hey PC, I know you're not interested in finding out anything that resembles the TRUTH...
> 
> YouTube - BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Preview: Wendell Potter pt 2 | PBS



The Truth about ObamaCare Eugenics and Euthanasia Program:

"Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create 'classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,' but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible." -- 

Obama's own Dr. Mengele, Ezekiel Emanuel


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> Look at the major newspapers in America...all across the nation,



Mudoch owns the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post here in New York.
In Washington there's the Washington Times, in Chicago there's the Tribune, in LA there's the the LA Times.

Every major market seems to have a major conservative newspaper.

Seems pretty balanced to me.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Hey PC, I know you're not interested in finding out anything that resembles the TRUTH...
> ...



so he's hired two eugenicists?? TWO???


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Never mind. You are clearly too stupid to have a debate with. Have a nice day.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 4, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Don't say you weren't fucking warned!

Do you wonder why gun shops can't keep ammo in stock?


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> Looks at the television stations over the last election...again the deaf dumb and blind scenario.
> Look at the radio stations all across the nation, again the deaf dumb and blind scenario.



Vast generalizations without a shred of evidence to back them up.

You can go on saying "the Media is liberal" until you're blue in the face, it doesn't prove a thing, except that you like to make unproven accusations.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Hey,, I didn't vote for the moron!


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> Never mind. You are clearly too stupid to have a debate with. Have a nice day.



Famous last words of someone who has no response.


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Look at the major newspapers in America...all across the nation,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LA TImes is a very left leaning newspaper.  But, here is a study done by UCLA.
Media Bias Is Real, Finds a UCLA-Led Study


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Looks at the television stations over the last election...again the deaf dumb and blind scenario.
> > Look at the radio stations all across the nation, again the deaf dumb and blind scenario.
> 
> 
> ...



*Check out my previous post for some proven accusations*

By the way...I was agreeing with your post that radio stations do lean to the right....no argument there.  But, I'm just saying each field has a bias left or right.


----------



## Chris (Aug 4, 2009)

When polled in a national poll to name the greatest Canadian in history, Canadians chose the man who developed their healthcare system, Tommy Douglas....

The Greatest Canadian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



Thank you for carefully observing rules #2, 3, 4, and 9 of the Liberal Libretto

Through skillful machinations, I was able to get my hands on the (apocryphal)  Liberal Libretto, as ratified by Saul Alinsky.
Actually, I pointed over a libs shoulder and shouted watch out and grabbed the book.

Here is the full set for you to review.

1.	Always be the first to accuse, and make certain to accuse the opponent of exactly what you are doing.

2.  Refuse to accept the statements of any opposing view, from individuals or media, unless reliably liberal.

3. Always assure the opposition that you know what is better for the proletariat, even if there are polls that claim the opposite.
a. Assure the compliant that you are only looking out for their best interests, as in look, its not about me
b. Claim the public has been brainwashed, and politicians bought.

4. Be sure to you carry your concern as though it was a hypodermic needle, but one filled with poison.  Furrow your brow, look vaguely sad, (think Leon Panetta) but watch for opportunities to stab, to use abusive language, using your (imagined) superiority to allow you to do violence to the reputation of those who have alternative views.

5. If you find yourself in a debating box, where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
a.	Claim that the question is above my pay grade.
b.	Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe. Or fascist, or, always good,  nazi.
c.	Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.
d. Learn phrases such as its time to move on, or lets put this behind us.
e. If all else fails, shrug your shoulders and say  Im only interested in discourse.

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a mistake, for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either fear-tactics, or red-baiting.

7. Never, never criticize in any way any government or movement that is totalitarian, homicidal or anti-American.
a. Claim to idolize despots and tyrants. But always state how their people love them.
b.	The corollary applies: never support traditional American values. Important terms: imperialist, oppressor
c.	Deny atrocities by tyrants. If not possible, explain they were necessary. Finally, justify them, and, show how America was ultimately at fault.
d.	Support government officials and appointees.
I. This does not apply to uniformed government employees such as police or military.

8. Remember to spend appropriate time in front of the mirror practicing outrage, shock, and disbelief, or, and best, a sarcastic sneer.

9. Remember, as a liberal, you never have to apologize, be accurate, nor have any knowledge. No matter how many times your talking points are shown to be wrong, continue to repeat them. 

10. Remember the gullible and grumbling always identify with vague terms like hope change new empathy and better.


Both Saul, and, I'm sure, the Public School Education System, are very, very proud of you.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

Japan Life Expectancy / World rank:

82.6 / 1

Sweden Life Expectancy / World rank:

80.9 / 7

France Life Expectancy / World rank:

80.7 / 10

Canada Life Expectancy / World rank:

80.7 / 11

US Life Expectancy:

*78.2 / 38*

Source:  The United Nations Population Prospects, 2006 revision

The numbers don't lie.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > > But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly
> ...



of course that extra 3-4% who survived cancer in the US had to pay for treatment and ended up homeless as a result.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> How come your Super Girl avatar doesn't have a huge adams apple?



And that gives you partial credit for rule #8!


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Japan Life Expectancy / World rank:
> 
> 82.6 / 1
> 
> ...



Well done, now please show us the source as to the corellation between longevity, and healthcare please.  I will be waiting.....


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> But, here is a study done by UCLA.



One study among many, done during a period that conservatives were in power.

Media feels it has an obligation to "Speak truth to power".  Now that Democrats are in office, if you ran the same study, the results would be different.

And that being said, there is a difference between rationally criticizing someone's policy and calling them a "Facist" a la Glenn Beck.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Japan Life Expectancy / World rank:
> 
> 82.6 / 1
> 
> ...



Of course they lie.

The WHO figures are simply accepted from any member nation.

The WHO does not gather the information itself.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I will pass that on to my liberal friends...I'm sure they will laugh they're asses off when I tell them it was from a Neo-Con.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

Meister said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Japan Life Expectancy / World rank:
> ...



and then you can do the same with your so called cancer survival rates.


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > But, here is a study done by UCLA.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh of course,  look at Political Chic's post number 117...you would fall under #3.  This is an Epic Fail on your part.


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Canuk...Why don't you do a little damn home work, and show it's not?  Get off your lazy ass and do it....oh yeah, I know why, being a socialist, you like other people to do the work for you.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> the Liberal Libretto



*Good lord, it's like you took the right-wing talking-head playbook and inserted the terms "liberal" and "proletariat" in the appropriate spots.*

The possible exception would be your insertion of "Racist" and "Homophobe", but that's obvious, since there are pretty much no monority Republicans, and Republicans have a stranglehold on Homophobia.

But I guess that adheres to rule one:



> 1. Always be the first to accuse, and *make certain to accuse the opponent of exactly what you are doing*.



Most people call that "projecting".  ROFL.


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



Don't assume PC is a neo-con, and why don't you look up the definition of a neo-con? You could really learn something, and not paste the label on anyone who is a conservative.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> Of course they lie.



Of course!  Any organization that uses _numbers_ and _facts_ to presentthe public with information must be lying if said information doesn't adhere to what Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are telling you, right?

Damn those pesky facts.  Always getting in the way of the "Fair and Balanced" agenda.

*You see, if I were like you, I'd be posting data from Keith Olberman's show...*
But instead I go out and search for reliable information, rather than someone's opinion.


----------



## Chris (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Look at the major newspapers in America...all across the nation,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The media is not liberal enough.

Most of the media is owned by monied interests....just like the Congress.


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > the Liberal Libretto
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Say what you want, but don't dismiss the UCLA study.  It's not like UCLA is a right wing university...in fact they are a liberal school...not like Cal. but they are liberal


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Japan Life Expectancy / World rank:
> 
> 82.6 / 1
> 
> ...



Canadians live and average of 2.5 years longer? Wow!! 


Similarities & Differences Between Canada & United States


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

Meister said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I'm a member of the conservative party here in Canada and we really are a crazy bunch....we actually expect real conservative policies. I'm sure Ann Coulter isn't a Neo-Con either in your special little world.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



Please try to be more accurate.

Every single individual in the United States of America has healthcare.

Every one.

Even visitors.

Not everyone has insurance.  

Inaccuracy is the hallmark of your posts.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



if you don't have insurance wonder girl what happens?


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Meister said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



freaking A


----------



## Toro (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> no I'm not....and nobody else should be either when you are citing a poll conducted on less than 5000 people on a media call list like it's a real indicator of how all Americans feel....... ABC - they should stick to T.V shows like Full House



That's utterly silly.

A poll of 5000 will have an accuracy of 3% 95% of the time.

You're casting your hat in with the far right in America if you say that media polls are biasesd.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



I know it's hilarious ..... dipshit askes someone to do something and then we he get's asked to do the same he pulls out the only defence he has - it must be socialism my guess....he's a grade ten dropout.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



you are hilarious,,have you seen any Americans in line,, did ya ask em?


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


I see your calling yourself a "dipshit"....good, your coming to grips with yourself.  But, you haven't brought anything to the table but your tripe. 
You being a conservative...yeah, you would have to be a crazy bunch to call yourselves that.  I assure you I have never dropped out of anything I started.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



no after the Bush years many Americans don't even have bus fare to get up here.... the party of fiscal responsibility really is a joke.


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...




Link?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...




I created the list for enjoyment, but, and assuming that you have friends, if they are honest liberals, they can't deny that each and every one of the 'rules' is true.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > the Liberal Libretto
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm glad you appreciated my work.

But it seems like your response is somewhat sophomoric, along the lines of 'so are you.'

On the other hand, you're working to ability.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

Meister said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



poor bastard doesn't know when he's being insulted....maybe he dropped out earlier than tenth grade with that kind of reading comphrehension


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> Please try to be more accurate.
> 
> Every single individual in the United States of America has healthcare.



That is incorrect.

Every individual can receive EMERGENCY health care in life or death situations.

That is a very different animal.

That means that if you don't have health insurance, you probably won't be seeing a doctor in the early stages of a illness, only in the last stages of an illness, when it's too late.


----------



## Toro (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> of course the last time I looked at the WHO ratings the U.S was in 37 place and Canada was 7 places ahead of you.....not quite #1 huh?



If your opponent is #37 and you are #30, that isn't really much to brag about.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> But it seems like your response is somewhat sophomoric, along the lines of 'so are you.'



Hey, you're the one who put that rule in the first line, showing your colors.

You don't need me to point out your own inadequacies, you're doing that quite well yourself.

Or in the words of Socrates "He who smelt it, clearly dealt it".


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

Toro said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > of course the last time I looked at the WHO ratings the U.S was in 37 place and Canada was 7 places ahead of you.....not quite #1 huh?
> ...



what makes you think I was bragging?


----------



## Toro (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> I would like to see just where you got your #'s on Cancer mortality rates in Canada vs. the U.S.



There are comparative figures in this thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...are/83876-health-outcomes-in-canada-v-us.html

And another

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healthcare-insurance-govt-healthcare/83743-cancer-survival-rates.html


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

Meister said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



to what.... a site that confirms that Bush almost bankrupt the U.S.?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Of course they lie.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quite an etherial defense.

I note that you were not able to deny the the WHO does no more than copy the data given by member nations.  

Minus one.

" Any organization that uses _numbers_ and _facts_ to presentthe public with information must be lying if said information doesn't adhere..." 
This was not consistent with any part of my post, an obvious attempt to deflect.

Minus two.

"...Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are telling you, right?"  
I quoted neither of your 'bete noire.'  Clearly a straw man argument, or in this case, straw men.

Minus three.

I hate to embarrass you in public in this manner, but here on the USMB we have come to expect a higher level of debate than you have, thus far, evinced.

Suggestions? Cut down on the vituperation, bulk up on data and links.  Nothing wrong with a little jab, but I expect argument less 'so are you...' and more 'here are the reasons for my belief  a), b) c).

I'm sure you can do better.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

uh Supergirl still waiting for your super answer....what happens if you don't have health insurance and you get sick or injured in the U.S?


----------



## Toro (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Japan Life Expectancy / World rank:
> 
> 82.6 / 1
> 
> ...



Yeah, but you must understand them in context. 

In 1900, the country with the longest life span was Sweden, which is number 2 on that list, and it obviously wasn't because of a socialist medical system that was not yet in existence.  My guess is Japan would have been up there as well.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



I actually believe that yours is an honest question.

Judging by your level of sophistication, you are not aware that hospital emergency rooms will not turn you away.  Insurance or no insurance.

There are also free clinics.

The financial argument about healthcare, is, in fact, due in large measure because of the costs to private hospitals and the system in general, of care to those who have no healthcare insurance and so use emergency rooms without recompense to same.

In the future, use the correct terminology: no insurance, not 'no healthcare.'


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> uh Supergirl still waiting for your super answer....what happens if you don't have health insurance and you get sick or injured in the U.S?



you go to the emergency room and get treated..


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 4, 2009)




----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Please try to be more accurate.
> >
> > Every single individual in the United States of America has healthcare.
> 
> ...



You are not entitled to create your own definitions.

Healthcare:The prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions.

Unlike McDonald's, one doesn't have to check the menu to see if a particular illness, discomfort or malignancy is covered by that particular emergency room.

Many less well off use emergency rooms as their primary healthcare facility.

Shot yourself in the foot again.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > But it seems like your response is somewhat sophomoric, along the lines of 'so are you.'
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is not even middle school level.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



so everybody who goes to the emergency room in the U.S. without any insurance gets treated the same way as those who do and no one get's turned away? hmmmmm.......


----------



## Toro (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> so everybody who goes to the emergency room in the U.S. without any insurance gets treated the same way as those who do and no one get's turned away? hmmmmm.......



Yeah, pretty much.  It is illegal to turn people away, I believe.

That's one reason why bills are so high in America.  The hospital tries to cover the uninsured by over-billing those who can pay.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



that's the law asswipe,, they cannot be turned away.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 4, 2009)

Toro said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > so everybody who goes to the emergency room in the U.S. without any insurance gets treated the same way as those who do and no one get's turned away? hmmmmm.......
> ...



I;m liking your sig line Toro!


----------



## Chris (Aug 4, 2009)

Toro said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > so everybody who goes to the emergency room in the U.S. without any insurance gets treated the same way as those who do and no one get's turned away? hmmmmm.......
> ...



So the rich in America get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door.

Is this a great country or what?


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Chris said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



Chris...what are you doing on this thread?  Doesn't Earth need saving or something.


----------



## Toro (Aug 4, 2009)

Chris said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



Like I've said before, if I were poor or lower middle class, I'd much rather be in Canada.  If I were rich or upper middle class, I'd rather be in America.  Middle class is a toss-up.  Since I do okay, I'd rather be in the US.

However, I don't think you'll ever see a universal single-payer government health care system in America.  It runs too counter to the American mindset.  Canadians are more collective and trustful of government.  Americans are the opposite.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

so really you get the healthcare you can afford.


----------



## Chris (Aug 4, 2009)

Toro said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



We will see a government option.

If not, healthcare costs are going to bankrupt the country.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 4, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > The current plan is to provide a public *option* as far as health insurance is concerned, to drive down prices, *which have been steadily increasing over the past few decades, contrary to what free-market theory dictates should have happened.*
> ...



Ok i'm back with what i promised.  See you assume it was just to drive down prices but in fact the administration seems to want to drive out private insurance companies from the equation.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE]YouTube - Obama on single payer health insurance[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfOWnZ82Pm4]YouTube - Rep Jan Schakowsky pushes single payer healthcare[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVPt7j1jR4U]YouTube - Rep. John Conyers on single-payer healthcare 5/09[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOyNCnN3NRg]YouTube - Kathleen Sebelius in 2007: I'm all for a single-payer system...eventually[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk&feature=channel[/ame]

i could be wrong but obama, his health secratary, and a few others or on record stating different goals for our healthcare.

Maybe it will be better but i'm not convinced at this point.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I will be sophisticated enuf to remember the terminology for future reference and will hold you to your own high standards.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

This ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 9-13, 2003, among a random national sample of 1,000 adults.
so in reality Supergirl 1000 people on a media call list doesn't equal over 80% of Americans.


----------



## Meister (Aug 4, 2009)

Maybe this will help your post Pilgrim.

2007 Video! Did Obama Say He Wants to Kill Private Health Insurance? | The FOX Nation

As I indicated before, I think that we're going to have to have some system where people can buy into a larger pool. Right now their pool typically is the employer, but there are other ways of doing it. I would like to -- I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out where we've got a much more portable system....


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 4, 2009)

Chris said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



This is what happens when you accept whatever the government tells you.

It is the current administration that may bankrupt the country.

Heathcare costs are falling, not growing:
By Betsy McCaughey Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D., is a patient advocate, founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, and a former Lt. Governor of New York State. 
Downgrading Health Care
The administration has warned that soaring health spending threatens the stability of American families and the economy. These doomsday scenarios are untrue. Health care spending is increasing at more moderate rates than in previous decades. Spending increased 10.5 percent in 1970, 13 percent in 1980, and consistently less than 7 percent in each of the last five years, reaching a low of 6.1 percent a year ago. Each year since 1960, food and energy together have taken up a declining share of Americans' expenditures, while housing has taken up a steady share. This has enabled Americans to spend an increasing share of their budgets on another necessity, healthcare. These four necessities together consume the same share of American spending now (55%) as they did in 1960 (53%). As further evidence, Americans are increasing the share of their spending that goes to recreation. Moderate income families can be helped to buy health coverage with vouchers, refundable tax credits, or debit cards. That's a low risk, "fix what's broken" approach.
Increases in healthcare expenditures: 
2003	8.6%
2004	6.9%
2005	6.5%
2006	6.7%
2007	6.1%
Compare to 10.5% in 1970 and 13% in 1980

For comparison, consider the costs of higher education:

"Tuition at private colleges and universities has increased anywhere from 5% to 13% every year since 1980. "
The Cost of a College Education

And for primary and secondary school:
"Based on statistics from the US Department of Education, the average cost of educating a student in elementary and secondary schools has risen from $6,200 in 1991 to $11,000 in 2005 an increase of 85%. "
US Education Market | Entourage Systems Inc.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 4, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> you shouldn't look at anything except your immediate surroundings.. the inside of yer rectum.



might find Chrissy up there...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 4, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



As soon as I can give you more Rep points you got it!

THIS IS FUCKING GREAT!!!!!


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

how many people live in the U.S.A? cause I think it's a couple more than 1000 peeps on a media call list?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 4, 2009)

the Neo-Con manifesto is must shorter because it's sheep have an attention span of a 5 year old with A.D.D

1. Lie
2. repeat loudly until you are conviced someone thinks it's true.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> how many people live in the U.S.A? cause I think it's a couple more than 1000 peeps on a media call list?



In 1993, how many Americans did the Clintons say lacked health coverage?  47MM

In 2009, how many Americans do the Marxists say lack coverage today? 35MM (47MM-12MM Illegal Aliens)

We've made great progress without government involvement


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> the Neo-Con manifesto is must shorter because it's sheep have an attention span of a 5 year old with A.D.D
> 
> 1. Lie
> 2. repeat loudly until you are conviced someone thinks it's true.



The government is going to insure everyone and drive down costs.

Yeah, right.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 4, 2009)

Chris said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > So the rich in America get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door.
> ...


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> so really you get the healthcare you can afford.


Exactly.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 4, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > so really you get the healthcare you can afford.
> ...



Jay....answer a question for me if you will....is it true it is against the law to purchase private healthcare Ins. in Canada....and if it is yes why?....


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

I have returned.  Reponse to an older post:



PoliticalChic said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > > Of course they lie.
> ...



Interesting tactic.  Declare victory, "grade" your opponent, and then pretend you had a valid point to begin with.

Very "Ann Coulter-esque".

But there's a few problems with your response.

1.  Why would WHO want to paint US health care in a bad light.  What could possibly be their motivation?  I suppose this all yet another part of the world-wide conspiracy againsnt free-market capitalism that you people are always going on about?

2.  You quoted neither of my 'bete noire' because you didn't site anyone at all, you just claimed that the data was faulty because it didn't fit in with your worldview

and

3.  "Embarrass me"?  LOL, good luck with that one.  

Perhaps you're used to being in an echo-chamber message board where everyone is of the same viewpoint and "common-right-wing-knowledge" talking points are accepted as truth, but that just doesn't cut it in real debate.  

In conclusion, I'm not sure what you're used to but, perhaps, as this board evolves and gets more varied, you should slink on over to "TownHall", where everyone will accept your "Liberal Agenda" talking points as funny little "truths".

Sorry to "Embarrass" you.  LOL.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

Toro, you said:



> Like I've said before, if I were poor or lower middle class, I'd much rather be in Canada. If I were rich or upper middle class, I'd rather be in America. Middle class is a toss-up. Since I do okay, I'd rather be in the US.
> 
> However, I don't think you'll ever see a universal single-payer government health care system in America. It runs too counter to the American mindset. Canadians are more collective and trustful of government. Americans are the opposite.



I believe you to be correct here, but I believe that is why there is no "universal health care" proposal being put on the table.

Instead they are trying to insert a public option, so we can have the choice between paying a premium for very expensive health care, OR going the route of the government plan, in other words, the best of both worlds.

By the way, I thought your posts on comparisons between Canadian and US health care were fantastic.  Well done sir.


----------



## Toro (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> so really you get the healthcare you can afford.



I have a great plan.


----------



## Toro (Aug 4, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> how many people live in the U.S.A? cause I think it's a couple more than 1000 peeps on a media call list?



Almost all polls in the US are with 1,000 people.  The polls before the 2008 Presidential election were very accurate.


----------



## Toro (Aug 4, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Toro, you said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks.  I find there are a lot of myths about both countries.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 4, 2009)

> possibly including Obama himself, that will disprove your assumption about hr3200.





> i could be wrong but obama, his health secratary, and a few others or on record stating different goals for our healthcare.



People are on many ends of the spectrum in what they want, what is reasonable, and what's actually going to happen.

Obama probably feels deep down that we should have universal health care.  That's what he wants.

He knows he's not going to GET universal health care, so instead, he's making compromises, to get as many people covered as he can.  This is being reasonable.

What's actually going to happen is that certain members of Congress who get paid off by the private insurers and private health care industry are going to keep screaming about this, and getting the right-wing media to scream about this, which leads to either two things happening:

1.  Democrats decide that they can't deal with these people, so there are no further negotiations necessary, thus creating a more far-left version of the bill

or

2.  Opponents of the bill will succeed in beating it into the ground, once again, and many more people will continue to die un-necessarily because they don't have health coverage.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 5, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Hey PC, I know you're not interested in finding out anything that resembles the TRUTH...
> ...



Another right wing *"truth" *based on* LIES.*.. keep swallowing the shit being fed to you by insurances and phama corporations pea brain...


Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD
Title: 	
Chair of the Department of Bioethics at the Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health

Position: 	
Con to the question "Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?"

Reasoning: 	
"The proper policy, in my view, should be to affirm the status of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia as illegal. In so doing we would affirm that as a society we condemn ending a patient's life and do not consider that to have one's life ended by a doctor is a right. This does not mean we deny that in exceptional cases interventions are appropriate, as acts of desperation when all other elements of treatment- all medications, surgical procedures, psychotherapy, spiritual care, and so on- have been tried. Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia should not be performed simply because a patient is depressed, tired of life, worried about being a burden, or worried about being dependent. All these may be signs that not every effort has yet been made.

By establishing a social policy that keeps physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia illegal but recognizes exceptions, we would adopt the correct moral view: the onus of proving that everything had been tried and that the motivation and rationale were convincing would rest on those who wanted to end a life."
"Whose Right to Die?," The Atlantic, Mar. 1997


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 5, 2009)

You guys know what the real lie with all this is right?

The lie is that our govt....the same govt that has failed to properly fund cash-for-clunkers, maintain social security, provide the promised native american healthcare, run the medicare insurance program, or spend less than they take in....is telling us they can do better with a more complex program like healthcare.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 5, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> uh Supergirl still waiting for your super answer....what happens if you don't have health insurance and you get sick or injured in the U.S?



She goes to the emergency room. No one in America is denied healthcare. 

You are one stupid fuck!!!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 5, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > uh Supergirl still waiting for your super answer....what happens if you don't have health insurance and you get sick or injured in the U.S?
> ...



yup even with no insurance you can still go to the ER.

You might end up with bad credit if you can't pay the bill but you can still get fixed up.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 5, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> I have returned.  Reponse to an older post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 5, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



 Another key administration figure is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor in the Office of Management and Budget and brother of Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staffis one of those responsible for inserting into the healthcare bill the ideas that we no longer should have rights, such as determining what care we can buy, or how long we should live, and doctors should no longer look to the Hippocratic Oath, and the particular patient, but neglect the patient in the interests of social justice, and the society as a whole.
CPN - Tools


Dr. Emanuel says that the usual recommendations for cutting costs (often urged by President Obama) are window dressing: "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records, and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change." (Health Affairs, February 27, 2008.) 

 True change, writes Dr. Emanuel, must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.) Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. Many doctors are horrified at this notion, and will tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. 
Defend Your Health Care

Dr. Emanuel also blames high U.S. spending on standards Americans take for granted. "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy...physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.) 
By far, the most dangerous misconception in Washington is that the way to rein in health spending is by slowing the development and use of new technology. Imagine any industry or nation thriving on such a philosophy. Dr. Emanuel criticizes Americans for being "enamored with technology."
Defend Your Health Care

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96). 
Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy. 
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31). 
Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it. 
DEADLY DOCTORS - New York Post

And, to see what American 'healthcare' would look like under these prescriptions:
LONDON, July 31, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a case that is being hailed as a victory for proponents of assisted suicide, Britain's Law Lords have ruled that the public prosecutors must "clarify" current law on the issue. The House of Lords judicial committee ruled yesterday that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for England and Wales must issue "guidance" on when and in what circumstances the law making it a criminal offense to assist suicide will be prosecuted.
Britain's Law Lords Rule in Favor of Assisted Suicide Seeker

And so we note that once again leftists and their dupes are never able to 'connect the dots' to see where their plans would lead, and are quick with the ubiquitous term 'lies' for any that disagree, or show them to be the dissemblers that they are.

I challenge the dupe who wrote the post to deny any of the material, and therefore to accept that the major 'cost savings' envisioned is in the denial of technology and pharmaceutical aid to the sick and the old.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



 you can buy extra insurance if you feel you need extra coverage.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > uh Supergirl still waiting for your super answer....what happens if you don't have health insurance and you get sick or injured in the U.S?
> ...



I'm not speaking of just the emergency room Elmer....if you have been diagnosed with a serious disease/illness and you don't have insurance or your HMO decides it was a pre-existing condition and your denied coverage what happens to you?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)

Toro said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > how many people live in the U.S.A? cause I think it's a couple more than 1000 peeps on a media call list?
> ...



You are ok with polls conducted on 1,000 people and then being presented as the opinion of all of the U.S.A and I am not.
Maybe the polls got close in the election but that doesn't lead me to the conclusion that they are to be trusted - even a broken watch is right twice a day.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 5, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



WOW PC...you continue to post the same GARBAGE that I have debunked...

You really are the most disingenuous person on this board... you post TOTAL lies, promote them as undeniable truths and then spout condescending bluster...

You couldn't POSSIBLY have READ any of the articles written by Dr. Emanuel that your scum bag sources have hacked up with the express purpose of to portraying a twisted and most often OPPOSITE view of the man's beliefs...it really is amazing just how scummy and unscrupulous you right wingers are...TRUTH is not even a consideration in your piles of GARBAGE...


----------



## Toro (Aug 5, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



I know how polls are constructed, the statistical analysis and the testing methodologies used to create a scientific sample for polling data.  Most polls are a fairly accurate assessment of the opinions at a given time.

Almost always, at least in my experience, the people who question the accuracy of the polls are the ones who disagree with the conclusions.


----------



## Gurdari (Aug 5, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> [youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fexz8Ij-OBQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fexz8Ij-OBQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]



that was a poll? hahaha


What was this - a conference or hearing of some sort?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)

Medical bills underlie 60 percent of U.S. bankrupts: study

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Medical bills are behind more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday in a report they said demonstrates that healthcare reform is on the wrong track.

More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine.

"Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," Harvard's Dr. David Himmelstein, an advocate for a single-payer health insurance program for the United States, said in a statement.

"For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection," he added.

CANCELED COVERAGE

"Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter do so within a year," the report reads.

Medical bills underlie 60 percent of U.S. bankrupts: study | U.S. | Reuters


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 5, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Wow, looks like I hit a nerve.

Exactly my intention.

That's what happens when one calls a 'dupe' a 'dupe.'

I note that, aside from the vitupertion, you were not able to deny any of the documented quotes form your champion, Dr. Emanuel.

Should it be necessary, I can do the same for Dr. Blumenthal, another of those involved in the administrations 'healthcare' proposals.

Your spinning out of control must be one of the side effects of the public turning on the proposals.

But, I'm sure the good Dr. Emanuel has some 'special' pills to calm you down.

So, let's review:

1. Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care.

2. [Doctors] should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. 

3. Dr. Emanuel also blames high U.S. spending on standards Americans take for granted. 

4. Dr. Emanuel criticizes Americans for being "enamored with technology."

5. Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens...

6. ...not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

7. He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" 

8. ...rights need to be seen in a more balanced framework, and that the U.S. would benefit by a temporary moratorium on the manufacture of new rights.
While a few communitarians have developed refined institutional analyses to match their critiquesone thinks of liberal-communitarian Ezekiel Emanuel's very interesting proposals on health care

It is my fondest hope that those on the left will recover from the dementia that requires them to spout talking points that, actually, work to their own detriment.

But, you are right in line with other libs who know better what is good for the rest of us, kind of like this:

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A2a2momdss8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A2a2momdss8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 5, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...






I saw that,, and the right headed pundit said.. " that's elitism at it's finest."


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)

Toro said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...





Most polls are fairly accurate? - neato!..... and that's good enough for you but for me I don't have the proof that media polls are conducted using scientific methodologies . Oh and at least in my experience the people who agree with the accuracy of the media polls are the ones who agree with the conclusions.


----------



## GWV5903 (Aug 5, 2009)

This is the government that gave us the $450 hammer and you want this same government to have your health care or your loved ones life decisions in their hands??? 

You would have a better chance of receiving quality health care in a county charity hospital than you will under the US Federal Government system.......


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 5, 2009)

> Any aspect of America is a target for such boors. Do you count yourself among them?



You people seriously believe that the entire rest of the world is out to get us, don't you?

Wow.  Is everyone on the right a paranoid schizophrenic, or just you?



> you are not able to avow that the WHO does collect its own data



Who cares if they collect their own data?  Why would any country try to manufacture false health care data?  

You seriously think that the entire world is conspiring to make the United States look bad, _in the health care industry_?  What could possibly be gained from such a far-fetched plot?

Wait, now I understand, you're still locked in Cold-War propaganda thinking.  This is not the USA vs the USSR anymore.  If this is truly what you believe, and you are not just playing Devil's advocate, than there is something seriously wrong with you.  Have you smoked a lot of pot or something to make you this paranoid?



> embarrassed is the 'lol' deflection.



Now that's funny, because the lol was a laugh at your utter lack of understanding of human nature.



> A bit of self-aggrandizement



Look who's talking:



> imitation is the sincerest of flattery. Complements on your good taste.



self-aggrandizement at it's finest.  But again, you did warn us in point 1. of your original bit of projection that you would be accusing others of what you are guilty of.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 5, 2009)

> This is the government that gave us the $450 hammer and you want this same government to have your health care or your loved ones life decisions in their hands???



It's also the government that won World War 2, fixed Europe afterwards, and built the Hoover Dam.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 5, 2009)

> Quote:
> This is the government that gave us the $450 hammer and you want this same government to have your health care or your loved ones life decisions in their hands???
> It's also the government that won World War 2, fixed Europe afterwards, and built the Hoover Dam.



Not to mention the government that built the US highway system, put a man on the moon, made the first atomic bomb...  The list goes on, and on.

It is only recently that Republicans have been able to convince people that government cannot do anything right, and, that is true...  When Republicans are in the majority anyway.


----------



## Coyote (Aug 5, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> [youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fexz8Ij-OBQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fexz8Ij-OBQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]



This is a 33 second blip.

How can this be in anyway meaningful?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)

it's meanigful in the sense that you really get the full context of what Krugman is saying.


----------



## Coyote (Aug 5, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> it's meanigful in the sense that you really get the full context of what Krugman is saying.



Maybe I'm missing something but...I'm not seeing any context


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 5, 2009)

> I'm not seeing any context



I think Jay might have been indulging in a bit of sarcasm there.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 5, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> it's meanigful in the sense that you really get the full context of what Krugman is saying.



Krugman was trying to say that canadians like their healthcare.   However when he identfied the canadians in that specific crowd of people they all said they didn't really like it.

Thats the context of what people are making fun of.   

It was like when biden told the guy in the wheelchair to stand up and take a bow


----------



## GWV5903 (Aug 5, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > This is the government that gave us the $450 hammer and you want this same government to have your health care or your loved ones life decisions in their hands???
> 
> 
> 
> It's also the government that won World War 2, fixed Europe afterwards, and built the Hoover Dam.



Funny you would use WW II as an example, if you think Europe is fixed your really drinking too much of the Obama Kool Aid, and finally, building the Hoover Dam, constructing highways (oh don't forget THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release February 6, 2009 EXECUTIVE ORDER to pay back the Unions) are a far cry from who decides my health care choices, you forget all to easily what freedoms we have enjoyed as a nation, wake up before it is too late......


----------



## Coyote (Aug 5, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > it's meanigful in the sense that you really get the full context of what Krugman is saying.
> ...



Except - 33 seconds isn't enough...for instance, what if he asked the question: "...but would you trade it for the U.S. system"?  I wonder what the answer would be - thus far, I haven't heard of many Canadians who would give up their system for ours.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > I'm not seeing any context
> 
> 
> 
> I think Jay might have been indulging in a bit of sarcasm there.



you caught that.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)

do the elderly in the USA want to give up Medicare because that is Gov. run?.....how about vets? 

of course I 'm not going to ask if those in congress dislike their coverage.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)




----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 5, 2009)

> Funny you would use WW II as an example



Why is that "funny"?  It was a "socialist" Democrat (Roosevelt) who won it for us.



> if you think Europe is fixed your really drinking too much of the Obama Kool Aid



It WAS fixed by the US Government after WW2.  What they did with it afterwards was not up to us.



> Hoover Dam, constructing highways.. are a far cry from who decides my health care choices



You're absolutely right.  Doing those things was *much more difficult *than running a public health insurance option would be.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 5, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Any aspect of America is a target for such boors. Do you count yourself among them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I fully expected, and understand your precipitous retreat.

So, we are agreed that the WHO accepts what any nation pretends is the data on their healthcare system.

Based on your acceptance of my information, I expect that, as an honest poster, you will no longer post the bogus WHO figure as fact, but only for comic relief.

1."... believe that the entire rest of the world is out to get us..." 

Clearly the majority of the world population feels quite the opposite, as documented by immigration numbers. 

Remember the Teachers Union bumper sticker, If you can read, thank a teacher,? In your case, you can sue a teacher. Here, let me give you another chance to comprehend the passage I posted:
The United States is comically bad at making its own case, Maddox writes in the books opening pages. This observation will ring true to those Americans who wonder how their countrywhich welcomes more immigrants than any other, is more generous in its foreign aid than any other, and whose culture is so popularcould be loathed by so many. It will sound even more spot-on to those non-Americans, like Maddox, who consider themselves friends of the United States. For years, overseas admirers of the U.S. have had to endure witless editorials and boorish dinner companions ranting about how Uncle Sam is the root of all evil. Unfortunately, the government of the United States has failed miserably at defending itself in the court of world opinion.
Maddox makes the case for American indispensability. American values are Western values, she titles her third chapter. She stresses to her non-American readers that whatever differences they might have with America, they would do well to understand that the United States ultimately stands for individual rights, political freedom, and the free exchange of goodsall distinctly Western ideas."
CJ Mobile

But, not trusting you abilities, the point is that while many appreciate the United States, there are those "witless editorials and boorish dinner companions ranting about how Uncle Sam is the root of all evil." 

See, that would include those whose "witless editorials " and the [WHO] fictional data you imbibe. Get it?

2. " Why would any country try to manufacture false health care data?"
When I see this kind of -what-passes-for-thinking, I can only fear that just talking to you drops my IQ .
I know you mean to retract that question.

Please, I don't want to be cruel to you if you are, as it appear, below the age of seven. Tell me now.


3. " This is not the USA vs the USSR anymore.  If this is truly what you believe, and you are not just playing Devil's advocate, than there is something seriously wrong with you.  Have you smoked a lot of pot or something..."

So, claiming ignorance is your modus operandi? In the American tradition, the sanctity of the individual, his freedom, and his life come before any political institution.  In Thoreaus "On the duty of Civil Disobedience", he states:  There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.

The USSR reference seems to imply that you are unaware that the left, and certainly the current administration believe not in the individual, and his right to make choices, including about his healthcare, but in the collective, and the 'one plan for all'...along the lines of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.'  Do you see the connection yet?

And, as far as 'smoking pot,' no, never.

And the '...or something..'  How indicative of your writing skills.  As is the so creative and original "Look who's talking."

I understand your wish to 'play with the big boys,' but you are really out of your league.
Arguing with you is like playing tennis against the drapes.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)

*[SIZE=+1]New Rule: Everything In America doesn't have to Make a Profit [/SIZE]* 
 by Bill Maher 
* Link* * Excerpt:* 
It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us. But now it's becoming all that we are. Did you know, for example, that there was a time when being called a "war profiteer" was a bad thing? But now our war zones are dominated by private contractors and mercenaries who work for corporations. There are more private contractors in Iraq than American troops, and we pay them generous salaries to do jobs the troops used to do for themselves &shy;-- like laundry. War is not supposed to turn a profit, but our wars have become boondoggles for weapons manufacturers and connected civilian contractors. Prisons used to be a non-profit business, too.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 5, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> *[SIZE=+1]New Rule: Everything In America doesn't have to Make a Profit [/SIZE]*
> by Bill Maher
> * Link* * Excerpt:*
> It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us. But now it's becoming all that we are. Did you know, for example, that there was a time when being called a "war profiteer" was a bad thing? But now our war zones are dominated by private contractors and mercenaries who work for corporations. There are more private contractors in Iraq than American troops, and we pay them generous salaries to do jobs the troops used to do for themselves *-- like laundry. War is not supposed to turn a profit, but our wars have become boondoggles for weapons manufacturers and connected civilian contractors. Prisons used to be a non-profit business, too.



An absurd as well as untrue cartoon.

For Conservatives, data is important.  How about you?

"Also, its worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money  and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries  these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

And:
"There is a great deal of misconception among the public regarding excessive versus appropriate nonprofit salaries. To equip donors in evaluating the appropriateness of an individual charitys CEO compensation in relation to its location, size, mission and overall performance, Charity Navigator has conducted an annual study on nonprofit CEO pay. With an average salary of roughly $160,000, this years findings prove that the majority of CEOs are not excessively compensated. Access our report to determine if the paycheck of your favorite charitys CEO is reasonable, inadequate or excessive."
Charity Navigator - 2009 CEO Compensation Study


The real extra costs are due to the defensive actions of the healthcare professionals.  The cost of extra tests and insurance to protect against lawsuits is fifteen time the amount of profit in the industry.  That is 15 times.

Documentation:
While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times


Let me do the math for you. Nine percent, the cost of defensive medicine, is fifteen time the six tenths of one percent which is the health insurance profits.

So, unless you dispute and can document that these figures are inaccurate, it would be dishonest of you to trumpet that healthcare is 'stealing' money.

I hope you realize that the idea was put in your head by a political ideology which thrives on class warfare and covetousness.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)

An absurd as well as untrue cartoon.

really... so why are the insurance companies in business - for profit or to help U.S citizens out?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)




----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 5, 2009)

> I fully expected, and understand your precipitous retreat.



Ahh, another attempt to declare victory when no surrender has been offered.  An interesting strategy, but predictable.



> So, we are agreed that the WHO accepts what any nation pretends is the data on their healthcare system.



We are not.  WHO puts forward said information as data they collected.  Therefore, unless proven otherwise, I assume that they are telling the truth, as they have no hidden agenda *and receive their funding primarily from the United States*.  The data was collected during the Bush administration, so if any political agenda existed within WHO, it would probably be one opposite to what you suggest.



> Based on your acceptance of my information, I expect that, as an honest poster



Since my acceptance was never offered, or implied, I expect you, as a dishonest poster, to continue to imply that it was.

As for the article you post from, it is an review of a opinion piece (in book form) based on the premise that the rest of the world hates America.  Thus the title of the article:  "Tough Love: Bronwen Maddox makes the case against Anti-Americanism", and the title of the book:  "In Defense of America, by Bronwen Maddox".

In what reality does a *review of an opinion piece *constitute any kind of proof that the data from the World Health Organization is faulty?



> When I see this kind of -what-passes-for-thinking, I can only fear that just talking to you drops my IQ .



And in a classic Coulterian move, you try to paint your political opponent as a fool because they don't agree with your point of view.  Providing no data at all to support said point of view.

Which of course makes you look the fool...



> So, claiming ignorance is your modus operandi?



Ignorance of what?  You have still not provided anything to support your insinuations except your opinion and the opinion of someone who agrees with you.

Let me explain this, in terms you can understand.

There is *opinion*, and there is *data*.

The World Heath Organization has provided *data*, which you can interpret as you will.

You have provided your *opinion*, which I am free to ignore, as you have provided no *data* to back it up.

Now, please, enough of your pseudo-intellectual BS. * You attempts to rationalize yourself out of the hole you've dug are pitiful.*
*You should just admit you made an unsubstantiated accusation and move on.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 5, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> An absurd as well as untrue cartoon.
> 
> really... so why are the insurance companies in business - for profit or to help U.S citizens out?



Let's not obfuscate.

Article was about profit.

The cartoon was untrue and misleading.

The idea of profitless-society, the emblem of leftist thinking is remarkable in that you 
1. do not understand human nature

2. fail to see capitalism as the locomotive that has moved civilization from feudalism to modern societies and democracy.

3. probably still believe "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" even though it has failed and led to heinous systems everywhere it has been tried

4. probably have not studied the Stakhanovite Movement of 1935, in which the Soviet systme found that rewarding extra work was far more efficient than the "from each...." system.

And "for profit or to help U.S citizens" is one of those "have you stopped beating your wife" questions.   It does both.

The larger question: do you deny that 1. Governement estimates of costs historically go to 8 to 10 times in cost overruns, 2. universal healthcare systems are famous for rationing of care and reducing access.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)




----------



## Toro (Aug 5, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Most polls are fairly accurate? - neato!..... and that's good enough for you but for me I don't have the proof that media polls are conducted using scientific methodologies . Oh and at least in my experience the people who agree with the accuracy of the media polls are the ones who agree with the conclusions.



Statisticians and mathematicians verify the soundness of methodologies of pollsters.  Polls generally are pretty simple constructs.  When the polls are released, they are usually accompanied by the study and the methodologies.  The ABC/Washington Post polls are considered to be fairly rigorous.  

Its generally been my experience that people without a background in statistics and who disagree with the conclusions are the ones who question the polls.  That is to be expected.  Usually the people who disagree with polls are on the Right and think the mainstream media is conspiring against them.  They generally agree with the likes of Glen Beck.  That is whom you are casting your lot with, FWIW.

It is also my experience talking to Americans about this issue over the years that the poll is a fairly accurate reflection of how Americans feel about health care.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 5, 2009)

Oh, and:



> Do you see the connection yet?



Between an oppressive, secretive totalitarian regime and a democratically elected, perhaps slightly socialist-minded, open-book administration?

No, there is no connection.

But, like all your right-wing nut-job buddies, you will continue to imply that Mr Obama is a Communist, and a Facist, that is when you're not implying that he's a Muslim or a Terrorist.

Once again showing a tendency toward paranoid schizophrenia.

You should really get that looked at.  It seems to be contagious among the far-right.  Kind of like a political STD.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 5, 2009)

> The cartoon was untrue and misleading.



Unsurprisingly I agree with Jay.

The cartoon was wholly accurate.  Health Care cost in the United States are out-of-control.  
Free-market competition has not stopped the cost of health care from continuing to rise.

None of your points disprove this, they only attack other points.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 5, 2009)

> So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005.



Medicare's administrator at the time?  Mark McClellan, a Bush political appointee.

Congress passed tort reform a few years ago.  Medical costs continue to rise unabated.


----------



## mskafka (Aug 5, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > How many Americans don't have healthcare at all?
> ...



Chic, who are the "hard-core" uninsured?  What are the characteristics of a hard-core uninsured individual?  

Persons under age 65
Number uninsured at the time of interview: 43.6 million (2008) 
cdc.gov

I have a feeling that I know what your rebuttal will be, so let me have it.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)

Toro said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Most polls are fairly accurate? - neato!..... and that's good enough for you but for me I don't have the proof that media polls are conducted using scientific methodologies . Oh and at least in my experience the people who agree with the accuracy of the media polls are the ones who agree with the conclusions.
> ...



Quite honestly I don't give a fuck about your experience, your opinion, what you think about people who usually disagree with media polling or who you have talked to. You see I can make my own mind up about what I trust and think and if you don't like what that happens to be I guess you'll just have to suffer through my posts or use your own intiative and not read them.....either way you're not going to change my mind with your blather


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 5, 2009)

> Quite honestly I don't give a fuck about your experience, your opinion, what you think about people who usually disagree with media polling or who you have talked to.



Wow, that was rude, but more importantly counter-productive.  Shame on you Jay.


----------



## mskafka (Aug 5, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > An absurd as well as untrue cartoon.
> ...



1.  "You do not understand human nature."  Communism is not the answer.  If it were, it wouldn't have failed so miserably so many times.  There is no incentive to do anything better than the next person.  So what is there to understand about capitalism and human nature?  That greed will inevitably cloud one's judgement, ethics, and conscience?  

2. Capitalism has definitely made our country great.  And back in the days when the majority of business men and women weren't predatory, capitalism worked well without interference.  This was before a lot of fine print, and 1,000 page contracts, meant to confuse a consumer into signing something that he or she really doesn't understand.  When capitalism comes in this form, it is bad. 

I like the system in the middle, or the "Third Way".  Not exactly Centrism, but similar.  Just like in politics...imo leaning too far one way or the other upsets the balance.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)

Toro said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Most polls are fairly accurate? - neato!..... and that's good enough for you but for me I don't have the proof that media polls are conducted using scientific methodologies . Oh and at least in my experience the people who agree with the accuracy of the media polls are the ones who agree with the conclusions.
> ...





PoliticalChic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > An absurd as well as untrue cartoon.
> ...



so I take it that you will no longer need these services - mail, garbage collection, library, school, police and firemen since they are not for profit either?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Quite honestly I don't give a fuck about your experience, your opinion, what you think about people who usually disagree with media polling or who you have talked to.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that was rude, but more importantly counter-productive.  Shame on you Jay.



just being honest I don't appreciate being compared to the likes of Glenn Beck because someone disagrees with my opinion.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 5, 2009)

> so I take it that you will no longer need these services



Don't forget the big one.  The Military!


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 5, 2009)

> I  like the system in the middle, or the "Third Way".



This I agree with completely.

But this confuses me a bit:



> And back in the days when the majority of business men and women weren't predatory, capitalism worked well without interference.



What period are you referring to exactly?


----------



## Meister (Aug 5, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > > Quite honestly I don't give a fuck about your experience, your opinion, what you think about people who usually disagree with media polling or who you have talked to.
> ...



I would never compare you to Glenn Beck, I would compare your sorry ass to a moron.
 I've done my trolling for the day


----------



## mskafka (Aug 5, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



not another poster who thinks I care what they have to say!......at least this one knows it's a troll.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 5, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



PC, you have the right to your opinion, but you don't have a right to your own facts...

I will ask you one question...did you READ this?

http://www.ipalc.org/Healthcare_Policy/The%20Perfect%20Storm%20of%20Overutilization%20%28JAMA%202008%29.pdf

You're facing a huge dilemma PC...I investigate your right wing hit pieces...If you didn't read it, you're mindlessly spreading the false, fear mongering right wing propaganda of the insurance and pharma corporations that want to kill health care reform...if you did read it, you have a major comprehension problem...

So PC, WHICH is it?


----------



## Toro (Aug 5, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > > Quite honestly I don't give a fuck about your experience, your opinion, what you think about people who usually disagree with media polling or who you have talked to.
> ...



I didn't compare you to Glen Beck.  I compared you to the people who agree with Glen Beck.

Whether or not you care or agree about my opinion is irrelevant.  It is not about opinion.  It is about math and statistical sampling.  And you are simply wrong.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 5, 2009)

Toro said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



the day you can prove that the opinions of 1000 people on a media call list = the overall opinion of all us citizens on a subject I will agree with you.... until then I say you are the one that is wrong.


----------



## Meister (Aug 5, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



canuk...at least I admit when I'm trolling, you've been doing it for the last 2 days.


----------



## Toro (Aug 5, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> the day you can prove that the opinions of 1000 people on a media call list = the overall opinion of all us citizens on a subject I will agree with you.... until then I say you are the one that is wrong.



My guess is that math isn't your strong suit.

Best Estimates: A Guide to Sample Size and Margin of Error | Public Agenda

All you have to do is see how polls have predicted the outcome of an event.  These are the Presidential polls just before the election.  They are all a national sample of about 1000 people with a sample error of 3%, 19 times out of 20.  As you can see here, most of the polls were either within the standard error or within 1% of the standard error.

Poll Average: Barack Obama vs. John McCain 2008

Here is the math on polling.  It explains how 1,000 people can be an accurate reflection of a population of 200 million.

http://flightline.highline.edu/hburn/Math 210/Course Docs/Polling.ppt

Do you live in America? Have you ever lived in America?


----------



## mskafka (Aug 5, 2009)

"1. Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care."

I'm trying to find a video of Dr. Emanuel actually speaking this.  Links anyone?  

From what I've read, Dr. Emanuel is saying that physicians take the hippocratic oath too seriously.  And I also understood him to say that for this reason, doctors are overtreating their patients.  Yes, and no.  Doctors respect the Hippocratic Oath and they do overtreat patients.  And this is because they are trying to avoid a lawsuit.  If a doctor misses something during his assessment, someone will have his head on a platter.  I don't think that it's because they take the oath too seriously.  "First do no harm", is what is commonly quoted as the oath, though the actual oath is much longer.  

I want to think that what he means, is that doctors are overburdened and stressed, and that a return to the days when unnecessary tests weren't being conducted would be easier and better for everyone involved.  Medicine was once practiced this way.  Sometimes, doing too much can do more harm than good.  Multiple attempts at IV access, too many unsuccessful intubation attempts by one provider before passing the ball.  If a 35 year old woman goes to the emergency room with abdominal pain, her abdominal issues will not only be explored, but she will get a 12-lead EKG to rule out a heart attack.  Granted women don't always present with a heart attack in the typical way.  But nothing is left to chance.  

Physicians should be able to relax a bit, and not worry about everyone suing them.  This is one of the biggest causes of healthcare costs.  I don't think that there was sinister meaning behind Dr. Emanuel's statement.  Maybe it wasn't the point that he was trying to convey.  

I have started many IV's on people who didn't need them, because it is the standard of care, and it is the protocol for that particular patient's  complaint.  We will be 99.9% sure that the patient doesn't have the problem that we have narrowed down in our minds.  But if we don't "stay the course" and do everything possible to rule it out.....lawsuit.  

Make the laws so that it is more difficult to sue for malpractice, and not all, but some of the problems would resolve themselves.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 5, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


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



thanks for answering Jay.....


----------



## GWV5903 (Aug 5, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Funny you would use WW II as an example
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your right about Roosevelt being a socialist, but it was Truman who ended WW II, get your FACTS straight, leave your emotions at home....

You&#8217;re too naive & emotional to debate this with, when they can deliver this with FACTS that it will cost less and continue offering leading edge medicine, then and only then will you have something, until then wake up.......


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 5, 2009)

> but it was Truman who ended WW II, get your FACTS straight, leave your emotions at home



Hmm perhaps you should read what I wrote before you correct me.  I said:



> (Roosevelt) who *won* it for us.



Not:  (Roosevelt) who *ended* it for us

See the difference there?  Take your own advice and get your facts straight.  Oh and....



> You&#8217;re too naive & emotional to debate this with



Once again, the typical Neo-Con response, when confronted with an actual response to your foolishness (instead of some sycophant agreeing with you)... 

you insult your opponent, latch on to some meaningless semantic argument, and imply that they're unintelligent (or "naive" in your case) because they don't see things your way.

So typical.  Sigh.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 5, 2009)

MSK,  you said:



> Make the laws so that it is more difficult to sue for malpractice, and not all, but some of the problems would resolve themselves.



While I agree that frivolous lawsuits have in fact gotten out of control in our society, Congress did in fact pass Tort Reform a few years back, and it changed nothing.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 5, 2009)

> All you have to do is see how polls have predicted the outcome of an event.



While I agree with the math, there is always the one flaw in polling: that it depends entirely on the sample being completely random.

There are differences, beyond the margin of error, from one poll to the next, as anyone can see just by going to RealClearPolitics.

But aside from these fluctuations, I agree the polls are rarely beyond outside of the MOA in most circumstances, and therefore generally reliable.


----------



## Meister (Aug 5, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > but it was Truman who ended WW II, get your FACTS straight, leave your emotions at home
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Roosevelt was not the president when the war was won, and you trying to spin it is an Epic Fail.  *Truman gave the order to drop the bombs, and that is when we won the war.*You have brought nothing to this thread but your emotional tripe without the facts.  The previous poster made some good poionts which you just refute with no more than emotional opinions.
Try looking up the the definition of Neo-Con.....because you have no idea what it means.  I will give you a clue though.....it doesn't mean everyone that doesn't agree with you.


----------



## mskafka (Aug 5, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Again I'll ask you, Chic:  Are you yourself of the proleteriat, or are you among those who know "what's best" for the proleteriat?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 6, 2009)

mskafka said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



Long time no see.

Did you see my note to you re: the Kafkaesque " The Monster of Florence,"? By Spezi.

Now, as far as the uninsured.
1. The bogus figure tossed around by your side is conflated with 
a) those who are currently eligible for programs in which they have not bothered to enroll,
b) those wealthy enough (over $75K) to purchase their own health insurance
c) the critierion to make the list is to be without healthcare for even a short period during the reporting year, say if you have changed jobs.

The figure for the unfortunate who have serious illnesses which are not fully covered, and the illegal population is a fraction of the "47 million," and is probably between 8 and 15 million. We must continue to provide healthcare for every individual within our borders, as we do currently.

And recall, the healthcare providers have already agreed to dispense with the 'pre-existing conditions' requirement, without changes to the law. This alone inveighs against scraping the current system.

For Conservatives, data informs policy.  Therefore it is incumbant upon those wishing to make a substantive case for your plan to determine the costs of aiding these two groups, and comparaing that cost to the cost of ObamaCare.

Experience has shown that cost overruns on these healthcare programs is approximately 8 to 10 times the estimates, so the advertized price of $1.4-1.6 trillion is probably $14 to 16 trillion.
"In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate...In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's "
Doug Bandow on Medicare on National Review Online

My suspicion is that the 5 or 6 suggestions that I have made in the past, and would be willing to review for you, would reduce the costs and maintain the system that "...82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage." 

Based on the above figures, desire for change in the healthcare system is ideological, and not medical nor consumer driven.


Further, the a posteriori evidence of every 'universal healthcare' scheme is that there is a reduction in access, and a rationing of care. (Canada, UK, Massachusetts, Tennessee, For starts.) This alone should obviate any desires on the part of thinking individuals for said program.

Summary: unless you can show the total figure for aiding the chronically uninsured and the illegal population, and indicate the savings that would be the result of destroying a systmem which is clearly (polls) preferred, you have no winning argument outside of the political.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 6, 2009)

mskafka said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


----------



## auditor0007 (Aug 6, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Here's the problem PC.  While the vast majority of Americans are happy with their current healthcare, that will not exist within ten years as prices double again.  Employers will not be able to continue carrying the load and this system will collapse.  That is not saying that having the government run things would be better.  

The biggest problem is that the argument of "it not being broken, so why fix it" is the ideology that will eventually lead to full government control and rationing as the cost surpasses our ability to pay.  On top of this, more and more people will be forced out of the system.

Under the current system, if you lose your job and have a pre-existing condition, you can only get coverage through an employer plan, and if you are out of work long enough, then you have a one year wait on those pre-existing conditions.  While insurance companies have said they will remove the constraints for those with pre-existing conditions, this is in reality a fallacy, because they will charge such a high premium that coverage will be unaffordable to all but the very few who find themselves in this position.

And here is another problem.  What happens to the individual who has insurance through their employer, but becomes sick and then loses their job.  Without a steady income due to their being sick, they can't afford Cobra, and even if they can, if the illness is extended, Cobra runs out.  Then they are left to lose every asset they have worked for throughout their life before Medicaid will kick in.  And for Medicaid to kick in, you have to be dirt poor.

Most people never find themselves in this situation, but for those who do, we make sure that there is no hope or way out for them.  There are answers and solutions.  The problem is that all we hear is that the current system is fine and everyone is happy with their healthcare now, so why change it?  It has to be changed because the fact is that while it currently costs employers around $12,000 per year to cover a family of four, that cost is going to double to $24,000 per year within the next ten years.  Again, this is unsustainable, and until everyone understands this, there will be more and more pressure to move toward a single payer government run system. 

So if you want to discuss the real problems and how they can be solved, please do.  But continuing on with the argument that all is well is not going to hold much longer.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 6, 2009)

> Roosevelt was not the president when the war was won, and you trying to spin it is an Epic Fail. Truman gave the order to drop the bombs, and that is when we won the war.



Anyone who knows anything about World War II knows that the war was effectively won by the time Truman decided to drop the bombs on Japan.  Truman's decision was OBVIOUSLY not the turning point that won the war for the allies.  Thus the phrase "Roosevelt won World War II" is entirely accurate.

Trying to prove some ridiculous semantic point makes you the "spinner", not me.  Thanks for playing though.



> You have brought nothing to this thread but your emotional tripe without the facts.



The only thing you sir have contributed to this thread are insults directed at me, and an attempt to somehow paint me as "emotional".  I can assure you that I am far from "emotional" when I write these posts.  



> The previous poster made some good poionts which you just refute with no more than emotional opinions.



Which previous poster would that be?  Political Chic?  Which point was that, that I was refuting?  Her list of insults of liberals?  That was a "good point"?  

Perhaps the fact that you believe such intentionally inflammatory garbage to be a "good point" explains much about you.



> Try looking up the the definition of Neo-Con.....because you have no idea what it means.



Actually I know quite well what the term "Neo-Con" means.

Neo-Cons are a branch of Conservatives that started in the 70's, as a sort of "backlash" to the hippie-type movements that had taken place before-hand.

Only, instead of being traditional Conservative/Libertarians, they strongly supported American imperialism, and the pushing of religious morality upon the populace through political methods.

However, at some point during the Bush years, Neo-Conservatives became nothing but a bunch of loud-mouth nay-sayers, who will lie, cheat, and steal in order to retain what little power they have left.

The only thing you hear from Neo-Conservatives anymore are insults like "Socialist", "Facist", etc, etc. or criticisms of anyone else's ideas.



> it doesn't mean everyone that doesn't agree with you.



Of course it doesn't, but Neo-Cons are easy to pick out.  They will be the ones most loudly criticizing Liberals, using terms like "Socialist" and talking points straight from FoxNews, a network that is run-by and filled with... Neo-Cons.


----------



## Maple (Aug 6, 2009)

15 years and I have yet to find one that likes their system.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 6, 2009)

> "...82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage."



If there were a public option, that 82 percent would be able to keep their coverage, would they not?

What about a public option would stop that 82 percent from being able to keep their current provider?  Is it that a public option would be less expensive?  Well, it seems to me that if they are so satisfied with their current provider, they would be happy to continue paying for it.



> The figure for the unfortunate who have serious illnesses which are not fully covered, and the illegal population is a fraction of the "47 million," and is probably between 8 and 15 million.



What about those who aren't covered who don't have serious illnesses?

If you catch an illness in it's early stages, doesn't that save money, and more importantly, lives, in the long run?

Finally, if we are willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on protecting the country from the threat of terrorism, which, after all is said and done, has only actually killed a few thousand people in the last 50 years or so... 
then shouldn't we be more than willing to spend much more on what is ultimately responsible for many, many more unecessary deaths:  Lack of health insurance?


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 6, 2009)

> It has to be changed because the fact is that while it currently costs employers around $12,000 per year to cover a family of four, that cost is going to double to $24,000 per year within the next ten years. Again, this is unsustainable, and until everyone understands this



An excellent point.

Even if people are currently satisfied with their health insurance, they will be highly unsatisfied when employers start to find the crushing cost of health insurance to be not worth it anymore.

The firm I work for, for instance, has changed to cheaper, less-effective plans in the past 5 years, and the employees here are much less satisfied with their current plans.

It is not a stretch to imagine that if things continue to go the way they are now, the firm will find it cost-effective to get rid of health insurance altogether, or provide a truly bottom-of-the-barrel plan.


----------



## mskafka (Aug 6, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





I did see the quote, and I'm still waiting for your response to my question: Do you consider yourself of the proletariat, or do you know what's best for the proletariat?

In response to 1.
 a. Yes for whatever reason some people-( either don't have the intelligence,... and I mean that respectfully...are too lazy, don't drive...or whatever-do not take advantage of the options available to them.
b. Over 75K-pre-existing conditions, took out...say an ARM, and are living beyond their means.  (I know, that's not your fault)
c. a short time?  (1 month, 6 months...how long?)


8-15 million- according to FactCheck.org and the Kaiser Family Foundation:

Statistics on uninsured living in the United States-  79% are native or naturalized U.S. citizens and The remaining 21 percent accounts for both legal and illegal immigrants.  

My own math, correct it if it is wrong-with approximately 46 million uninsured (median-between 2006 and 2008 data) that would be roughly 15% of the population.

Although sources vary, I decided to go with the highest number found,  (on a conservative website) to estimate the percentage of illegal immigrants in the US-20 million was the estimate, so that is roughly 6% of the population.

According to commonwealthfund.org-the United States spent $5,267 per capita on health care in 2002 (It may have increased or decreased since then).  So that would be approximately $242,282,000,000.  (Correct me if I'm wrong, as neither math nor statistics have ever been my strengths.)

Hypothetically, let's say that we divide that amount in half-assuming that half of that is paid in full...that's $121,141,000,000 of uncompensated care.  And that's not counting the illegal immigrants, or the insured who don't pay their out-of-pocket costs.   I know that you know how to divide, so I won't bore you with that any longer.  I'm aware that there are many variables, so this is at best a guesstimation.  With the system the way that it is, I'm not sure that anyone could get a concrete number.

And we'll go with your number; 8%=roughly $40 billion.



According to this site http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/benefits-insurance-health/306239-1.html-"U.S. hospitals provided $24.9 billion of uncompensated care in 2003"

And this is a quote from H.R. 3200 Sec 246 &#8212; 
NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States. **********************************************************************

On the issue of "aiding the chronically insured-you don't know their situations, and I don't know their situations.

I'm sure that you are aware the Canada and the UK have incorporated public with private in their countries, with mixed reactions.  So if they can do it, then why can't we?  (http://medicare.ca/main/the-facts/p3s-private-profits-public-pays) ( http://www.bupa.co.uk/)  These were picked quickly, so forgive the quality.  

I'm assuming that you mean the POSTERIOR evidence- of every 'universal healthcare' scheme is that there is a reduction in access, and a rationing of care. (Canada, UK, Massachusetts, Tennessee, For starts.)-reference (I've heard it, but I'd like to know where you've heard it)  TN was a surprise, that is the first that I've heard about TN.  Are you referring to tncare, medicare?  

 And recall, the healthcare providers have already agreed to dispense with the 'pre-existing conditions' requirement, without changes to the law. This alone inveighs against scraping the current system.  (when?  and where did you find it?) 


Now as far as how to fund it, I will get back with you.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 6, 2009)

> And recall, the healthcare providers have already agreed to dispense with the 'pre-existing conditions' requirement, without changes to the law. This alone inveighs against scraping the current system. (when? and where did you find it?)



What's this?  When did this happen?

Of course, corporations have been known to make promises like this when threatened with legislation, and then go back on them later, but this is first I'm hearing about this.


----------



## mskafka (Aug 6, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > And recall, the healthcare providers have already agreed to dispense with the 'pre-existing conditions' requirement, without changes to the law. This alone inveighs against scraping the current system. (when? and where did you find it?)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who knows?  I'm still looking for it.


----------



## Meister (Aug 6, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > It has to be changed because the fact is that while it currently costs employers around $12,000 per year to cover a family of four, that cost is going to double to $24,000 per year within the next ten years. Again, this is unsustainable, and until everyone understands this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why is it that you think the only way to fix healthcare is with universal health?  There are several ways to tweak the present system to arrive at the final goal for everyone.  They have already been laid down in this thread.  
Universal healthcare will ultimately push out the private insurance companies through the mandates.  Which will leave one choice, and your going to like it...whether you like it or not.
One last note....I feel whatever we end up with when the dust settles, the politicians will have the same insurance as we do.  This will be the litmus test on just how good of healthcare we really have.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 6, 2009)

> Why is it that you think the only way to fix healthcare is with universal health?



It isn't.  That's why the proposed public option is just that, an option.


----------



## Toro (Aug 6, 2009)

Maple said:


> 15 years and I have yet to find one that likes their system.



You aren't talking to many Canadians then.  Despite the problems, there is an overwhelming consensus that Canadians do not want to have a system like the US.

If a political party in Canada campaigned to fundamentally change Medicare, they would be soundly thumped at the polls.  That's why no parties run to change the system.


----------



## mskafka (Aug 6, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...


----------



## GWV5903 (Aug 6, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > but it was Truman who ended WW II, get your FACTS straight, leave your emotions at home
> 
> 
> 
> ...



An actual response?? You call this a response?? A response would try to refute the facts, you have nothing factual as to the cost of this, the CBO is closer to reality and we all know there estimate says this will add $1.8 trillion to our deficit over 10 years, can you refute that?

Again, your too emotional and naive, nothing new from the far left, but please keep it up, it will insure the house changes in '10 and one term for your socialist messiah......


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

Toro said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > the day you can prove that the opinions of 1000 people on a media call list = the overall opinion of all us citizens on a subject I will agree with you.... until then I say you are the one that is wrong.
> ...



Just because the polls were close in one political event does not mean they are accurate all the time nor does it mean that certain media groups poll using the same methods....like I said even a broken clock is right twice a day.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

Exit polls most inaccurate since 1988
By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY
USATODAY.com - Exit polls most inaccurate since 1988

There is a sucker born every minute.


----------



## Toro (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Just because the polls were close in one political event does not mean they are accurate all the time nor does it mean that certain media groups poll using the same methods....like I said even a broken clock is right twice a day.



Of course polls are not accurate all the time.  However, you are making an implicit assumption that the poll is wrong and that Americans don't like their insurer and have had bad experiences with their insurer.  Why else would you question it?  The reason why I shared my own experiences is because that polls seems to verify what I have learned after living in America for a long time.  You may not care about my experiences but you have not offered anything to counter otherwise other than displaying that you don't understand statistical sampling.  What would you think about an American who told a group of Canadians that a Canadian poll concluding that Canadians were generally happy with Medicare was biased and wrong, and that Canadians are in fact really unhappy with Medicare and want to ditch it?  It would seem pretty foolish, wouldn't it?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

Toro said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Just because the polls were close in one political event does not mean they are accurate all the time nor does it mean that certain media groups poll using the same methods....like I said even a broken clock is right twice a day.
> ...





"Of course polls are not accurate all the time."

thank you. I made no assumptions -  I simply pointed out that fact and that I don't trust polls even the ones that I might agree with. next.


----------



## Toro (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Exit polls most inaccurate since 1988
> By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY
> USATODAY.com - Exit polls most inaccurate since 1988
> 
> There is a sucker born every minute.



You don't understand how this works.

Exit polls are notoriously inaccurate because reporters sit outside polling booths and ask people how they voted as they come out.  They are constructed far less rigorously because the statistical sample can be way off.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 7, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > mskafka said:
> ...



I think that many of the points above require some elucidation.

"a pre-existing condition, you can only get coverage through an employer plan, and if you are out of work long enough, then you have a one year wait on those pre-existing conditions."
The agreement shortens the one year waiting period by one month for each year of prior coverage.  

The ObamaCare plans under consideration would be mandated to include the following:
1. have guaranteed issue and renewal

2. no exclusions for pre-existing conditions

3. , no lifetime or annual limits on benefits,

4. family policies would have to cover children up to age 26.

5. to cover essential health benefits, as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are essential benefits. The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.
6. compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). 

7. prohibits engaging in other discriminatory practices. cover smokers, parachute jumpers, and race car drivers.

8. Caps total out-of-pocket spending 

"...a fallacy, because they will charge such a high premium that coverage will be unaffordable to all but the very few ..."  
Above, you see the reason why private healthcare will be unaffordable under ObamaCare. And experience tells you that government cost estimates are generally off by a factor of 8 to 10.


"...It has to be changed because the fact is that while it currently costs employers around $12,000 per year to cover a family of four, that cost is going to double to $24,000 per year within the next ten years."

This is a misconception elevated to reality by the forces that wish nationalized care.
The increases in healthcare are actually decreasing, and the overall costs of the big four of spendable cash, food-fuel-housing-healthcare has remained the same for two and a half generations.

By Betsy McCaughey Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D., is a patient advocate, founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, and a former Lt. Governor of New York State. 
Downgrading Health Care
The administration has warned that soaring health spending threatens the stability of American families and the economy. These doomsday scenarios are untrue. Health care spending is increasing at more moderate rates than in previous decades. Spending increased 10.5 percent in 1970, 13 percent in 1980, and consistently less than 7 percent in each of the last five years, reaching a low of 6.1 percent a year ago. Each year since 1960, food and energy together have taken up a declining share of Americans' expenditures, while housing has taken up a steady share. This has enabled Americans to spend an increasing share of their budgets on another necessity, healthcare. These four necessities together consume the same share of American spending now (55%) as they did in 1960 (53%). As further evidence, Americans are increasing the share of their spending that goes to recreation. Moderate income families can be helped to buy health coverage with vouchers, refundable tax credits, or debit cards. That's a low risk, "fix what's broken" approach.
Increases in healthcare expenditures: 
2003	8.6%
2004	6.9%
2005	6.5%
2006	6.7%
2007	6.1%
Compare to 10.5% in 1970 and 13% in 1980

For purposes of comparison, education:
Tuition at private colleges and universities has increased anywhere from 5% to 13% every year since 1980. "
The Cost of a College Education

And for primary and secondary school:
"Based on statistics from the US Department of Education, the average cost of educating a student in elementary and secondary schools has risen from $6,200 in 1991 to $11,000 in 2005 an increase of 85%. "
US Education Market | Entourage Systems Inc.


"...discuss the real problems and how they can be solved..."
Be glad to.

The following are suggestions that would solve the increased costs problems, and maintain what you agree defines healthcare today: "While the vast majority of Americans are happy with their current healthcare"

1. Tort Reform: 
While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Now, compare those with these:
"Also, its worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money  and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries  these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

So my conclusion is that the cost of malpractice suits is equal to the profit of the entire industry.

This may be significant of and by itself, but when we look at the costs of defensive medicine, it alone adds to the costs of healthcare by a factor 15!!!


2. Reform of Insurance Policy Mandates: 

Scrap all city, state, federal mandates for healthcare insurance policies. When a statute says policies must cover mammograms of everyone 35 and over, how is this fair for a construction company with all male employees? What about Podiatry, or sexual reorientation surgery/? Allow insurance companies to write policies covering exactly what the consumer asks for:
Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000. The stark difference has nothing to do with each states health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each states insurance pools are regulated. In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsins insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.
The gulf in insurance-premium prices among American states is a sign that too much government interventionnot too littleis whats distorting prices from one market to the next. The key to reducing health-care costs for patients, then, is to promote competition, not to dictate insurance requirements from on high. Unfortunately, a government-run insurance plan is the core of ObamaCare.
Bigger Is Healthier by David Gratzer, City Journal 22 July 2009
	a. NJ has some 68-69 mandates including in vitro fertilization, which adds some 2-2.5% to the cost of the policy

3.. Doctors currently have no ability to re-price or re-package their services that way every other professional does. Medicare dictates what it pays for and what it wont pay for, and the final price. Because of this there are no telephone consultations paid for, and the same for e-mails, normal in every other profession.
Most doctors dont digitize records, thus they cannot use software that allows electronic prescription, and make it easier to detect drug interactions or dosage mistakes. Again, Medicare doesnt pay for it. 

4. Another free market idea aimed at better quality is have warranties for surgery as we do for cars. 17% of Medicare patients who enter a hospital re-enter within 30 days because of a problem connected to the original surgery. The result is that a hospital makes money on its mistakes! 

5. Walk-in clinics are growing around the country, where a registered nurse sits at a computer, the patient describes symptoms, the nurse types it in and follows a computerized protocol, the nurse can prescribe electronically, and the patient sees the price in advance

6.  To reduce healthcare costs, increase the number of doctors. Obama care would do the opposite. Both tax incentives and support of the tuition of medical school.

7. Identify the 8-10 million who need and are unable to get healthcare, including those with pre-existing conditions,and provide debit cards as is done for food stamps:

"Food debit cards help 27 million people buy food, similar to the number who need help buying health coverage. In all fifty states, debit card technology has transformed the federal food stamp program, which used to be notorious for fraud and abuse. (Only 2 percent of card users are found to be ineligible, according to the General Accounting Office.) Cards are loaded with a specific dollar amount monthly, depending on family size and income, and allow cardholders to shop anywhere. The same strategy could be adapted to provide purchasing power to families who need help buying high-deductible health coverage. It's what all Americans used to buy (see chart 5), and it's all that's needed for families with moderate incomes, who can afford a routine doctor visit. "
Downgrading Health Care

8. Current law provides unlimited tax relief for coverage obtained through an employer but no comparable relief for those who purchase coverage outside their places of work. S. 334 would replace the current tax preference for employer-based health coverage with a new individual-based system. The bill would end the tax exclusion in the personal income tax for employer-based health insurance benefits and instead use a combination of subsidies and tax deductions for health insurance. Ideally, the current employer-based tax structure should be replaced with a fair and equitable universal tax credit. An across-the-board, fixed-dollar health care tax credit, for example, would offer every American federal tax relief for health care.(Wyden-Bennett Bill)


----------



## Toro (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> "Of course polls are not accurate all the time."
> 
> thank you. I made no assumptions -  I simply pointed out that fact and that I don't trust polls even the ones that I might agree with. next.



But they are accurate most of the time.

As this one is.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

Toro said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Exit polls most inaccurate since 1988
> ...



I understand quite perfectly..... I proved my point.
next.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> How many Americans don't have healthcare at all?
> How many Americans are happy with the healthcare they have?



Please do us all a favor and make the correct distinction between "health care" and "health insurance".  All Americans have access to "health care" by law.  "Health insurance" is something else entirely.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> You can site all the "personal experiences" you want to about various health care systems.  There will always be someone with a contradictory opinion.
> 
> The only thing that you can take into account as factual material are the raw numbers, and the numbers say that among modern industrialized nations, countries with nationalized health care systems have longer life-spans and healthier citizenry in general.
> 
> Those are the FACTS.  Everything that the politicians who have been bought out by private healthcare like to site are simply OPINIONS.  And they are usually anonymous opinions (a friend of mine who lives up in canada says, or "Some" say).



Actually, "factual material" tells us that life expectancy has nothing to do with health care system in industrialized nations, and there is no "factual material" to suggest other countries necessarily have healthier citizenry, or that it's attributable to the health care system.  All there is is conjecture and manipulation of statistics.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



So go ahead and have it and shut up.  We didn't come up there and try to tell YOU what health care system to have, so why do you feel the need to try to tell US what to do now?  Talk about a tard.


----------



## Coyote (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > You can site all the "personal experiences" you want to about various health care systems.  There will always be someone with a contradictory opinion.
> ...



What factual material?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Not if you factor out the number of deaths due to homocide and car accident which are wildly higher in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Reading for comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?  Did they have a special degree program in "wild-ass tangents" in your school?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> High Risk Pregancies?
> 
> 5x the cancer mortality rate?
> 
> LINK PLEASE, and no, again, opinion pieces do not count as valid source material.



Health Care in a Free Society: Rebutting the Myths of National Health Insurance | John Goodman | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

If you click the link to the policy analysis paper, it provides excellent breakdowns of all of the issues and arguments concerning health care in America, plus comparisons to various other countries.

It is a fact that the United States has a higher infant mortality rate than other industrialized nations in part because it does more to try to save high-risk pregnancies, which typically result in low birth weight babies.  In addition, the United States counts EVERY birth in which the baby takes a breath outside the mother's body as a live birth, and many other nations do not.  Since low birth weight is far and away the number one indicator of infant mortality in the first year of life, this means we are counting babies as having been born and subsequently dying, as opposed to stillbirths.

It is also a fact that if you have breast or prostate cancer, as well as a number of other life-threatening conditions, your chances of survival are much higher if you live in the US.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)




----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > How many Americans don't have healthcare at all?
> ...



try reading the whole thread when you step into the conversation....that way you will know that I corrected myself on that.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Insofar as cancer is one of the top killers among diseases, I'd say it's saying a lot that we have a much higher survival rate.  And no, detection is NOT the only reason for that.  Although I'll admit it helps a lot that we don't have to wait in line for months just to get diagnostic tests the way Canadians do.

We also have better survival rates when it comes to premature babies, children with spina bifida and people with heart disease and chronic renal failure.  This would be according to the Commonwealth Fund and _Health Statistics Quarterly_.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Since you've been demanding links and proof for every word out of anyone else's mouth, I think it's time you prove this one.  And I DO mean your ENTIRE statement that all the extra cancer survivors in the US ended up homeless.

I'll be waiting.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...


 
that was called a joke - Joke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



Depends on why you don't have it.  On one end, you pay for it yourself, because you have money.  On the other end, you get medical services through a variety of clinics, hospitals, and programs for the indigent and poor.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Please try to be more accurate.
> >
> > Every single individual in the United States of America has healthcare.
> 
> ...



Wrong.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



Yes and yes.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> so really you get the healthcare you can afford.



That's the way pretty much everything in life works.  Fortunately, even the health care provided to the poor in the US is damned good.  It may not be the Mayo Clinic, but most people in the US don't go to the Mayo Clinic.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



The likelihood of your HMO "deciding" it was a pre-existing condition is very remote, so this is essentially just a scare tactic.  In the event that you don't have health care coverage, you qualify for a number of programs already in existence for the poor and indigent, not the least of which would be Medicaid.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

and your links to back up the massive generalities found in your statements?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> do the elderly in the USA want to give up Medicare because that is Gov. run?.....how about vets?
> 
> of course I 'm not going to ask if those in congress dislike their coverage.



Congress doesn't have government-run health insurance.  They have private health insurance.  I know a number of veterans who think the VA is a pain in the ass, and seniors who feel the same way about Medicare.  Certainly, many seniors did not want to be on Medicare when it was first implemented, but they and those who came after them were given no choice.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

"I know a number of veterans who think the VA is a pain in the ass, and seniors who feel the same way about Medicare."

oh....you know people - well that settles it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



Having now read the entire thread, I can say that I don't believe you ever really did.  In fact, I seem to recall you and others consistently trying to pretend that those without health insurance don't have health care, which is just a continuation of the same canard.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



No, humor requires a grain of truth to actually work.  What you did was called "flippant bullshit".

If you have nothing real to say on a subject, try not saying anything.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> and your links to back up the massive generalities found in your statements?



Already been there and done that.  If you have something specific you think I haven't sourced yet, feel free to point it out.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> "I know a number of veterans who think the VA is a pain in the ass, and seniors who feel the same way about Medicare."
> 
> oh....you know people - well that settles it.



When the remark being responded to was "Well, would seniors want to give up Medicare?" then yes, all that's required is "Some would, and many had it forced on them to begin with."

If you don't like generalized responses, don't make such vague, generalized remarks.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > "I know a number of veterans who think the VA is a pain in the ass, and seniors who feel the same way about Medicare."
> ...



where did I say I didn't like your general statements? also those were general questions I asked ...not remarks.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



and you know the how/why/when HMO's base their decisions on pre-existing conditions because?.....


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)




----------



## CaféAuLait (Aug 7, 2009)

Great Video in the OP one of the best lines I have seen yet is this one:

Why would you guys try to stuff a health care bill down our throats in three to four weeks, when the President took six months to pick a dog for his kids?!" said Jeror. 

RealClearPolitics - Video - Man Yells "You're A Liar" To House Leader Steny Hoyer


One must wonder...


----------



## Meister (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


>



So your sources ended up being the cartoons?
Good research.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

msg#307 -  I had to come up with something a child could understand so posters like you don't feel left out.


----------



## Meister (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> msg#307 -  I had to come up with something a child could understand so posters like you don't feel left out.



OK, you got me covered (thank you)....but what about the rest of the posters?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



Ooh, pointless semantic hairsplitting.  The last refuge of someone who's painted himself into a corner.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



For one thing, it's spelled out in the contract you sign when you start with an HMO.  For you to come up with an illness and have your insurance company call it "pre-existing", you would pretty much have to have just started your policy with them.  It isn't like I'm going to be with Blue Cross for five years, get diagnosed with diabetes, and have them try to claim that I had it all along.  You're a lot more likely to get a claim rejected because it's for something they don't cover at all.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



it's pointless to you because you're the one who is cornered. you lose. next.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> msg#307 -  I had to come up with something a child could understand so posters like you don't feel left out.



Hardly.  Don't try to blame US because the most intellectual argument you can aspire to is biased political cartoons.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



  That's not even a good try.  Call me when you grow a pair and can respond to the issues instead of wasting time arguing about whether your post was "questions" or "remarks".


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

Insurer asks docs to report on new patients with pre-existing conditions - On Deadline - USATODAY.com

Blue Cross of California recently asked doctors to look for pre-existing conditions that could be used to justify the cancellation of insurance policies held by new patients, according to the _Los Angeles Times_.

 Byron Tucker, a spokesman for the Insurance Department, tells the Times that this letter is "extremely troubling on several fronts. It really obliterates the line between underwriting and medical care. It is the insurer's job to underwrite their policies, not the doctors'. Doctors deliver medical care. Their job is not to underwrite policies for insurers."


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



and you forgot - where did I say I didn't like your general statements?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Insurer asks docs to report on new patients with pre-existing conditions - On Deadline - USATODAY.com
> 
> Blue Cross of California recently asked doctors to look for pre-existing conditions that could be used to justify the cancellation of insurance policies held by new patients, according to the _Los Angeles Times_.
> 
> Byron Tucker, a spokesman for the Insurance Department, tells the Times that this letter is "extremely troubling on several fronts. It really obliterates the line between underwriting and medical care. It is the insurer's job to underwrite their policies, not the doctors'. Doctors deliver medical care. Their job is not to underwrite policies for insurers."



Ooh.  USA Today and the LA Times.  I'll get RIGHT on panicking about THAT unimpeachable source.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



You've obviously mistaken this for a logical, point-by-point debate, instead of me telling you you're a peurile troll who's wasting everyone's time with his demonstration of ignorance and empty parroting.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Insurer asks docs to report on new patients with pre-existing conditions - On Deadline - USATODAY.com
> ...



do you have any links that directly contradict the story or are we just to take you on your  word that this story is bunk ..... maybe you know somebody that knows something


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



The problem is that that would require me to waste my time reading a story by someone I know for a fact presents only the information that supports the conclusion he wants drawn (I'm referring here to anyone who writes for the LA Times, not one specific "reporter").  I see no more point in doing that than I would in reading a leftwing blog and then refuting it.

Tell you what.  YOU find a reputable source to back up your assertion, and perhaps THEN I will treat your post as though it's deserving of serious response.  Until then, you're just another Internet wackjob hollering about the CIA beaming messages through the fillings in your teeth as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



so in other words you have nothing but your worthless opinion. thanks for playing - you lose again.


----------



## mskafka (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Here is a link to the same story; from FoxNews:

FOXNews.com - Blue Cross to Doctors: Help Us Get Rid of New Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



  Still not even a good try.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

mskafka said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



So what I'm seeing here is that being cancelled for pre-existing conditions is exactly what I said it was - something that pretty much only happens right after you sign the contract - and that Blue Cross is doing nothing more than asking doctors to report attempts at insurance fraud.  Oh, I'm sorry, did you all not know that that's what you're doing when you fill out the paperwork and lie about whether or not you have a pre-existing condition?

The fact that I'm somehow supposed to be impressed that Fox News picked up on the attempt to portray this as some heinous, underhanded attack on the part of "evil" Big Insurance is just laughable.  Despite all the leftist talking points, Fox News is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party or the conservative movement, nor are they viewed as gospel carved in stone by the finger of God by everyone on the right.  At most, they're viewed as not as bad as the MSM, which isn't a high bar to clear.

Call me when you have something real to be outraged by.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

so did you read the Fox News story that was so graciously provided above by mskafka?

it should do for any drooling Hannity bot.


----------



## veritas (Aug 7, 2009)

> Here is a link to the same story; from FoxNews:
> 
> FOXNews.com - Blue Cross to Doctors: Help Us Get Rid of New Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News




ooooh!!! body slam from mskafka!!!

himi kitty goes down!!!!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> so did you read the Fox News story that was so graciously provided above by mskafka?
> 
> it should do for any drooling Hannity bot.



Swing and a miss!  Might wanna keep your eye on the ball a little closer next time.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Veritas <------- delusions of adequacy and relevance.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



so I take it you didn't read it then because the story is about new patients not new insurance customers....another lose for you.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 7, 2009)

Ahh, where to begin...



> You call this a response?? A response would try to refute the facts



That was a conversation she was having with another poster.  

I was having another conversation with her entirely.  One where she insulted liberals with some "liberal libretto", and I responded, and she responded back, etc, etc.

As far as this is concerned:



> the CBO is closer to reality and we all know there estimate says this will add $1.8 trillion to our deficit over 10 years, can you refute that?



So what if it is?  The Iraq war didn't save one American life, but the total cost of the war is expected to add 3 Trillion Dollars to our debt.  I'm willing to bet that you didn't complain about that.

Now Mr Obama wants to spend about half that on potentially saving millions of American lives, and you pick now to start watching the country's wallet?

Besides, according to classic Reagan theory, deficits don't matter if they promote growth, right?

Well, saving on health insurance and health costs will surely promote growth, and so will preventive medicine, right?

Are you saying Mr Reagan was wrong, and Reaganomics was a crock?


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > > But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly
> ...



Though cancer is indeed one of the top killers, a 3-4% advantage in that one disease does not put us over the top in total health care.  In fact we are well behind Canada in the world ratings, and our life span is shorter than theirs as was pointed out earlier.

In total, our care is just not as good.

The people who come to the US to get "better" health care are people who have a lot of *MONEY*.  You can get great health care in the US, as long as you are *rich*.   Therein lies the issue.

And the cost of health care continues to rise continuously.  Which means that as time goes on, fewer and fewer people will be rich enough to afford it.

The plan the current administration and congress is creating makes a Public _Option_.  This means that all those high-quality, expensive-as-hell, insurance plans can stay in place, and people are free to pay for them if they want them.  There will just be another option on the table.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 7, 2009)

> That means that if you don't have health insurance, you probably won't be seeing a doctor in the early stages of a illness, only in the last stages of an illness, when it's too late.





> Wrong.



Wrong what?  People without health insurance WILL go see a doctor at the early stages of an illness?  Wow, that's interesting, and news to me.

Strange but I thought "emergency health care" meant emergency health care.  I guess I'm just "wrong" though.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 7, 2009)

> Ooh. USA Today and the LA Times. I'll get RIGHT on panicking about THAT unimpeachable source.



Perhaps you might want to actually read the story before putting it down, as it is an actual piece of reporting, not an opinion piece.

Included in the story are references to sources, including:

_A spokeswoman for *WellPoint, the company that runs Blue Cross of California*, tells the Times that the letter was designed to hold down costs by identifying policyholders who weren't upfront about their medical history when they applied for coverage.

But *Byron Tucker, a spokesman for the Insurance Departmen*t, tells the Times that this letter is "extremely troubling on several fronts. It really obliterates the line between underwriting and medical care. It is the insurer's job to underwrite their policies, not the doctors'. Doctors deliver medical care. Their job is not to underwrite policies for insurers."_

You see?  Unlike Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck, they actually went and asked valid sources, instead of just making stuff up based on some vague talking point that was passed to them.

That's called "journalism".

Some people on the right have that in their actual stories too.  The Wall Street Journal is a prime example.  Aside from their opinion pages, they provide some quality information.

At least they did, up until now.  Murdoch did just take them over after all.  It seems that oftentimes, media sources taken over by Murdoch become ALL "opinion pages".  Like the NY Post for instance, which is basically another "National Enquirer".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Let me get this straight.  You people have your panties all in a ruffle over differences in average life expectancy that amounts to only a few years one way or another, and an infant mortality rate difference of 2.2 deaths per 1,000 live births - neither of which is any indicator whatsoever of the value of an industrialized nation's health care system - but you want to airily dismiss a cancer survival rate difference of 3-4% as no big deal?  Nice hypocrisy.  

Unlike overall life expectancy and infant mortality, survival rates of life-threatening illnesses is a valid indicator of quality of healthcare.  And when you consider that we not only have fewer deaths from - for example - prostate or breast cancer, but we do that while ALSO having a much higher incidence of both, those percentage points become VERY significant.

Also, as I said, it isn't just cancer in which we have higher survival rates.



Vast LWC said:


> In total, our care is just not as good.



No matter how many times you shout this canard while sticking your fingers in your ears so you won't hear any of the refutations, it still won't make it true.



Vast LWC said:


> The people who come to the US to get "better" health care are people who have a lot of *MONEY*.  You can get great health care in the US, as long as you are *rich*.   Therein lies the issue.



No, the issue lies in the fact that you can ALSO get great health care in the US if you DON'T have a lot of money, and lying twinks like you want to change that for the worse.



Vast LWC said:


> And the cost of health care continues to rise continuously.  Which means that as time goes on, fewer and fewer people will be rich enough to afford it.



Yeah, and the way to lower costs is to give control to the government.  



Vast LWC said:


> The plan the current administration and congress is creating makes a Public _Option_.  This means that all those high-quality, expensive-as-hell, insurance plans can stay in place, and people are free to pay for them if they want them.  There will just be another option on the table.



When I want you to jump up on a soapbox and give me a campaign speech, I'll ask.  Unlike you, I've actually read the turkey plan the administration is peddling, and everything you just said is a baldfaced lie.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > That means that if you don't have health insurance, you probably won't be seeing a doctor in the early stages of a illness, only in the last stages of an illness, when it's too late.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What's strange is that you thought you were thinking at all.

I never said anything about "emergency care", and I'm not interested in you putting words in my mouth based on the assumption that your lying talking points are the truth.

Do people without health insurance go see doctors before they're terminal? Of course they do.  It's ignorant and childish to assume that they don't, or that the only option for health care among the uninsured is the emergency room.  Do they go as often as people who can get someone else to foot the bill?  No, but that's okay, because overuse of services by people who don't strictly need them is actually a problem in US healthcare (and French healthcare, I'm told).

Maybe you should get out more and become acquainted with some people outside your own narrow little circle of friends.  It's amazing what you can learn about the world.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 7, 2009)

If it hasn't already been mentioned...

Krugman is a total neo-Marxist useful idiot.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Ooh. USA Today and the LA Times. I'll get RIGHT on panicking about THAT unimpeachable source.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you might want to actually read the story before putting it down, as it is an actual piece of reporting, not an opinion piece.



No, I wouldn't.  I am no more likely to credit the LA Times as a source than you are to read a piece on FreeRepublic and respond to it.  An unreliable source is an unreliable source, and does not rate my time and attention, no matter how many times you dimwits inanely demand that I treat it with respect.



Vast LWC said:


> You see?  Unlike Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck, they actually went and asked valid sources, instead of just making stuff up based on some vague talking point that was passed to them.
> 
> That's called "journalism".



You may include these snarky little "gotcha" attempts at the moment at which I actually reference Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck about something.  Until then, I will thank you to debate ME, rather than projecting onto me the person you desperately WISH you were debating.  If that's too scary for you, you are always welcome to go find someone more your own speed.



Vast LWC said:


> Some people on the right have that in their actual stories too.  The Wall Street Journal is a prime example.  Aside from their opinion pages, they provide some quality information.



Then perhaps you should try referencing the Wall Street Journal, rather than someone who's only discernible difference from an Internet blog is that they're also published on paper.  As long as you insist on using sources I consider a joke, I will continue to treat them - and you - as jokes.



Vast LWC said:


> At least they did, up until now.  Murdoch did just take them over after all.  It seems that oftentimes, media sources taken over by Murdoch become ALL "opinion pages".  Like the NY Post for instance, which is basically another "National Enquirer".



And the tinfoil hat comes out.  I'm even less impressed by the invocation of Rupert Murdoch's name than I am by the LA Times as a source.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> If it hasn't already been mentioned...
> 
> Krugman is a total neo-Marxist useful idiot.



I would have shortened that to just the last word.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > If it hasn't already been mentioned...
> ...


I can't do that and remain intellectually honest.

Krugman is a pretty smart guy, who is using his intelligence to be a willing neo-Marxist tool.


----------



## veritas (Aug 7, 2009)

> I can't do that and remain intellectually honest.
> 
> Krugman is a pretty smart guy, who is using his intelligence to be a willing neo-Marxist tool.




and a Nobel Prize winner.




> You may include these snarky little "gotcha" attempts at the moment at which I actually reference Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck about something. Until then, I will thank you to debate ME, rather than projecting onto me the person you desperately WISH you were debating. If that's too scary for you, you are always welcome to go find someone more your own speed.




Quick, everybody check to see if your Dalmation puppies are safe!!!!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



There's a big difference between "intellectual" and "smart".  Krugman probably does have some academic intelligence, but when it comes to everyday common sense, he's a purblind fool.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> There's a big difference between "intellectual" and "smart".  Krugman probably does have some academic intelligence, but when it comes to everyday common sense, he's a purblind fool.


I merely disagree to degrees.

Krugman is an incredidbly intelligent man, to the point that he really believes that his intellect tanscends commom sense....Which is also a measure of his tremendous arrogance.


----------



## Toro (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > If it hasn't already been mentioned...
> ...



If you think Paul Krugman is a Marxist, you don't know very much.

This is the type of thing that absolutely drives me fucking crazy about the Right.  It is so ignorant.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 7, 2009)

Toro said:


> If you think Paul Krugman is a Marxist, you don't know very much.
> 
> This is the type of thing that absolutely drives me fucking crazy about the Right.  It is so ignorant.



Krugman is defacto Marxist by being the useful idiot for Marxistic policy.


----------



## Toro (Aug 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > If you think Paul Krugman is a Marxist, you don't know very much.
> ...



Yes, yes, yes.  And Bush and Cheney were Nazi fascists.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 7, 2009)

O.K...I can live with that.....It's pretty much true.

Ready to give up your hero worship now??


----------



## Toro (Aug 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> O.K...I can live with that.....It's pretty much true.
> 
> Ready to give up your hero worship now??



Don't be silly.  Have you had too many beers this Friday night?


----------



## Oddball (Aug 7, 2009)

Nope.

Krugman is a party man hack ideologue first, and economist a distant second.

The editorial evidence speaks for itself.


----------



## Toro (Aug 7, 2009)

He may be a hack but he ain't a Marxist in any way shape or form.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 7, 2009)

Maybe not overtly, but he's still a classic example of a useful idiot.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 8, 2009)

> Unlike overall life expectancy and infant mortality, survival rates of life-threatening illnesses is a valid indicator of quality of healthcare.



ONE ILLNESS.  Not "Illnesses".  There are many illnesses in the world.  Heart disease is in fact the leading cause of death in the United States, for instance.

Here are just a few examples:


Circulatory disease deaths per 100,000:
Canada: 219
United States: 265

_Original Source:  OECD Health Data 2003 and Health Data 2002. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia's Health 2002 _ 

Digestive disease deaths per 100,000:
Canada: 17.4
United States: 20.5

_Original Source: World Health Organization_ 

Infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births
Canada: 5.08
United States: 6.3

_Original Source:  CIA World Factbooks_ 

Intestinal diseases death rate
Canada: 0.3%
United States: 7.3%

_Original Source: World Health Organization_ 

Respiratory disease child death rate per 100,000
Canada: 0.62
United States: 40.43

_Original Source:  World Health Organization_ 

*Heart disease deaths per 100,000:
Canada: 94.9
United States: 106.5

Original Source:  World Health Organization *

HIV deaths per million people:
Canada: 47.423
United States: 48.141

_Original Source: CIA World Factbooks_ 

And here's an interesting fact:

Proability of *not *reaching age 60:
Canada: 9.5%
United States: 12.8%

_Original Source:  CIA World Factbooks _ 

Now I imagine your response will be something along the lines of "They're all lying because the World Health Organization, Australia, and the CIA are clearly all out to destroy America", right?


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 8, 2009)

> Yeah, and the way to lower costs is to give control to the government.



Well, since Medicare and Medicaid are in fact more cost effective that for profit Health Insurance, yeah, I'd say that was correct.

Per Capita, national health expenditures are as follows, as of 2007:

Private:  $3,991.00
Public:   $3,429.00

As can be seen here

_Source:  Dpt of Health and Human Services_

That's a cost savings of what, around 15% or so?  Yep, that seems about right.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 8, 2009)

> Quote: Originally Posted by Vast LWC
> In total, our care is just not as good.
> No matter how many times you shout this canard while sticking your fingers in your ears so you won't hear any of the refutations, it still won't make it true.



*I guess, the above post supports my "canard".

Perhaps you'd also like to show us some data to support your claim?*


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 8, 2009)

> What's strange is that you thought you were thinking at all.



So you hurl an insult...



> as often as people who can get someone else to foot the bill? No, but that's okay



And then back up my claim.

Interesting.




> I've actually read the turkey plan the administration is peddling, and everything you just said is a baldfaced lie.



Reeeeally?

But I notice that you don't link or post any actual part of the plan that refutes what I said.  You just state that you "read" it, and naturally we should take your word on that.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 8, 2009)

> I will thank you to debate ME, rather than projecting onto me the person you desperately WISH you were debating



Funny though that I didn't say you actually watch either.  I just made a comparison between various media sources.  Note I also included a good reference for the Wall Street Journal.  

You should really learn to READ what your debating opponent writes before you look foolish blaming them for something that they didn't actually say.



> Then perhaps you should try referencing the Wall Street Journal, rather than someone who's only discernible difference from an Internet blog is that they're also published on paper.



In your opinion, that is.  Perhaps you'd like to give us examples of specific innacurate information printed by the LA Times as a news report.  (Opinion pages don't count)  

Or you can just keep on stating your opinion about the LA Times without bothering to post a lick of evidence to back up your assertion.

Up to you really.

I can list a whole lot of examples from the NY Post, the media source that I put down as unreliable, if you'd like.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 8, 2009)

> Krugman is defacto Marxist by being the useful idiot for Marxistic policy.



Krugman, a Marxist???

You must not know Krugman very well.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 8, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Hmm, let's see...

Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner, and an award winning columnist for what is arguably the world's most prestigious newspaper.

But some random poster on a message board has named him an "idiot".

Guess I'll have to take the poster's word for it.

LOL.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 8, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> How many Americans don't have healthcare at all?
> How many Americans are happy with the healthcare they have?



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


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


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 8, 2009)

Dude said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Krugman is... as opposed to YOU...a pea brain with NO intellect?


----------



## Oddball (Aug 8, 2009)

And that's really all you have, isn't it, neutron brain?


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 8, 2009)

Dude said:


> And that's really all you have, isn't it, neutron brain?



I try to keep it simple for you... don't want you to have angst...


----------



## Oddball (Aug 8, 2009)

If anyone here knows simple, it's you, Buckwheat.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 8, 2009)

Dude said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > There's a big difference between "intellectual" and "smart".  Krugman probably does have some academic intelligence, but when it comes to everyday common sense, he's a purblind fool.
> ...



Having worked at a university, surrounded by professors with PhDs, I lost all awe and wonder concerning IQ when it became apparent how many of these intellectual lights needed a diagram posted on the stall door in order to wipe their own asses.

This is not to say that I dislike intellectual people.  But it "transcends" nothing, and especially not common sense.  Krugman strikes me as very similar to professors who have to have a secretary just to make sure they find their way back to the office after lunch.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 8, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Unlike overall life expectancy and infant mortality, survival rates of life-threatening illnesses is a valid indicator of quality of healthcare.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps you should stick to struggling vainly to come up with your own responses, rather than attempting to compose mine, a task for which you are woefully outclassed.

My actual response is "I never said ONE illness, dumbass.  I've named several, and it's not my fault that you didn't pay attention."

Try again, dumbass.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 8, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Yeah, and the way to lower costs is to give control to the government.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Aren't they also going bankrupt?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 8, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > Quote: Originally Posted by Vast LWC
> > In total, our care is just not as good.
> > No matter how many times you shout this canard while sticking your fingers in your ears so you won't hear any of the refutations, it still won't make it true.
> 
> ...



Yeah, okay.  I put up lengthy posts full of facts and data, and you choose ONE LINE out of all of them to respond to, and then snottily ask for data?

Kiss my ass.  Go find the bazillion times I've already done this and read them, then get back to me.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 8, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> > What's strange is that you thought you were thinking at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Been there, done that already.  On threads that you're on, in fact, and in which you have noticeably, OBVIOUSLY avoided ever answering those particular posts or touching those facts.

What you can take my word on is that you are an utter, lying, testicle-deprived poltroon.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 8, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Detach your lips from Krugman's left butt cheek long enough to contemplate the fact that Yassir Arafat is also a Nobel Prize winner.  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's widow tried to give his back, saying she didn't believe her husband would want to be included in the kind of company that was now being given prizes.  They're practically giving those fuckers away in cereal boxes now.

Have you always been such a blind celebrity whore, or is it a new thing?

Good thing I wasn't holding my breath for you to give any real responses.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 8, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


He strikes me the same way.

Krugman would be at least marginally more interesting and intellectually stimulating if his op-ed "work" (for lack of a better term) stuck to possible economic consequences and externalities of the policies he opposes, rather than the ad homenims and imputation of motivations upon those with whom he disagrees.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 8, 2009)

Dude said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Apparently, the high and lofty morality of his leftism imparts to him the ability to read minds.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 8, 2009)

Apparently.


----------



## raines (Aug 8, 2009)

This entire argument has been supported and debased working from the base of either other countries systems, or our own medicaid/medicare system.  Points made from either example are fundamentally flawed.  
You can't model after or even compare the system of another country to ours when our tax structure, and societies (to name little) are so grossly different.
You can not compare medicare/medicaid to the proposed function of a national plan... (which is what it would be. We can all agree that that "optional" BS is just that... it would be optional in the sense that you would be limited through affordability of anything else) because the dollar amount to sustain a small percentage would increase exponentially on a national level.  We can not sustain it unless we are ALL paying for it (ie participating in it), and when we do, and are it will be much like the system I experience only degraded.  I use the military  health care system.
I'm no longer concerned about this happening after the last month or so.  I see some fashion of it getting pushed through, but only a fraction of what was proposed.  And nothing then that can not be rescinded.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 8, 2009)

raines said:


> This
> You can not compare medicare/medicaid to the proposed function of a national plan... (which is what it would be. We can all agree that that "optional" BS is just that... it would be optional in the sense that you would be limited through affordability of anything else)


If that is indeed the case, why can't we compare the abysmally flawed Medicare/Medicaid debacles to what's being proposed??

Or maybe you have an example of a federal program that is an unqualified and unambiguous success to go with??

C'mon.....Dazzle us.


----------



## raines (Aug 9, 2009)

Dude said:


> raines said:
> 
> 
> > This
> ...



Not  one... I'm not sure where my post was misleading about favoring national health care.  I don't.   I'm just pointing out that the arguments here both for and against are fundamentally flawed.  The the truth is that I can state facts that reasonably point to a federally run health care system being an unsustainable utter failure when held up against the idealistic sell of it.  Proponents of it, however, have no applicable examples to draw from to support their argument, and the math of  what is being proposed doesn't add up.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 10, 2009)

K....My mistake.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 10, 2009)

> Aren't they also going bankrupt?



Because they are not businesses, they are social programs, and are not being adequately funded.  That doesn't change the fact that they cost less per patient than private health care.



> Yeah, okay. I put up lengthy posts full of facts and data, and you choose ONE LINE out of all of them to respond to, and then snottily ask for data?





> We also have better survival rates when it comes to premature babies, children with spina bifida and people with heart disease and chronic renal failure. This would be according to the Commonwealth Fund and Health Statistics Quarterly.



You're right, apparently I did in fact miss this one line in the long string of quotes.  I apologize.

However, after an extensive search on the internet, I honestly cannot find any examples of the data you mention from the sources you provided, the Commonwealth Fund and Health Statistics Quarterly, or from any other source.

Perhaps you could link supporting data from these sources to your assertion?  Especially since, as far as heart disease goes (which is in fact the largest killer in the US), this would directly contradict data from the World Health Organization.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 10, 2009)

> Detach your lips from Krugman's left butt cheek long enough to contemplate the fact that Yassir Arafat is also a Nobel Prize winner.



Yassir Arafat won a _Peace_ prize, which is pretty much a BS prize anyway, as it doesn't require anything, in many cases but the ability to call for a truce or cease fire.  Any shmoe who leads a country can do that.

Krugman won a Nobel Prize in _Economics_, which requires much more.

Again, due to this, as well as other factors, I'll have to take your opinion of him with a grain of salt.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 10, 2009)

Problem being that Krugman very, very rarely discusses economic concepts in his bi-weekly polemics. Instead, he uses his platform at NYT to play just another run-of-the-mill political hack-in-the-box.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 10, 2009)

Never heard of "flooding", have you, Jay??


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 11, 2009)

Oh man I just watched that video of krugman again.

its still funny


----------



## Maple (Aug 11, 2009)

interesting and informative read. It will look familiar to what has been in the national spot light recently.









 Socialized Medicine: The Canadian Experience

by Pierre Lemieux 




The Canadian public health system is often put forward as an ideal for Americans to emulate. It provides all Canadians with free basic health care: free doctors' visits, free hospital ward care, free surgery, free drugs and medicine while in the hospital -- plus some free dental care for children as well as free prescription drugs and other services for the over-65 and welfare recipients. You just show your plastic medicare card and you never see a medical bill. 

This extensive national health system was begun in the late 1950s with a system of publicly funded hospital insurance, and completed in the late 1960s and early 1970s when comprehensive health insurance was put into place. The federal government finances about 40 per cent of the costs, provided the provinces set up a system satisfying federal norms. All provincial systems thus are very similar, and the Quebec case which we will examine is fairly typical. 

One immediate problem with public health care is with the funding. Those usually attracted to such a "free" system are the poor and the sick -- those least able to pay. A political solution is to force everybody to enroll in the system, which amounts to redistributing income towards participants with higher health risks or lower income. This is why the Canadian system is universal and compulsory. 

Even if participation is compulsory in the sense that everyone has to pay a health insurance premium (through general or specific taxes), some individuals will be willing to pay a second time to purchase private insurance and obtain private care. If you want to avoid this double system, you do as in Canada: you legislate a monopoly for the public health insurance system. 

This means that although complementary insurance (providing private or semi-private hospital rooms, ambulance services, etc.) is available on the market, sale of private insurance covering the basic insured services is forbidden by law. Even if a Canadian wants to purchase basic private insurance besides the public coverage, he cannot find a private company legally allowed to satisfy his demand. 

In this respect, the Canadian system is more socialized than in many other countries. In the United Kingdom, for instance, one can buy private health insurance even if government insurance is compulsory. 

In Canada, then, health care is basically a socialized industry. In the Province of Quebec, 79 per cent of health expenditures are public. Private health expenditures go mainly for medicines, private or semi-private hospital rooms, and dental services. The question is: how does such a system perform? 

The Costs of Free Care 

The first thing to realize is that free public medicine isn't really free. What the consumer doesn't pay, the taxpayer does, and with a vengeance. Public health expenditures in Quebec amount to 29 per cent of the provincial government budget. One-fifth of the revenues come from a wage tax of 3.22 per cent charged to employers and the rest comes from general taxes at the provincial and federal levels. It costs $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen to have access to the public health system. This means that the average two-child family pays close to $5,000 per year in public health insurance. This is much more expensive than the most comprehensive private health insurance plan. 

Although participating doctors may not charge more than the rates reimbursed directly to them by the government, theoretically they may opt out of the system. But because private insurance for basic medical needs isn't available, there are few customers, and less than one per cent of Quebec doctors work outside the public health system. The drafting of virtually all doctors into the public system is the first major consequence of legally forbidding private insurers from competing with public health insurance. 

The second consequence is that a real private hospital industry cannot develop. Without insurance coverage, hospital care costs too much for most people. In Quebec, there is only one private for-profit hospital (an old survivor from the time when the government would issue a permit to that kind of institution) but it has to work within the public health insurance system and with government-allocated budgets. 

The monopoly of basic health insurance has led to a single, homogeneous public system of health care delivery. In such a public monopoly, bureaucratic uniformity and lack of entrepreneurship add to the costs. The system is slow to adjust to changing demands and new technologies. For instance, day clinics and home care are underdeveloped as there exist basically only two types of general hospitals: the non-profit local hospital and the university hospital. 

When Prices Are Zero 

Aside from the problems inherent in all monopolies, the fact that health services are free leads to familiar economic consequences. Basic economics tells us that if a commodity is offered at zero price, demand will increase, supply will drop, and a shortage will develop. 

During the first four years of hospitalization insurance in Quebec, government expenditures on this program doubled. Since the introduction of comprehensive public health insurance in 1970, public expenditures for medical services per capita have grown at an annual rate of 9.4 per cent. According to one study, 60 per cent of this increase represented a real increase in consumption.1 

There has been much talk of people abusing the system, such as using hospitals as nursing homes. But then, on what basis can we talk of abusing something that carries no price? 

At zero price, no health services would be supplied, except by the government or with subsidies. Indeed, the purpose of a public health system is to relieve this artificial shortage by supplying the missing quantities. The question is whether a public health system can do it efficiently. 

As demand rises and expensive technology is introduced, health costs soar. But with taxes already at a breaking point, government has little recourse but to try to hold down costs. In Quebec, hospitals have been facing budget cuts both in operating expenses and in capital expenditures. Hospital equipment is often outdated, and the number of general hospital beds dropped by 21 per cent from 1972 to 1980. 

Since labor is the main component of health costs, incomes of health workers and professionals have been brought under tight government controls. In Quebec, professional fees and target incomes are negotiated between doctors' associations and the Department of Health and Social Services. Although in theory most doctors still are independent professionals, the government has put a ceiling on certain categories of income: for instance, any fees earned by a general practitioner in excess of $164,108 (Canadian) a year are reimbursed at a rate of only 25 per cent. 

Not surprisingly, income controls have had a negative impact on work incentives. From 1972 to 1987, for instance, general practitioners reduced by 11 per cent the average time they spent with their patients. In 1977, the first year of the income ceiling, they reduced their average work year by two-and-a-half weeks.2 

Government controls also have caused misallocations of resources. While doctors are in short supply in remote regions, hospital beds are scarce mainly in urban centers. The government has reacted with more controls: young doctors are penalized if they start their practice in an urban center. And the president of the Professional Corporation of Physicians has proposed drafting young medical school graduates to work in remote regions for a period of time. 

Nationalization of the health industry also has led to increased centralization and politicization. Work stoppages by nurses and hospital workers have occurred half a dozen times over the last 20 years, and this does not include a few one-day strikes by doctors. Ambulance services and dispatching have been centralized under government control. As this article was being written, ambulance drivers and paramedics were working in jeans, they had covered their vehicles with protest stickers, and they were dangerously disrupting operations. The reason: they want the government to finish nationalizing what remains under private control in their industry. 

When possible, doctors and nurses have voted with their feet. A personal anecdote will illustrate this. When my youngest son was born in California in 1978, the obstetrician was from Ontario and the nurse came from Saskatchewan. The only American-born in the delivery room was the baby. 

When prices are zero, demand exceeds supply, and queues form. For many Canadians, hospital emergency rooms have become their primary doctor -- as is the case with Medicaid patients in the United States. Patients lie in temporary beds in emergency rooms, sometimes for days. At Sainte-Justine Hospital, a major Montreal pediatric hospital, children often wait many hours before they can see a doctor. Surgery candidates face long waiting lists -- it can take six months to have a cataract removed. Heart surgeons report patients dying on their waiting lists. But then, it's free. 

Or is it? The busy executive, housewife, or laborer has more productive things to do besides waiting in a hospital queue. For these people, waiting time carries a much higher cost than it does to the unemployed single person. So, if public health insurance reduces the costs of health services for some of the poor, it increases the costs for many other people. It discriminates against the productive. 

The most visible consequence of socialized medicine in Canada is in the poor quality of services. Health care has become more and more impersonal. Patients often feel they are on an assembly line. Doctors and hospitals already have more patients than they can handle and no financial incentive to provide good service. Their customers are not the ones who write the checks anyway. 

No wonder, then, that medicine in Quebec consumes only 9 per cent of gross domestic product (7 per cent if we consider only public expenditures) compared to some 11 per cent in the United States. This does not indicate that health services are delivered efficiently at low cost. It reflects the fact that prices and remunerations in this industry are arbitrarily fixed, that services are rationed, and that individuals are forbidden to spend their medical-care dollars as they wish. 

Is it Just? 

Supporters of public health insurance reply that for all its inefficiencies, their system at least is more just. But even this isn't true. 

Their conception of justice is based on the idea that certain goods like health (and education? and food? where do you stop?) should be made available to all through coercive redistribution by the state. If, on the contrary, we define justice in terms of liberty, then justice forbids coercing some (taxpayers, doctors, and nurses) into providing health services to others. Providing voluntarily for your neighbor in need may be morally good. Forcing your neighbor to help you is morally wrong. 

Even if access to health services is a desirable objective, it is by no means clear that a socialized system is the answer. Without market rationing, queues form. There are ways to jump the queue, but they are not equally available to everyone. 

In Quebec, you can be relatively sure not to wait six hours with your sick child in an emergency room if you know how to talk to the hospital director, or if one of your old classmates is a doctor, or if your children attend the same exclusive private school as your pediatrician's children. You may get good services if you deal with a medical clinic in the business district. And, of course, you will get excellent services if you fly to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota or to some private hospital in Europe. The point is that these ways to jump the queue are pretty expensive for the typical lower middle class housewife, not to talk of the poor. 

An Enquiry Commission on Health and Social Services submitted a thick report in December 1987, after having met for 30 months and spent many millions of dollars. It complains that "important gaps persist in matters of health and welfare among different groups."3 Now, isn't this statement quite incredible after two decades of monopolistic socialized health care? Doesn't it show that equalizing conditions is an impossible task, at least when there is some individual liberty left? 

One clear effect of a socialized health system is to increase the cost of getting above-average care (while the average is dropping). Some poor people, in fact, may obtain better care under socialized medicine. But many in the middle class will lose. It isn't clear where justice is to be found in such a redistribution. 

There are two ways to answer the question: "What is the proper amount of medical care in different cases?" We may let private initiative and voluntary relations provide solutions. Or we may let politics decide. Health care has to be rationed either by the market or by political and bureaucratic processes. The latter are no more just than the former. We often forget that people who have difficulty making money in the market are not necessarily better at jumping queues in a socialized system. 

There is no way to supply all medical services to everybody, for the cost would be astronomical. What do you do for a six-year-old Montreal girl with a rare form of leukemia who can be cured only in a Wisconsin hospital at a cost of $350,000 -- a real case? Paradoxically for a socialized health system, the family had to appeal to public charity, a more and more common occurrence. In the first two months, the family received more than $100,000, including a single anonymous donation of $40,000. 

This is only one instance of health services that could have been covered by private health insurance but are being denied by hard-pressed public insurance. And the trend is getting worse. Imagine what will happen as the population ages. There are private solutions to health costs. Insurance is one. Even in 1964, when insurance mechanisms were much less developed than today, 43 per cent of the Quebec population carried private health insurance, half of whom had complete coverage. Today, most Americans not covered by Medicare or Medicaid carry some form of private health insurance. Private charity is another solution, so efficient that it has not been entirely replaced by the Canadian socialized system. 

Can Trends Be Changed? 

People in Quebec have grown so accustomed to socialized medicine that talks of privatization usually are limited to subcontracting hospital laundry or cafeteria services. The idea of subcontracting hospital management as a whole is deemed radical (although it is done on a limited scale elsewhere in Canada). There have been suggestions of allowing health maintenance organizations (HMO's) in Quebec, but the model would be that of Ontario, where HMO's are totally financed and controlled by the public health insurance system. The government of Quebec has repeatedly come out against forprofit HMO's. 

Socialized medicine has had a telling effect on the public mind. In Quebec, 62 per cent of the population now think that people should pay nothing to see a doctor; 82 per cent want hospital care to remain free. People have come to believe that it is normal for the state to take care of their health. 

Opponents of private health care do not necessarily quarrel with the efficiency of competition and private enterprise. They morally oppose the idea that some individuals may use money to purchase better health care. They prefer that everybody has less, provided it is equal. The Gazette, one of Montreal's English-speaking newspapers, ran an editorial arguing that gearing the quality of health care to the ability to pay "is morally and socially unacceptable."4 

The idea that health care should be equally distributed is part of a wider egalitarian culture. Health is seen as one of the goods of life that need to be socialized. The Quebec Enquiry Commission on Health and Social Services was quite clear on this: 

     The Commission believes that the reduction of these
     inequalities and more generally the achievement of
     fairness in the fields of health and welfare must be
     one of the first goals of the system and direct all
     its interventions.  It is clear that the health and
     social services system is not the only one concerned.
     This concern applies as strongly to labor, the
     environment, education and income security.5

A Few Lessons 

Several lessons can be drawn from the Canadian experience with socialized medicine. 

First of all, socialized medicine, although of poor quality, is very expensive. Public health expenditures consume close to 7 per cent of the Canadian gross domestic product, and account for much of the difference between the levels of public expenditure in Canada (47 per cent of gross domestic product) and in the U.S. (37 per cent of gross domestic product). So if you do not want a large public sector, do not nationalize health. 

A second lesson is the danger of political compromise. One social policy tends to lead to another. Take, for example, the introduction of hospital insurance in Canada. It encouraged doctors to send their patients to hospitals because it was cheaper to be treated there. The political solution was to nationalize the rest of the industry. Distortions from one government intervention often lead to more intervention. 

A third lesson deals with the impact of egalitarianism. Socialized medicine is both a consequence and a great contributor to the idea that economic conditions should be equalized by coercion. If proponents of public health insurance are not challenged on this ground, they will win this war and many others. Showing that human inequality is both unavoidable and, within the context of equal formal rights, desirable, is a long-run project. But then, as SaintExupery wrote, "Il est vain, si l'on plante un chene, d'esperer s'abriter bientot sous son feuillage."6 

Report of the Enquiry Commission on Health and Social Services, Government of Quebec, 1988, pp. 148, 339. 
Gerard Belanger, "Les depenses de sante par rapport a l'economie du Quebec," Le Medecin du Quebec, December 1981, p. 37.

Report of the Enquiry Commission on Health and Social Services, p. 446 (our translation). 
"No Second Class Patients," editorial of The Gazette, May 21, 1988. 
Report of the Enquiry Commission on Health and Social Services, p. 446 (our translation). 
"It is a vain hope, when planting an oak tree, to hope to soon take shelter under it." 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lemieux is an economist and author living in Montreal.  

What do these celebrities have in common? 

Find out.  

The Freeman is the monthly publication of The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Invington-on-Hudson, NY 10533. Phone (914)591-7230. FAX (914)591-8910. E-mail: freeman@fee.org. FEE, established in 1946 by Leonard E. Read, is a non-political, educational champion of private property, the free market, and limited government. FEE is classified as a 26 USC 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. 
This article appeared in the March 1989 issue of The Freeman. Copyright © 1989 by The Foundation for Economic Education. Permission to reprint this article is granted provided appropriate credit is given and two copies of the reprinted material are sent to The Foundation.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 12, 2009)

Maple said:


> interesting and informative read. It will look familiar to what has been in the national spot light recently.
> 
> Socialized Medicine: The Canadian Experience
> by Pierre Lemieux
> ...



<snip> (edited to save space)



> Several lessons can be drawn from the Canadian experience with socialized medicine.
> 
> First of all, socialized medicine, although of poor quality, is very expensive. Public health expenditures consume close to 7 per cent of the Canadian gross domestic product, and account for much of the difference between the levels of public expenditure in Canada (47 per cent of gross domestic product) and in the U.S. (37 per cent of gross domestic product). So if you do not want a large public sector, do not nationalize health.
> 
> ...



See, now, while I find fault with a few of the arguments made by the author, this piece is well-thought-out, and is presented in a non-confrontational manner, unlike many of the screaming crazies out there at the moment (you know who you are Glenn Beck).

That being said, the actual numbers don't add up.  Total health care costs, per person, are in fact twice as much in the United State ($6000.00+) than in Canada (3000.00+).
Other countries with socialized medicine have similar totals.

In addition, personal horror stories adise, the actual numbers indicate that the general quality of health care, at least according to the World Health Organization, is better in countries with socialized health care, not worse.

Yes, it's true, very rich people in the United States can afford a much higher quality of care than in most socialized medicine nations, but that is also the reason why 60% of bankruptcies here in the US are due to Medical bills.

And who do you think eventually ends up paying for those bankruptcies, in one way or another?

If there is a "public option" wealthy folks will still be able to pay for their extroadinary health care, but the public option will also be available for those who aren't so well off.

And as for the "slippery slope" argument...  It should be obvious to everyone by now that Americans will never give up at least some level of private health care availability.  It is clear from this very debate that that is true.  So what happened in Canada could not happen here.

One more comment about costs:  While you will be paying more in taxes for public health care (no it is not free) the savings from paying for you share of employer health care, as well as the fact that employers will be able to pay more when unburbened from health care costs will make up for this.  We all have to pay one way or another, why not go with the more efficient method?


----------



## Toro (Aug 12, 2009)

American friends of mine were in a Canadian emergency walk-in clinic a few weeks ago as their child had had a fall.

It cost them $50.

Not $50 co-pay.  $50 total.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 12, 2009)

A big chunk of my relatives live in Canada.

They like their health care...but then again, they _are_ Canadians.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 13, 2009)

Toro said:


> American friends of mine were in a Canadian emergency walk-in clinic a few weeks ago as their child had had a fall.
> 
> It cost them $50.
> 
> Not $50 co-pay.  $50 total.


How 'bout we bus all our socialist snivelers "a nord" to get their medical services, so they can leave the rest of us alone??

Besides that, America's hospitals in places like Seattle, Minneapolis and Buffalo, NY are doing ripper business on your refugees, so why not have a sort of exchange program?


----------

