An outsider watching the US health care debate

[jaycanuck]

I haven't seen everything on this topic....but what I have seen on the news scares the shit out of me. Seriously...when did helping those less privileged turn into Obama being Hitler? You have some incredibly uninformed people down there.

Who knows...maybe it was like that when our universal health care was introduced....but I don't think people were called Hitler.

Gotta say folks, I hope you guys do find your way. I went to the hospital twice last month for poison ivy. Didn't spend 1 red cent there. :)

Bring on the flame!!

[rocko]

so if you did not pay for the care, who did?

[jaycanuck]

so if you did not pay for the care, who did?

Oh you. I see what you did there. Yes I did pay for a portion with my taxes. But I'd rather pay a portion in taxes than paying $800+. And then everyone gets to take advantage of it. Good idea no?

[Distance]

so if you did not pay for the care, who did?

Oh you. I see what you did there. Yes I did pay for a portion with my taxes. But I'd rather pay a portion in taxes than paying $800+. And then everyone gets to take advantage of it. Good idea no?

:lol: :lol:

[rocko]

You have more faith in government than I do.

[fred41]

I haven't seen everything on this topic....but what I have seen on the news scares the shit out of me. Seriously...when did helping those less privileged turn into Obama being Hitler? You have some incredibly uninformed people down there.

Who knows...maybe it was like that when our universal health care was introduced....but I don't think people were called Hitler.

Gotta say folks, I hope you guys do find your way. I went to the hospital twice last month for poison ivy. Didn't spend 1 red cent there. :)

Bring on the flame!!


Wow...$800 for some Calamine Lotion !! (J/K...well a little anyway)

[jaycanuck]

Wow...$800 for some Calamine Lotion !! (J/K...well a little anyway)

Well...that was a stab in the dark. I saw a sign saying that if I didn't have my health card, a hospital visit was 400+. Add on the doctor's fee...

[raybbaby]

There is an incredible amount of time and effort being exerted to keep people uninformed, misinformed, and downright terrified. The insurance lobby(ies) are spending an estimated 1.4 million $ a day to keep this from moving forward. I know its amazing to see people on TV protesting the fact that their government wants to get everyone health care. They have had all kinds of mis-information shoveled on them, and they are in fact terrified. And you can't count on corporate media to set the record straight. It all makes for exciting viewing, and creates the illusion that there is some kind of near split on the issue in this country. In truth, 77% of Americans support a "public option", so put to direct vote, it would win in a landslide. This is a great example of whose wants are being served, rather than the needs of the citizens. And hey, if it works out to be a bad idea, it can't be any harder to get out of than Iraq!

[Distance]

You have more faith in government than I do.

Then why stay in your country, if you live in mistrust? Go see how health care works in Sweden and France, and you will see how much goodness it brings for those with or without money. ;)

[rocko]

social security is broke. medicare is broke. U.S. postal system is broke. goverment is trillions of dollars in debt. What makes anyone think that they can run a health care program any better?

"why stay in you country if you live in mistrust" I don't live in mistrust. I just have no faith in goverment, which works out fine for me because I don't rely on government.

[raybbaby]

social security is broke. medicare is broke. U.S. postal system is broke. goverment is trillions of dollars in debt. What makes anyone think that they can run a health care program any better?

"why stay in you country if you live in mistrust" I don't live in mistrust. I just have no faith in goverment, which works out fine for me because I don't rely on government.
Except the police dept, Fire Dept., Dept of roads, department of defense, public schools, on and on and on. Why do you want you fellow citizens to suffer simply so insurance companies can continue to post obscene profits? You do understand your a complete tool, right?

[rocko]

You seem to be saying that if the federal government takes control of health care, the problems will be solved. I believe ultimately they will get worse.

[JamesHunt]

was listening to a debate on this on the radio5 tonight. They said that twice as many in the US survive cancer compared to the UK (NHS), yet the UK's infant mortality rate is much better than the US, both parties agreed, but why is this?

I can probably guess at the cancer survival rate. The drugs, cutting edge treatment etc is produced by private companies who sell their product under the same model as manufacturers sell their cars and fridges etc, and the NHS can't afford them.



There is an incredible amount of time and effort being exerted to keep people uninformed, misinformed, and downright terrified. The insurance lobby(ies) are spending an estimated 1.4 million $ a day to keep this from moving forward.

:lol: one American woman in the programme screamed "we don't want to be like the Soviet Union" :roll:

[trish]

I believe ultimately they will get worse.

The operative word is “believe”. We don’t need to rely on belief, we can just look around. We’ve had the current system for decades and we see that our child mortality rates, our life expectancy and our general care is worse than most other democratic nations comparable to ours in other ways.

[rocko]

do you really "believe" that if the federal government controls health care, child mortality rates will improve, life expectancy will increase, and general care will improve?

[trish]

Every developed western democratic nation with a national health care system does better than we do by these measures. Moreover, their child mortality rates and life expectancies are comparable to each others. Our rates are the outliers. There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to do just as well by adopting similar policies.

http://brightcove.newscientist.com/services/player/bcpid2227271001?bctid=30583310001

[raybbaby]

do you really "believe" that if the federal government controls health care, child mortality rates will improve, life expectancy will increase, and general care will improve?
Yes, yes I do. you don't think there's a cause and effect between being ranked the 29th in the worldfor infant mortality, and 37th for overall healthcare by the W.H.O. and being the only country in the world with "for profit" healthcare?

[Silcc69]

Shit let's face it everything is a business here.

[notdrunk]

Every developed western democratic nation with a national health care system does better than we do by these measures. Moreover, their child mortality rates and life expectancies are comparable to each others. Our rates are the outliers. There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to do just as well by adopting similar policies.

http://brightcove.newscientist.com/services/player/bcpid2227271001?bctid=30583310001

If we wanted to have the best heath care in the world (or comparable to those countries), we can have the best health care in the world. However, a major problem is the cost. It doesn't help that Obama and company are claiming that their plan would be deficit-neutral and, actually, it isn't. Other countries that do have socialized heath care (e.g., UK) are facing rising costs.

The average citizen does not want more taxes levied on them.

[trish]

But if the average citizen didn't have to pay premiums to a private provider, or if her premiums went down substantially, the additional cost in taxes might not make much difference to the average citizen. You have to realize that the average UK citizen pays absolutely no premiums toward private insurance. Nothing is taken out of his pay check for private coverage. Instead taxes for public heath insurance are taken out. The only real difference, she has a longer life expectancy and the country child mortality rate is lower and the UK is generally healthier.

[AmyDaly]

I don't rely on government.

Actually you do. The roads you drive on, the water you drink, the police who keep the law enforced, the firemen who would put out your home if it was on fire, many many many things are ran by the government and paid with tax dollars.

[tsmandy]

Things are going to get alot worse before they get any better here. The only way I could foresee national health care existing in the US would be some form of cataclysmic social upheaval or natural disaster/pestilence that renders the current system obsolete. Private Insurance companies, drug companies, etc.... have billions of dollars and they don't plan to relinquish the goose that laid the golden egg anytime soon.

Governments have been overthrown for less. My guess is that any sort of "healthcare reform" will actually involve a further privatization of the healthcare system and dismantling of existing care with a concerted PR campaign to convince the public that things are getting better.

[notdrunk]

The only real difference, she has a longer life expectancy and the country child mortality rate is lower and the UK is generally healthier.

Many factors influence those numbers. For example, "she" is more likely not to be overweight or obese than her American counterpart (cultural). Certain aliments have a higher mortality rate in the UK. You are more likely to die from breast cancer and prostate cancer over there than here.

[Ben]

I don't rely on government.

Actually you do. The roads you drive on, the water you drink, the police who keep the law enforced, the firemen who would put out your home if it was on fire, many many many things are ran by the government and paid with tax dollars.

Amy is absolutely right.
President Obama -- and former Presidents Bush & Clinton & Bush I & Reagan et al. -- claim to be so-called "free" market guys.
Well, why not then embrace a totally free market economy? Which means we've gotta privatize the military, the police and the fire dept. And tear up the public roads, highways and bridges... as they were built w/ public money. I mean, let's not hold back. And let's not forget: the Internet came out of the public sector and TVs and telephones.
But no one advocates this. Because it's utter insanity.
Of course they have a very selective "free" market philosophy. Even the right wing economist Milton Friedman didn't advocate the privatization and/or corporatization of the police and military. But, again, why not? We can't have selective free markets. We can't just pick and choose what's on the market and what's off. We can't be hypocrites about this.
And it's quite simple: Obama does not believe in free markets. So, why not take health care off the market?

[raybbaby]

healthcare is simply one of those things that should not be for profit. There's something fundamentally flawed about trying to make money from sick people rather than simply trying to make them well. And that's about it.

[worldbro]

healthcare is simply one of those things that should not be for profit. There's something fundamentally flawed about trying to make money from sick people rather than simply trying to make them well. And that's about it.

You know, I actually agreed with this until I walked into a McDonalds today, looked at all the fat asses and said you know what fuck these people they have no self control when it comes to personal health and they are the majority. A socialized health system works in a society with discipline, not one of 40 ozs and burgers with three fucking pieces of meat; we live in a country of over indulgence. There are many aspects of life that Americans are in fact disciplined in; personal health however is not one of them.

[scroller]

healthcare is simply one of those things that should not be for profit. There's something fundamentally flawed about trying to make money from sick people rather than simply trying to make them well. And that's about it.

I couldn't put it any better.

[SarahG]

I haven't seen everything on this topic....but what I have seen on the news scares the shit out of me. Seriously...when did helping those less privileged turn into Obama being Hitler? You have some incredibly uninformed people down there.

Who knows...maybe it was like that when our universal health care was introduced....but I don't think people were called Hitler.


This is the US, we can't have a dialog about anything without at least one side calling the other a bunch of Nazis.

[gimmeurblood]

You have more faith in government than I do.

Then why stay in your country, if you live in mistrust? Go see how health care works in Sweden and France, and you will see how much goodness it brings for those with or without money. ;)

the problem is those with money aren't quite ready to give up the massive profits they're making

[arnie666]

First of all , in politics world wide it seems somewhat of a fashion for opponents to compare each other to Hitler, stalin etc. It isn't exclusively an american trait. Here in the UK , the party Iam a member of and campaign for UKIP are often called, bnp thugs in suits, racists and some people on my side call The Labour party stalinists, fascists etc.

Over in the states ,when Bush was potus the Liberal loons were screaming bush =Hitler , comparing gitmo to Belsen , and now we have the right wing loons painting moutasches on Obamas top lip and Palin (much as I love her ) screaming about death panels. What I find somewhat upsetting is while the right wing loons are stamping their feet , there are many people in americabeing made bankrupt by health care bills and avoiding the doctor despite a painful medical complaint. How is that right in a developed country? Shame on Palin.

Now Michael moores documentary , was I feel somewhat glossing over the NHS. Because I live in the UK some of what he said was not accurate. We have our problems also,it doesn't do the american people any good for him to decieve you . I personally wouldn't if I was american want to emulate the British NHS. The NHS needs reform. It is badly over managed, and while I would like to see more money put into the NHS we need to spend it far more wisely. Three things are happeing that mean all health care systems in the west are underpressure.
1 increased costs of medical treatments

2 an aging population living longer

3 open borders and heavy migration.

But despite being far to the right , Iam a firm believer of everyone whatever their circumstances having access to a decent level of health care as long as it meets good standards and is cost effective. Much of what the right are saying over in the states doesn't make sense to me. In fact I know many other right wingers who are passionate about the NHS.Surely if more people had access to a decent standard of health care it would improve workforce productivity? I think it comes down to a fierce independent de centralised mentality in many states in the US and sadly quite a bit of selfishness.

[jcinva]

healthcare is simply one of those things that should not be for profit.

Yes! Free healthcare for everyone.

And ice cream and pony rides and whiskey, too! Whee!

Nothing free, folks. Somebody's going to pay. And as dumb and asleep at the wheel as the voters are, and as corrupt and self-serving as the politicians are, you can fucking well bet it won't be the corporations or the wealthy who'll be footing the bill.

I'd prefer to pay my way and let the assholes who eat at MacDonald's or enjoy bbbj with the working girls, or enjoy their dumbass extreme snowboard hang gliding canyon sports pay for their cost of their own stupidity.

[jaycanuck]

healthcare is simply one of those things that should not be for profit.

Yes! Free healthcare for everyone.

And ice cream and pony rides and whiskey, too! Whee!

Nothing free, folks. Somebody's going to pay. And as dumb and asleep at the wheel as the voters are, and as corrupt and self-serving as the politicians are, you can fucking well bet it won't be the corporations or the wealthy who'll be footing the bill.

I'd prefer to pay my way and let the assholes who eat at MacDonald's or enjoy bbbj with the working girls, or enjoy their dumbass extreme snowboard hang gliding canyon sports pay for their cost of their own stupidity.

How amazingly forward thinking of you.

[jcinva]

How amazingly forward thinking of you.

I prefer pragmatic.

There are consequences for various activities. I already bear enough cost for other people's dumbass, short-sighted fuck ups, paying too much for a home they couldn't afford in the first-place, for example. Tax base rises and I pay more taxes on mine, while some of the homes nearby get foreclosed and the crime rate goes up. And I'm just bracing myself for the new tax schedules to come out to reflect the cost of the "bail out" so these ignorant assholes can stay in their overpriced homes.

That money won't be coming out of the Shearson bond traders' pockets, you'd better believe it.

The only reason we can so casually and often refer to natural rights and natural privileges and natural entitlements is because there's enough surplus yet to bear the actual costs.

It's not so long ago that we saw a socialist nation/union get its back broken economically because of all the "natural" entitlements.

So - as a courtesy, and I have little reason to expect you'll honor the request, but please stay the fuck out of our internal political debate. We don't go nosing about stirring up your Quebecois separatists.

[jaycanuck]

It's not so long ago that we saw a socialist nation/union get its back broken economically because of all the "natural" entitlements.

You'll have to enlighten me because we're doing pretty well up here. How's that bank system of yours pal?


So - as a courtesy, and I have little reason to expect you'll honor the request, but please stay the fuck out of our internal political debate. We don't go nosing about stirring up your Quebecois separatists.

You're right, I am free to talk about whatever I want. And will continue to. As for the Quebec Separatism....how very 1995 of you. Shall we discuss the FLQ incident next?

[jcinva]

You'll have to enlighten me because we're doing pretty well up here. How's that bank system of yours pal?

Wow - you guys really do say, "pal." I thought that was just Parker/Stone humor.

Ad hominems aside, not my banking system. Not my idea to subsidize and legislate improvident loans, and all of the cascading business stupidities that followed.

Not my system. I just have to live in it, and I shudder to think how much more contorted it will get when the doctor's office is brought to me by the same people who brought me the DMV.

Nor is it your system, and you don't even have to live here or deal with the consequences. What you enjoy doing is serving up your moral high-handed kibitzing so you can demonstrate how enlightened and "forward thinking" you are. Maybe one of the eros-toronto "ladies" will toss you a free throw for being such a nice guy.

[jaycanuck]

Ad hominems aside, not my banking system. Not my idea to subsidize and legislate improvident loans, and all of the cascading business stupidities that followed.

Not my system. I just have to live in it, and I shudder to think how much more contorted it will get when the doctor's office is brought to me by the same people who brought me the DMV.


You just proved my point. The bank issue was not because of the government being involved. When a society allows capitalism to trump it's citizens there's a problem. People cried bloody murder when the government stepped in and owned part of the banks and the car companies. "how dare they take away our freedom". Please...that freedom led to greed which then led to a lot of homeless people.

That same "freedom / greed" is what's happening in the health care system. Drug companies, doctors and hospitals don't see people, they see dollar signs. When Obama spoke of Insurance companies using scare tactics...then yah I would think I'd want my elected officials to step in.

You can't have a society run by big business. Or at least you can't have it run without some regulation. There needs to be a balance and check. Will you get our health care system? Probably not...but at least Obama's heading in the right direction.

[SarahG]

That same "freedom / greed" is what's happening in the health care system. Drug companies, doctors and hospitals don't see people, they see dollar signs.


Yes, I agree. But the proposed plan is no different in that regard.

The reason why so many drug companies, hospital chains, major practices, and insurance companies are on board with the program is because they KNOW it will stifle competition and give them near-monopoly control over the American health care sector.

Do you really think this would, in any way, make health care a not for profit system? Hell no. They're focusing on gov sponsored health care, and not gov-controlled health care*- for a reason, and that reason IS big business.

There will be control in other ways... i.e. morality enforcement. did you notice that Obama said in the speech right after the heckler that "no federal tax dollars will pay for abortions"? America IS a backward country in some ways, and the politicians are demanding they control peoples' access to reproductive rights using the proposed health care system. Basically the dem's just sold out reproductive rights (Like I've been saying for months they would) to try to get the moderate republicans & conservative democrats on board with the proposal.

This is a major problem since most abortions, contraceptives, and sterilization procedures in the US are paid for by private health care. Those policies will disappear as companies go "you know what, we don't need to offer health benefits- the gov will do it for us!" Our blue collar fields are notorious for keeping people employed a tick below 40 hours so they can deny them health insurance, because so many of the employers in this country LOATHE the idea of paying for it. It will be yet another "perk" slashed away from the working and middle class families in the name of profits, like good pensions, reasonable pay, and everything else thats taken a hit since the recession started.

All this will do is make access to these socially controversial treatments even more asymmetrical depending on SEC-status. Only the rich will be able to afford health care that is NOT state-sponsored, which would be the ONLY plans to cover these things (since it would be illegal for tax dollars to fund any plan that covers these treatments). Thus its "our politicians want to play doctor and tell you what you can and can not get for your body"



* By this I mean in the NHS style where a public health care sector exists under government's control & operation which (supposedly anyway) isn't supposed to be for-profit, in contrast to the private health care sector which is.

[duplicatt]

healthcare is simply one of those things that should not be for profit. There's something fundamentally flawed about trying to make money from sick people rather than simply trying to make them well. And that's about it.

What about food? Isn't that more fundamental to life than health care?

[SarahG]

healthcare is simply one of those things that should not be for profit. There's something fundamentally flawed about trying to make money from sick people rather than simply trying to make them well. And that's about it.

What about food? Isn't that more fundamental to life than health care?

We've had state sponsored farming at least as far back as the great depression.

[duplicatt]

healthcare is simply one of those things that should not be for profit. There's something fundamentally flawed about trying to make money from sick people rather than simply trying to make them well. And that's about it.

What about food? Isn't that more fundamental to life than health care?

We've had state sponsored farming at least as far back as the great depression.

But we aren't paying for our food via taxes. You don't walk into the supermarket and give them a card that covers everything. We cover the poor with Food Stamps for food and Medicaid for health care.

[duplicatt]

do you really "believe" that if the federal government controls health care, child mortality rates will improve, life expectancy will increase, and general care will improve?
Yes, yes I do. you don't think there's a cause and effect between being ranked the 29th in the worldfor infant mortality, and 37th for overall healthcare by the W.H.O. and being the only country in the world with "for profit" healthcare?

US infant mortality rates suffer from a large number of low birth weight babies. If Canada (for example) had the same percentage of low birth weight babies as the US does, they'd have a higher percentage of infant mortality than the US does.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/127038.html

As for the WHO rankings, first off they are relatively old. Secondly, more than half of the ranking is from factors that have nothing to do with the quality of health care delivered - those factors essentially measure how socialized a health care is system is and OF COURSE the US is going to do badly in that measure.

[duplicatt]

Every developed western democratic nation with a national health care system does better than we do by these measures. Moreover, their child mortality rates and life expectancies are comparable to each others. Our rates are the outliers. There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to do just as well by adopting similar policies.

http://brightcove.newscientist.com/services/player/bcpid2227271001?bctid=30583310001

When you adjust for accidents and murders - things that the health care system cannot fix - the US rises in the life expectancy rankings.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html

"...once fatal injuries are taken into account, U.S. "natural" life
expectancy from birth ranks first among the richest nations of the
world."

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061017_OhsfeldtSchneiderPresentation.pdf

[thombergeron]

US infant mortality rates suffer from a large number of low birth weight babies. If Canada (for example) had the same percentage of low birth weight babies as the US does, they'd have a higher percentage of infant mortality than the US does.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/127038.html.

Reason Magazine, your premier source for half-assed rhetoric.

So why do we have more low-birth-weight babies in the U.S. than in Canada? The author blames teen mothers and moves on, ignoring the facts that:

1) Teen pregnancy, from a public health perspective, is a failure of preventive care.

2) Far more significant contributors to low birth weight are poor maternal nutrition and lack of prenatal care.

Nonetheless, when you look at the data, rather than relying on oddball libertarian web sites, health outcomes are pretty similar across developed countries. Different countries may rank marginally higher or lower in various measures, but essentially, citizens of developed nations largely enjoy good health enabled by widely available medical research and technology.

The issue is that in the U.S., these outcomes cost twice as much and are not universally shared. Socioeconomic and ethnic disparities in health outcomes are huge in the U.S. I think that's unjust, and I think that government is an effective tool to address these disparities (see SSI, medicaid, WIC, VHA, etc.).

[duplicatt]

US infant mortality rates suffer from a large number of low birth weight babies. If Canada (for example) had the same percentage of low birth weight babies as the US does, they'd have a higher percentage of infant mortality than the US does.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/127038.html.

Reason Magazine, your premier source for half-assed rhetoric.

So why do we have more low-birth-weight babies in the U.S. than in Canada? The author blames teen mothers and moves on, ignoring the facts that:

1) Teen pregnancy, from a public health perspective, is a failure of preventive care.

2) Far more significant contributors to low birth weight are poor maternal nutrition and lack of prenatal care.

Nonetheless, when you look at the data, rather than relying on oddball libertarian web sites, health outcomes are pretty similar across developed countries. Different countries may rank marginally higher or lower in various measures, but essentially, citizens of developed nations largely enjoy good health enabled by widely available medical research and technology.

The issue is that in the U.S., these outcomes cost twice as much and are not universally shared. Socioeconomic and ethnic disparities in health outcomes are huge in the U.S. I think that's unjust, and I think that government is an effective tool to address these disparities (see SSI, medicaid, WIC, VHA, etc.).

Ah...

If the facts aren't on your side, attack the source. I note that you can't impeach the study, so you attack the messenger.

How will you prevent teens from getting pregnant - 24/7 monitoring? How do you prevent poor maternal nutrition - free food?

"...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.
They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a
characteristic of them.

[trish]

How will you prevent teens from getting pregnant - 24/7 monitoring?Look up "preventive care," it's not what you think.

[duplicatt]

How will you prevent teens from getting pregnant - 24/7 monitoring?Look up "preventive care," it's not what you think.

Which begs the question. What measures is preventive care going to have to take to prevent teen pregnancies?

[trish]

Look up “begging the question” because it doesn’t mean what you think either. Preventive care isn’t going to take any such measures because that’s not the prevue of preventive care. We have a high mortality rate among children because expectant mother’s aren’t getting the prenatal care they need to prevent complications that result in spontaneous abortion, premature birth, illness and defects that endanger the life of the child. Of course you wouldn’t want any of your precious tax dollars going toward preventing any of that, would you?

[trish]

One might also add that our rate of teen pregnancy is not unrelated to the idiotic policy of abstinence only. Perhaps a little money spent on real sex education would prove more economic in the long run.

[duplicatt]

Look up “begging the question” because it doesn’t mean what you think either. Preventive care isn’t going to take any such measures because that’s not the prevue of preventive care. We have a high mortality rate among children because expectant mother’s aren’t getting the prenatal care they need to prevent complications that result in spontaneous abortion, premature birth, illness and defects that endanger the life of the child. Of course you wouldn’t want any of your precious tax dollars going toward preventing any of that, would you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Modern_usage indicates my usage is A correct one.

As for the rest, you don't prove anything. Whereas I posted evidence that no one has been able to dispute.

BTW, spontaneous abortions do not contribute to infant mortality statistics.

[dj4monie]

Seems there are several arguments all at once.

We spend TRILLIONS of dollars a year on health care period. Single Payer would spend about a 1/3 of that to cover everybody.

Now, the problem is Insurance Companies, Medical Supply Companies and Big Pharma.

In other countries, the cost of drugs is CONTROLLED by the Government, you wonder why drugs are so cheap in Mexico? Because its REGULATED. Drugs in Sweden, Denmark, Britain, Canada even Switzerland are all REGULATED.

Keep that point in mind.

When Republicans stand up and say we have the best health care system in the world. They are half right. Because of so much technology Hospitals and Doctors sell MRI's, CATScans, etc.

We have more MRI machines than all of Canada, so when they say "Canadians come down here to use our system" They are correct, but ONLY those that can afford to do it.

They are not talking about the mass population.

You have to dig pretty deep to find people against Britain's NHS and of course Conservatives FOUND that ONE person and put him on a typically Conservative Faux News Channel and Web Sites, how convenient...

If you have lost faith in the Government doing the right thing, its not their fault, its largely our fault. The problem mostly is Congress.

They gave away Single Payer right off the bat like that would have been demonized any less than "The Public Option". Then by not saying simply "You can buy into Medicare" (Making it solvent long term) they lost the Message War in the Cable Media.

The problem really is the middle and the deep south, it couldn't be more simple than that.

These areas elected seriously Conservative people, Republican or Dem, it doesn't matter.

These are the people holding up any "real" reform because they don't want higher taxes or something silly.

I firmly believe if we had the large social safety nets like in Britain or France or Denmark (Cradle to Grave) you wouldn't mind the "taxes" so much.

Your taxes go up to PAY FOR WARS, not for social systems, please.

Just look at the tab run up on Iraq and then look how much was spent on Social Security and Medicare combined since the early 70's

We have had three very COSTLY and largely UNNEEDED Wars or War on Terror, even the War on Drugs is a joke.

As somebody once said, whenever the United States declares "War" on something, be afraid...

Government is not the solver of all problems, however there are social parts of our society that don't need a "Profit Motive". Medical Services is one of them.

If your taxes go up, it would not be NEARLY as much as your Premiums would increase as the years go by, its data that's readily available.

Nevermind that California Nurses recently released the "Smoking Gun" that all the major Health Insurance Companies in California denied claims at a rate of 1 in every 5 for PacifiCare.

Locally to me, Nataline Sarkisyan was in the hospital down the street from my house in need of a liver transplant that Cigna constantly denied and it was only after KABC here in Los Angeles covered her story and her dire need for the transplant or she would die that Cigna finally relented and approved the transplant, Nataline died hours later from complications of Liver Failure.

Now its totally unacceptable for the so-called "Best Country and Richest Country" in the World to have between 30-50 million people who for whatever reason don't have Health Insurance. 22,000 people die a year because of lack of coverage or "not having enough" coverage (under insured). Also 61% of the Bankruptcies are Medical Related.

Finally most things run by the Government are fine, what happens is Conservatives in trying to cut the size of Government down constantly underfund programs.

They complain SSC will go broke by I think its 2030 because they keep skimming off the top to pay for "Military Activities"

Why are you personally worried about the National Debt? Really?

What about all that personal debt you have?

What about all the Tax Dodging by Rich People?

Put all this together and you have one of MANY problems in America from Governance to Military Industrial Complex to Health Care and its all interconnected....

[duplicatt]

Locally to me, Nataline Sarkisyan was in the hospital down the street from my house in need of a liver transplant that Cigna constantly denied and it was only after KABC here in Los Angeles covered her story and her dire need for the transplant or she would die that Cigna finally relented and approved the transplant, Nataline died hours later from complications of Liver Failure.

Transplants are denied in countries with socialized medicine. It's not just the insurance companies that do that.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/08/04/10353906-sun.html

http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1663797&auth=SHARON%20LEM,%20SUN%20MEDIA

Certain drugs are denied to them as well.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4474425.ece

[duplicatt]

Seems there are several arguments all at once.

We spend TRILLIONS of dollars a year on health care period. Single Payer would spend about a 1/3 of that to cover everybody.

Not going to happen.

No other industrialized country with a health care system worth anything spends as little as 5% of GDP on health care. You may (think you can) cut it BY a third, but you aren't going to reduce it TO a third.

[duplicatt]

Now, the problem is Insurance Companies, Medical Supply Companies and Big Pharma.

In other countries, the cost of drugs is CONTROLLED by the Government, you wonder why drugs are so cheap in Mexico? Because its REGULATED. Drugs in Sweden, Denmark, Britain, Canada even Switzerland are all REGULATED.

Keep that point in mind.

Keep this point in mind - Those countries rely on the US to do their research in pharmaceuticals.

[duplicatt]

Now its totally unacceptable for the so-called "Best Country and Richest Country" in the World to have between 30-50 million people who for whatever reason don't have Health Insurance. 22,000 people die a year because of lack of coverage or "not having enough" coverage (under insured). Also 61% of the Bankruptcies are Medical Related.

The actual number, when you subtract out those eligible for Medicaid who have not applied, those who can afford insurance and do not get it and illegal aliens is more more 15 million. far too many, but not nearly as bad as you claim.

I'd like to see citations on the other stuff quoted here.

[raybbaby]

Now its totally unacceptable for the so-called "Best Country and Richest Country" in the World to have between 30-50 million people who for whatever reason don't have Health Insurance. 22,000 people die a year because of lack of coverage or "not having enough" coverage (under insured). Also 61% of the Bankruptcies are Medical Related.

The actual number, when you subtract out those eligible for Medicaid who have not applied, those who can afford insurance and do not get it and illegal aliens is more more 15 million. far too many, but not nearly as bad as you claim.

I'd like to see citations on the other stuff quoted here.
Why? You'll only twist and misrepresent that too. The facts are obviously not going to sway you. Clearly the death panels currently called the board of advisors at your favorite insurance co. have given you all the "truth" you will be willing to hear.

[fred41]

Now its totally unacceptable for the so-called "Best Country and Richest Country" in the World to have between 30-50 million people who for whatever reason don't have Health Insurance. 22,000 people die a year because of lack of coverage or "not having enough" coverage (under insured). Also 61% of the Bankruptcies are Medical Related.

The actual number, when you subtract out those eligible for Medicaid who have not applied, those who can afford insurance and do not get it and illegal aliens is more more 15 million. far too many, but not nearly as bad as you claim.

I'd like to see citations on the other stuff quoted here.
Why? You'll only twist and misrepresent that too. The facts are obviously not going to sway you. Clearly the death panels currently called the board of advisors at your favorite insurance co. have given you all the "truth" you will be willing to hear.

Actually he's cited his own "facts"..some of which, right or wrong , have yet to be refuted.

..and how about we stop labeling everyone that disagrees with the administrations ideas of government healthcare..as automatically being in the pocket of "big insurance" and "big Pharmaceutical"....that's just childish.

[duplicatt]

Now its totally unacceptable for the so-called "Best Country and Richest Country" in the World to have between 30-50 million people who for whatever reason don't have Health Insurance. 22,000 people die a year because of lack of coverage or "not having enough" coverage (under insured). Also 61% of the Bankruptcies are Medical Related.

The actual number, when you subtract out those eligible for Medicaid who have not applied, those who can afford insurance and do not get it and illegal aliens is more more 15 million. far too many, but not nearly as bad as you claim.

I'd like to see citations on the other stuff quoted here.
Why? You'll only twist and misrepresent that too. The facts are obviously not going to sway you. Clearly the death panels currently called the board of advisors at your favorite insurance co. have given you all the "truth" you will be willing to hear.

I don't have any ties to any private insurance company other than having vehicle insurance.

Frankly, I'm open to socialized medicine - I'm just not in favor of trotting out false or misleading data to get there.

[Solitary Brother]

People need to realize that Obama is executing a corporate agenda.
This whole bruhaha is benefiting the insurance companies.
Let me ask you this:Do you really think that the 250-300 million dollars he raised(a record) was all donated by Joe Sixpack??
Your fucking flying if you do.
The insurance companies are going to win BIGTIME no matter WHAT plan passes.
As it stands now the insurance companies will make a KILLING without the
much ballyhoo'd "public option".
Next year Obama is going to grant amnesty for the zillions of illegals in this country BECAUSE THE CORPORATIONS say so.
They call the shots.
You are FUCKED running.

<EOM>

[raybbaby]

People need to realize that Obama is executing a corporate agenda.
This whole bruhaha is benefiting the insurance companies.
Let me ask you this:Do you really think that the 250-300 million dollars he raised(a record) was all donated by Joe Sixpack??
Your fucking flying if you do.
The insurance companies are going to win BIGTIME no matter WHAT plan passes.
As it stands now the insurance companies will make a KILLING without the
much ballyhoo'd "public option".
Next year Obama is going to grant amnesty for the zillions of illegals in this country BECAUSE THE CORPORATIONS say so.
They call the shots.
You are FUCKED running.

<EOM>

LMAO! Why are the insurance companies so dead set against it? $1.4 million a day in lobbying, not to mention the campaign of misinformation, fear, and "astro-turf" protest groups. I support HR 676 myself, but saying the ins. companies are big winners in this is a stretch.

[Rogers]

People need to realize that Obama is executing a corporate agenda.
This whole bruhaha is benefiting the insurance companies.
Let me ask you this:Do you really think that the 250-300 million dollars he raised(a record) was all donated by Joe Sixpack??
Your fucking flying if you do.
The insurance companies are going to win BIGTIME no matter WHAT plan passes.
As it stands now the insurance companies will make a KILLING without the
much ballyhoo'd "public option".
Next year Obama is going to grant amnesty for the zillions of illegals in this country BECAUSE THE CORPORATIONS say so.
They call the shots.
You are FUCKED running.

<EOM>

LMAO! Why are the insurance companies so dead set against it? $1.4 million a day in lobbying, not to mention the campaign of misinformation, fear, and "astro-turf" protest groups. I support HR 676 myself, but saying the ins. companies are big winners in this is a stretch.

Having organizations in a health system whose raison d'être is to make a profit (and as fat a one as possible) also leads to corrupt doctors, and the corruption of medicine and science. Of course, trying to explain things like this to right-wingers, who have a rather simplistic view of life at best, is like trying to reason with a brick wall.
http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?a=2795&q=414284

[jaycanuck]

http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?a=2795&q=414284

That's insane. What's the point of having insurance??

[duplicatt]

Having organizations in a health system whose raison d'être is to make a profit (and as fat a one as possible) also leads to corrupt doctors, and the corruption of medicine and science. Of course, trying to explain things like this to right-wingers, who have a rather simplistic view of life at best, is like trying to reason with a brick wall.
http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?a=2795&q=414284

So, no one should be allowed to make a living in health care? Because that is what a profit is.

I fail to see the point of the URL you included. IDSA is a non-profit medical association.

[duplicatt]

http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?a=2795&q=414284

That's insane. What's the point of having insurance??

What does that have to do with having (or not having) insurance?

[Jericho]

I'm just not in favor of trotting out false or misleading data to get there.


Ya mean like:


Those countries rely on the US to do their research in pharmaceuticals.

? :?

[giovanni_hotel]

Having organizations in a health system whose raison d'être is to make a profit (and as fat a one as possible) also leads to corrupt doctors, and the corruption of medicine and science. Of course, trying to explain things like this to right-wingers, who have a rather simplistic view of life at best, is like trying to reason with a brick wall.
http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?a=2795&q=414284

So, no one should be allowed to make a living in health care? Because that is what a profit is.

I fail to see the point of the URL you included. IDSA is a non-profit medical association.

Some endeavors should be held to higher social and cultural value than what kind of dividends their shares earn on a capital market.

Like the military, education, and healthcare.

Basically what it comes down to is, do you believe, as an American, healthcare is a fundamental right, or is a privilege whose access should be determined by the free market??

[TommyFoxtrot]

so if you did not pay for the care, who did?

Oh you. I see what you did there. Yes I did pay for a portion with my taxes. But I'd rather pay a portion in taxes than paying $800+. And then everyone gets to take advantage of it. Good idea no?

I went to my doctor for poison Ivy and I didn't cost 800 dollars.

[TommyFoxtrot]

Having organizations in a health system whose raison d'être is to make a profit (and as fat a one as possible) also leads to corrupt doctors, and the corruption of medicine and science. Of course, trying to explain things like this to right-wingers, who have a rather simplistic view of life at best, is like trying to reason with a brick wall.
http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?a=2795&q=414284

So, no one should be allowed to make a living in health care? Because that is what a profit is.

I fail to see the point of the URL you included. IDSA is a non-profit medical association.

Some endeavors should be held to higher social and cultural value than what kind of dividends their shares earn on a capital market.

Like the military, education, and healthcare.

Basically what it comes down to is, do you believe, as an American, healthcare is a fundamental right, or is a privilege whose access should be determined by the free market??

A nice portion of that money is reinvested into finding cures for ailments effecting their customers. Look at Prostate cancer survival rates in the U.S. compared to Great Britain and Ireland. If we do go on to socialized medicine, I hope we look more like France and less like the UK.

[duplicatt]

I'm just not in favor of trotting out false or misleading data to get there.


Ya mean like:


Those countries rely on the US to do their research in pharmaceuticals.

? :?

That is neither false nor misleading.

[duplicatt]

Having organizations in a health system whose raison d'être is to make a profit (and as fat a one as possible) also leads to corrupt doctors, and the corruption of medicine and science. Of course, trying to explain things like this to right-wingers, who have a rather simplistic view of life at best, is like trying to reason with a brick wall.
http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?a=2795&q=414284

So, no one should be allowed to make a living in health care? Because that is what a profit is.

I fail to see the point of the URL you included. IDSA is a non-profit medical association.

Some endeavors should be held to higher social and cultural value than what kind of dividends their shares earn on a capital market.

Like the military, education, and healthcare.

Basically what it comes down to is, do you believe, as an American, healthcare is a fundamental right, or is a privilege whose access should be determined by the free market??

What about food? Isn't that more fundamental than healthcare?

[giovanni_hotel]

There isn't a premium associated with the purchase of food. Nor is the national debt linked directly to expenditures made on food.

Also, ever heard of something called food stamps?? There are numerous federal programs available to feed those who cannot feed themselves.

When the profit motive is the driving force behind medical care, the consumer ultimately suffers.

I'm not a marxist in the least, but unfettered, unbridled capitalism as a social organizing principle is the enemy of democracies and left unchecked, will ultimately destroy it.

[jaycanuck]

http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?a=2795&q=414284

That's insane. What's the point of having insurance??

What does that have to do with having (or not having) insurance?

Meaning that those people paid shit loads of money into a system that's suppose to support them...but all of a sudden the insurance company can switch it's mind because of some guidelines? "Sorry we can't support you for THAT long". It's like paying a mafia boss for protection but he just kicks his heels up when someone advises him that it's not "prudent" to interfere.

See what I mean about government interference? At least the Gov. would say that shit's illegal. So glad I'm living here. And yes for those who get tired of hearing that...I'm fucking gloating. Deal with it.

[Jericho]

I'm just not in favor of trotting out false or misleading data to get there.


Ya mean like:


Those countries rely on the US to do their research in pharmaceuticals.

? :?

That is neither false nor misleading.

No, of course it isn't.
Nowhere else in the world is doing cutting edge medical research. :roll:

[Rogers]

Having organizations in a health system whose raison d'être is to make a profit (and as fat a one as possible) also leads to corrupt doctors, and the corruption of medicine and science. Of course, trying to explain things like this to right-wingers, who have a rather simplistic view of life at best, is like trying to reason with a brick wall.
http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?a=2795&q=414284

So, no one should be allowed to make a living in health care? Because that is what a profit is.

I fail to see the point of the URL you included. IDSA is a non-profit medical association.

Sure the I.D.S.A. is a non-profit organization, but it's made up of members who also work for the insurance companies. The same goes for most of the Republicans trying to scare people like you over health-care. Right-wingers always seem prone to fear-mongering. Remember this one: Saddam is gonna get you in "45 minutes", blahblahblah. It's called "competitive dominance", and paying corruptable stooges to do their dirty work helps them make their profit. Facts are facts, if you include middle-men in anything it not only jacks up the price but encourages corruption too.

[Rogers]

http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?a=2795&q=414284

That's insane. What's the point of having insurance??

What does that have to do with having (or not having) insurance?

Meaning that those people paid shit loads of money into a system that's suppose to support them...but all of a sudden the insurance company can switch it's mind because of some guidelines? "Sorry we can't support you for THAT long". It's like paying a mafia boss for protection but he just kicks his heels up when someone advises him that it's not "prudent" to interfere.

See what I mean about government interference? At least the Gov. would say that shit's illegal. So glad I'm living here. And yes for those who get tired of hearing that...I'm fucking gloating. Deal with it.

Insurance companies are ripping sick people off for profit. How does anyone think they make their money in the first place? They then pay Republican politicians like Chuck Grassley, and doctors, to help them maintain their position to enable them to continue to make their profits. It's not rocket-science!

"UnitedHealth And Ingenix Used Skewed "Data To Under-Reimburse Its Own Policyholders." During testimony given during a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, John D. Rockefeller, IVA said: "Everywhere experts have looked at this data, they have found what statisticians call a 'downward skew' in the numbers. For ten years or even longer, this skewed data was used to stick consumers with billions of dollars that the insurance industry should have been paying. Ingenix markets two 'usual and customary' database products that every major payer in the health insurance industry used to calculate their reimbursement payments. Ingenix is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mr. Hemsley's company, UnitedHealth Group. UnitedHealth not only owns Ingenix, but it also used the skewed Ingenix data to under-reimburse its own policyholders." [Commerce.Senate.gov, 3/31/09]"
http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200907160004

[SarahG]

but all of a sudden the insurance company can switch it's mind because of some guidelines?

Oh come on, like the gov plans are immune to that.

You're from Canada, surely you remember when Ontario's NHS had to strip its eye & dental coverage because it "wasn't in the budget"?

Gov health care is ALREADY the first thing to get cut whenever our budget has problems. Just look at all the crap we did to the VA, closing hospitals left and right, to pay for the war in iraq (brillant idea, wait until we're in no less than two wars, whilst our largest population of veterans are in retirement, and start closing veterans hospitals all over the country!). Then there was that disaster known as Bush's medicare prescription drug reform...

Who would honestly believe that the US would actually offer quality coverage for abortion, contraceptives, reproductive rights issues, and so forth under a government plan?

It was one of the first things they stripped from the plan to appease our massive population of fundies.

"No federal funds will be allowed to pay for abortions" means;
1- they're going to play morality enforcement with this program
2- abortion access will take a shit because most of those procedures in the US are paid for by private insurance... which will quickly disappear with this plan in place.
3- they're willing to play peoples' doctors and dictate what care you can and can not have, just for political reasons (i.e. to get some of the moderate republicans and conservative democrats on board).

If private insurance is so bad about paying for coverage, then how come its managed to pay for so many of the abortions performed in this country? If it is politically infeasible for gov health care to pay for abortions (which, is an easy argument to make with the amount of crazies in this country) then we're left in a state of existence where private health care IS the better system whenever we're dealing with stigmatized health care treatments. We'll go from a system where health care programs "typically" cover these things, to a system where they don't... almost in all cases.

What next, prohibiting care for HIV/AIDs patients because its "a preventable disease caused by sin"?

[jaycanuck]

Unfortunately I'm not from Ontario...so I don't recall that event. I do know that in my neck of the woods eye and dental weren't part of the health care package anyway. In the end though, I agree government can fail to listen. Time and time again when Canadians have been polled they're asked what the number one issue is and it's health care. I would gladly have half of my taxes go towards health care....and I dare say if you asked most other Canadians, they'd agree.

[SarahG]

Unfortunately I'm not from Ontario...so I don't recall that event. I do know that in my neck of the woods eye and dental weren't part of the health care package anyway. In the end though, I agree government can fail to listen. Time and time again when Canadians have been polled they're asked what the number one issue is and it's health care. I would gladly have half of my taxes go towards health care....and I dare say if you asked most other Canadians, they'd agree.

Here its not so much that they don't want to listen, its that they can't even if they wanted to.

The fundies are simply too politically powerful, so they get their way (to a point) in the end.

The only way stigmatized care, like abortions, can be properly cared for under a single pay system using tax dollars, was if the population of fundies takes a nose dive.

This isn't a realistic thing to hope for because there are a fair amount of radical far-right factions in our country that actually believe its their duty, because of god, to have as many children as possible to make sure "their side stays in control."

And then if immigrant amnesty arrives, we'll have all those catholic latinos in the mix as well, making stuff like abortions, trans health care, contraceptives coverage even harder for politicians to risk covering. Mexico isn't exactly the shinning light of abortion & contraceptive access... because of how powerful their (somewhat different) population of fundies are.

[jaycanuck]

Here its not so much that they don't want to listen, its that they can't even if they wanted to.

The fundies are simply too politically powerful, so they get their way (to a point) in the end.

The only way stigmatized care, like abortions, can be properly cared for under a single pay system using tax dollars, was if the population of fundies takes a nose dive.

This isn't a realistic thing to hope for because there are a fair amount of radical far-right factions in our country that actually believe its their duty, because of god, to have as many children as possible to make sure "their side stays in control."

And then if immigrant amnesty arrives, we'll have all those catholic latinos in the mix as well, making stuff like abortions, trans health care, contraceptives coverage even harder for politicians to risk covering. Mexico isn't exactly the shinning light of abortion & contraceptive access... because of how powerful their (somewhat different) population of fundies are.

I feel for ya really. i can't imagine being down there. I mean we have a conservative and liberal party...but although the conservatives are supposed to be...well.....conservative they almost have to follow a centred mandate. When i watch TV I just see religious, right wing extremists trying to push anything progressive down.

Maybe the left-wing has to start producing babies. lol

[tao1kiku]

Jay you sure know how to stir up a hornets nest! Laughing

Being another Cdn here, I think of it this way. If I break my leg, I don't pay for x-rays, cast, hospitalization. If I need 18hrs of brain surgery, it's done, no cost. If I have a heart attack and need a bypass, it's done, no charge. If I had a son or daughter who had a temp of 105 at 4am on Christmas eve and needed emergency care, cost = $0.00.

Thus I ask my American bretheren - is this something that every American can also lay claim to? This is not a point to gloat - it is a point to be made for healthcare - DO YOU as citizen of one of the richest countries in the world, DO YOU, regardless of financial means and employment have this level of NO COST care? Again, REGARDLESS of financial means? Even the poorest persons in your country?

Can you say, that every American citizen can have brain surgery or a heart bypass or cancer treatment at no cost? Is this a right of every American Citizen? Or is it just for those who can afford it?

[SarahG]

Jay you sure know how to stir up a hornets nest! Laughing

Being another Cdn here, I think of it this way. If I break my leg, I don't pay for x-rays, cast, hospitalization. If I need 18hrs of brain surgery, it's done, no cost. If I have a heart attack and need a bypass, it's done, no charge. If I had a son or daughter who had a temp of 105 at 4am on Christmas eve and needed emergency care, cost = $0.00.

Thus I ask my American bretheren - is this something that every American can also lay claim to? This is not a point to gloat - it is a point to be made for healthcare - DO YOU as citizen of one of the richest countries in the world, DO YOU, regardless of financial means and employment have this level of NO COST care? Again, REGARDLESS of financial means? Even the poorest persons in your country?

Can you say, that every American citizen can have brain surgery or a heart bypass or cancer treatment at no cost? Is this a right of every American Citizen? Or is it just for those who can afford it?

There's no such thing as no-cost health care.

What do you pay in taxes to pay for it?

[jaycanuck]

Granted Sarah...and I think that's been addressed earlier in the thread. What I think is being said is that if you need brain surgery all of a sudden tomorrow, you know that you've been paying into a social system that will cover you whether you have $1,000,000 or $1

[SarahG]

Someone wouldn't be paying a dollar under a plan that takes income into consideration... unusually people below a randomly selected income do not pay anything, and those above it pay off of a sliding scale.

So the only people who really see a personal advantage are either;
-those who end up needing a lot of medical coverage
-those who are poor

Those who would be paying more than they get back would be;
-those who make more than a certain amount
-those who live their lives without running into expensive medical treatments


So you can't really argue in support of gov health care by saying "everyone will financially benefit" because that simply is not true (and is probably why the US has waited so long to implement gov health care for if we are the wealthiest country in the world, then that large population of wealthy middle class & upper class aren't going to be wanting into pay into something they see as a personal financial disadvantage).

One other thing I just thought of in writing this; the US also has populations of people who do not even believe in medical care. There are christian fundamentalists in this country that think using doctors & medicine is "a sin" (i.e. some christian scientists, the amish, etc). Under the proposed system they will be fined if they do not buy health insurance... but if they do buy health insurance they won't be using it because they believe that's a sin. We had an epidemic a few years ago in our amish communities where their children started getting polio (which has been virtually extinct everywhere else in our country for decades) because they were open to getting it because they refused to get vaccinations.

[jaycanuck]

Sarah I think we're on the same page..and we believe in socialized health care...but it's unfortunate that money and religion has to stand in the way of it. I know if I was making a lot more money I wouldn't have a problem paying more taxes. But that's me I guess.

As for those Christian fundies...well everyone knows how much I lovvvve religion.

[adriannelasvegas]

If the Obomination of health care does happen a lot of sick Canadians who come to the U.S. for proper health care are going to die.

[Silcc69]

Well the Amish also don't believe in modern technologies either.

[raybbaby]

If the Obomination of health care does happen a lot of sick Canadians who come to the U.S. for proper health care are going to die.
Funniest thing I read all morning. Thanks for that.

[jaycanuck]

If the Obomination of health care does happen a lot of sick Canadians who come to the U.S. for proper health care are going to die.

Yes because all Canadians head down to the States at the first sign of trouble.

[SarahG]

Well the Amish also don't believe in modern technologies either.

Yes but under the proposed plan, everyone MUST buy an insurance policy or they will get a ~$1500 fine.

That would include all American citizens including those who refuse to use health care- christian scientists, amish, etc.

[Bunzee]

in all other civilized countries like canada, england germany basic healthcare is free, which is the way it should be, in the us, they prefer to build a 10-billion aircraft carrier rather than spend $1,000,000 on public healthcare. all the doctors are money hungry and will do anything you ask, prescribe you anything u ask. thats why so many ppl od on pills.

[SarahG]

. all the doctors are money hungry and will do anything you ask, prescribe you anything u ask. thats why so many ppl od on pills.

People OD on pills because they either want to kill themselves, or because they are addicts using drugs recreationally.

The alternative is what, having the government telling people what pills they should or should not be able to get? I can't wait until the republicans come to power after THAT kind of a system is implemented.

"Oh I'm sorry, you want a birth control pill? Sex is a sin, no pill for you!"

"So you got raped 8 hours ago... by your uncle, and you want to take an emergency contraceptive so you don't have his child? No can do, the voters say that's murder!"

"Oh, you're trans? Well how about you prove you're sane first by going to this clinic that will take 5-6 years just to schedule the first appointment for your diagnosis process that will take 1-2 years to complete."

:banghead

Patients and their doctors should be the ones deciding what they should be doing with their bodies, not a gov that has to answer to powerful factions of religious extremists.

[raybbaby]

Well, we do have a separation of church and state in this country. This post seems to have really bought into the idea that the government, and not the healthcare provider/doctor will be deciding om the best course of action. And it just won't.

[Bunzee]

i didn't say anything about government control which is unequivocally bad and i am all against it

i am saying a lot of doctors are so much in debt from medical school bills, insurance, frivolous lawsuits etc and they need money SO BAD that they will do anything to make money even if its unethical

look at michael jackson case...dr conrad murray was like $500,000 in debt, his house foreclosed, same thing with arnold klein, the dermatologist, he defaulted on his rent, etc...

lots of doctors are desperate for any kind of income...and turn to unethical deeds to procure it

[Bunzee]

for some doctors tho, it's living beyond their means that's the problem...

[jaycanuck]

I can't wait until the republicans come to power after THAT kind of a system is implemented.

"Oh I'm sorry, you want a birth control pill? Sex is a sin, no pill for you!"

"So you got raped 8 hours ago... by your uncle, and you want to take an emergency contraceptive so you don't have his child? No can do, the voters say that's murder!"

"Oh, you're trans? Well how about you prove you're sane first by going to this clinic that will take 5-6 years just to schedule the first appointment for your diagnosis process that will take 1-2 years to complete."

.

I'd like to hope that what Ray said is true and that stuff wouldn't happen...but I've seen Republicans becoming crazier and crazier.

[SarahG]

Well, we do have a separation of church and state in this country.

In principle, not in practice.

Tell me, why did Obama flip flop and say that "no tax dollars will go towards any plan that will pay for abortions"?

Because and only because its trying to appeal to all those religious pro-lifers out there who won't allow their democrat OR republican representatives to vote for any plan that lacks such a clause.

The fundamentalists know that if they can keep abortion out of the plans, they'd be taking it away from the millions of americans who get those procedures, TODAY, paid for under private insurance policies.

[raybbaby]

Well, we do have a separation of church and state in this country.

In principle, not in practice.

Tell me, why did Obama flip flop and say that "no tax dollars will go towards any plan that will pay for abortions"?

Because and only because its trying to appeal to all those religious pro-lifers out there who won't allow their democrat OR republican representatives to vote for any plan that lacks such a clause.

The fundamentalists know that if they can keep abortion out of the plans, they'd be taking it away from the millions of americans who get those procedures, TODAY, paid for under private insurance policies.
He didn't flip flop. There is already legislation on the books that prevents taxpayer money from funding abortions.

[SarahG]

He didn't flip flop. There is already legislation on the books that prevents taxpayer money from funding abortions.

Actually the Hyde Amendment is a rider on the medicaid appropriations bill, consquently the subject comes up for renewal every year when the medicaid budget is calculated. The wording of the bill itself regularly changes because it is not set and stone, and has to be annually renewed.

It also only applies to medicaid funding- which this proposed system would not be using.

This proposal could have very easily included funding towards plans that cover abortions. The reason why it does not, and the reason why the hyde amendment has been renewed time and time again over the last thirty years, is because the social conservatives are powerful enough to force the rest of the country to abide by their will on this issue.

Did you hear of the Capps Amendment? The dems were going to include abortion coverage originally... they caved to get more support on the reform.

[raybbaby]

Can't say as I'm surprised.

[Bunzee]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/14/news/economy/health_care_doctors_quitting/index.htm?postversion=2009091404

proves exactly what i was saying...insurance companies and greedy lawyers are robbing the doctors

[duplicatt]

I'm just not in favor of trotting out false or misleading data to get there.

Ya mean like:


Those countries rely on the US to do their research in pharmaceuticals.

? :?

That is neither false nor misleading.

No, of course it isn't.
Nowhere else in the world is doing cutting edge medical research. :roll:

Compare the percentage of research.

[duplicatt]

http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?a=2795&q=414284

That's insane. What's the point of having insurance??

What does that have to do with having (or not having) insurance?

Meaning that those people paid shit loads of money into a system that's suppose to support them...but all of a sudden the insurance company can switch it's mind because of some guidelines? "Sorry we can't support you for THAT long". It's like paying a mafia boss for protection but he just kicks his heels up when someone advises him that it's not "prudent" to interfere.

See what I mean about government interference? At least the Gov. would say that shit's illegal. So glad I'm living here. And yes for those who get tired of hearing that...I'm fucking gloating. Deal with it.

First off, those guidelines don't have anything to do with the insurance companies. Secondly, Canadians are subject to guidelines just as much as Americans. God help you if need a bone marrow transplant if you live in Canada and there is no matching donor. Canadian hospital do NOT do incomplete match transplants. Moreover, Canadian hospitals do not get enough funding to do all of the bone marrow transplants that are indicated.

Every system has its own drawbacks.

[duplicatt]

There isn't a premium associated with the purchase of food. Nor is the national debt linked directly to expenditures made on food.

Also, ever heard of something called food stamps?? There are numerous federal programs available to feed those who cannot feed themselves.

When the profit motive is the driving force behind medical care, the consumer ultimately suffers.

I'm not a marxist in the least, but unfettered, unbridled capitalism as a social organizing principle is the enemy of democracies and left unchecked, will ultimately destroy it.

Food stamps? Ever heard of Medicaid (about a third of the so-called uninsured in America are eligible but just haven't applied)? Most hospitals also take charity cases.

[duplicatt]

but all of a sudden the insurance company can switch it's mind because of some guidelines?

Oh come on, like the gov plans are immune to that.

You're from Canada, surely you remember when Ontario's NHS had to strip its eye & dental coverage because it "wasn't in the budget"?

Gov health care is ALREADY the first thing to get cut whenever our budget has problems. Just look at all the crap we did to the VA, closing hospitals left and right, to pay for the war in iraq (brillant idea, wait until we're in no less than two wars, whilst our largest population of veterans are in retirement, and start closing veterans hospitals all over the country!). Then there was that disaster known as Bush's medicare prescription drug reform...


Where are you getting this idea that they closed VA hospitals 'left and right'? The only thing I can find is that they were proposing closing 7 hospitals.

[duplicatt]

Jay you sure know how to stir up a hornets nest! Laughing

Being another Cdn here, I think of it this way. If I break my leg, I don't pay for x-rays, cast, hospitalization. If I need 18hrs of brain surgery, it's done, no cost. If I have a heart attack and need a bypass, it's done, no charge. If I had a son or daughter who had a temp of 105 at 4am on Christmas eve and needed emergency care, cost = $0.00.

Thus I ask my American bretheren - is this something that every American can also lay claim to? This is not a point to gloat - it is a point to be made for healthcare - DO YOU as citizen of one of the richest countries in the world, DO YOU, regardless of financial means and employment have this level of NO COST care? Again, REGARDLESS of financial means? Even the poorest persons in your country?

Can you say, that every American citizen can have brain surgery or a heart bypass or cancer treatment at no cost? Is this a right of every American Citizen? Or is it just for those who can afford it?

It is laughable that you think you get these things at no cost. You pay for them with your taxes.

[duplicatt]

If the Obomination of health care does happen a lot of sick Canadians who come to the U.S. for proper health care are going to die.

Yes because all Canadians head down to the States at the first sign of trouble.

You cannot get IL-2 in Ontario. If you need it, they send you to the US. You cannot get incomplete match bone marrow transplants in Canada. If your province will pay for it, they send you to the US.

[jaycanuck]

It is laughable that you think you get these things at no cost. You pay for them with your taxes.

It is laughable that you keep bringing it up when I think we've established we KNOW we pay through taxes. You still don't get the point. 2 hospital visits and a dermatologist visit...and I didn't have to pay out of pocket during those visits. I'm saying I've BEEN paying part of my taxes for my life and it's there when I need it. Understand now?

As for the "no healthcare system is perfect". I never said it was perfect...but a hell of a lot better than morgtaging your home for medical bills isn't it?

[Jericho]

I'm just not in favor of trotting out false or misleading data to get there.

Ya mean like:


Those countries rely on the US to do their research in pharmaceuticals.

? :?

That is neither false nor misleading.

No, of course it isn't.
Nowhere else in the world is doing cutting edge medical research. :roll:

Compare the percentage of research.

The stage is your...Please...Enlighten us.

[duplicatt]

It is laughable that you think you get these things at no cost. You pay for them with your taxes.

It is laughable that you keep bringing it up when I think we've established we KNOW we pay through taxes. You still don't get the point. 2 hospital visits and a dermatologist visit...and I didn't have to pay out of pocket during those visits. I'm saying I've BEEN paying part of my taxes for my life and it's there when I need it. Understand now?

As for the "no healthcare system is perfect". I never said it was perfect...but a hell of a lot better than morgtaging your home for medical bills isn't it?

Paying: It is obvious that you get it, but not so obvious that the poster I was responding to gets it. Understand now?

I would rather mortgage my home than be told that the government is out of money for the operation I need - as bone marrow transplant patients in Ontario are told at the end of the Fiscal Year (see article I linked to earlier).

[duplicatt]

I'm just not in favor of trotting out false or misleading data to get there.

Ya mean like:


Those countries rely on the US to do their research in pharmaceuticals.

? :?

That is neither false nor misleading.

No, of course it isn't.
Nowhere else in the world is doing cutting edge medical research. :roll:

Compare the percentage of research.

The stage is your...Please...Enlighten us.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/2/452

[jaycanuck]

Moreover, Canadian hospitals do not get enough funding to do all of the bone marrow transplants that are indicated.

Every system has its own drawbacks.

You're right...we don't get enough funding. But if you lived here in the 90s you would know that that's the fault of a Conservative government who slashed more than just health care. We're still trying to fix his mess. Unfortunately he didn't listen to his voters.

According to an article I found Ontario performs 70 out of the 120 surgeries per year that need to be performed. Considering each surgery is between $200,000 - $500,000 that's pretty good. And as I said before, I would be willing to pay a lot more tax to make sure that that number of surgeries is bumped up. Read back a bit...you'd know that.

Although in the States you can go from state to state to get shorter wait lists, the fact is you still have wait lists in the States. It's 16,000 people for a liver transplant? In both cases (liver and bone marrow) the major issue is donations.

In short, the ability for any Canadian to go to a hospital for treatment any time in his life (here it comes..) FREE OF CHARGE (i'll wait for the..."you pay taxes, it's not free") is totally worth the cost in taxes.

[Belial]

Why should US Citizens give a fuck what some Canadian foreigners think of OUR COUNTRY'S health care system? All of you Canadian knuckle-draggers can go fuck yourselves, for all I care. Take your Socialism, your shitty health care, your arrogant anti-USA sentiments, your Hockey, your Lacrosse, your shit eating, French speaking, Quebec province, and any other useless thing your nowhere country is known for, and shove it up your sorry asses. 8)

[jaycanuck]

Why should US Citizens give a fuck what some Canadian foreigners think of OUR COUNTRY'S health care system? All of you Canadian knuckle-draggers can go fuck yourselves, for all I care. Take your Socialism, your shitty health care, your arrogant anti-USA sentiments, your Hockey, your Lacrosse, your shit eating, French speaking, Quebec province, and any other useless thing your nowhere country is known for, and shove it up your sorry asses. 8)

aww he loves us.

[Dirky]

Why should US Citizens give a fuck what some Canadian foreigners think of OUR COUNTRY'S health care system? All of you Canadian knuckle-draggers can go fuck yourselves, for all I care. Take your Socialism, your shitty health care, your arrogant anti-USA sentiments, your Hockey, your Lacrosse, your shit eating, French speaking, Quebec province, and any other useless thing your nowhere country is known for, and shove it up your sorry asses. 8)

aww he loves us.

If it makes you feel any better Jay, I happen to love hockey.

[duplicatt]

Moreover, Canadian hospitals do not get enough funding to do all of the bone marrow transplants that are indicated.

Every system has its own drawbacks.

You're right...we don't get enough funding. But if you lived here in the 90s you would know that that's the fault of a Conservative government who slashed more than just health care. We're still trying to fix his mess. Unfortunately he didn't listen to his voters.

According to an article I found Ontario performs 70 out of the 120 surgeries per year that need to be performed. Considering each surgery is between $200,000 - $500,000 that's pretty good. And as I said before, I would be willing to pay a lot more tax to make sure that that number of surgeries is bumped up. Read back a bit...you'd know that.

Although in the States you can go from state to state to get shorter wait lists, the fact is you still have wait lists in the States. It's 16,000 people for a liver transplant? In both cases (liver and bone marrow) the major issue is donations.

In short, the ability for any Canadian to go to a hospital for treatment any time in his life (here it comes..) FREE OF CHARGE (i'll wait for the..."you pay taxes, it's not free") is totally worth the cost in taxes.

58% is really good?

What you want is irrelevant. I want a lot of things. What is available to you is what matters.

As for 'FREE OF CHARGE', I know a guy on Medicaid & VA here in the States. He gets everything 'FREE OF CHARGE', too.

[jaycanuck]

Why should US Citizens give a fuck what some Canadian foreigners think of OUR COUNTRY'S health care system? All of you Canadian knuckle-draggers can go fuck yourselves, for all I care. Take your Socialism, your shitty health care, your arrogant anti-USA sentiments, your Hockey, your Lacrosse, your shit eating, French speaking, Quebec province, and any other useless thing your nowhere country is known for, and shove it up your sorry asses. 8)

aww he loves us.

If it makes you feel any better Jay, I happen to love hockey.

lol. Thanks. Speaking of..where's Gretzky? Is he waiting until all this Phoenix Coyote stuff passes?

[trish]

Why should U.S.citizens give a flying fuck about what some shitfaced right wing radical, paranoid, unpatriotic coward fears about healthcare?

[jaycanuck]

Moreover, Canadian hospitals do not get enough funding to do all of the bone marrow transplants that are indicated.

Every system has its own drawbacks.

You're right...we don't get enough funding. But if you lived here in the 90s you would know that that's the fault of a Conservative government who slashed more than just health care. We're still trying to fix his mess. Unfortunately he didn't listen to his voters.

According to an article I found Ontario performs 70 out of the 120 surgeries per year that need to be performed. Considering each surgery is between $200,000 - $500,000 that's pretty good. And as I said before, I would be willing to pay a lot more tax to make sure that that number of surgeries is bumped up. Read back a bit...you'd know that.

Although in the States you can go from state to state to get shorter wait lists, the fact is you still have wait lists in the States. It's 16,000 people for a liver transplant? In both cases (liver and bone marrow) the major issue is donations.

In short, the ability for any Canadian to go to a hospital for treatment any time in his life (here it comes..) FREE OF CHARGE (i'll wait for the..."you pay taxes, it's not free") is totally worth the cost in taxes.

58% is really good?

What you want is irrelevant. I want a lot of things. What is available to you is what matters.

As for 'FREE OF CHARGE', I know a guy on Medicaid & VA here in the States. He gets everything 'FREE OF CHARGE', too.

so what about the waiting list. Missed that bit. But you don't have to answer if you don't want. I can just see this going back and forth.

[Tepres]

:arrow:

[jaycanuck]

ummm Trish isn't Canadian.

[trish]

I'm a tax paying American you nitwit, one who, along with the majority of Americans, voted last fall for a healthcare reform with a substantial public option.

[Tepres]

ummm Trish isn't Canadian.

Who said that she was?

[Tepres]

I'm a tax paying American you nitwit, one who, along with the majority of Americans, voted last fall for a healthcare reform with a substantial public option.

I never said that you weren't a US Citizen you moronic fuckface. But a Canadian started this thread, so I threw that in there....

[jaycanuck]

"moronic fuckface"...... classy.

[trish]

I never said that you said I was. In the words of Bugs Bunny, what a maroon.

[dj4monie]

Now, the problem is Insurance Companies, Medical Supply Companies and Big Pharma.

In other countries, the cost of drugs is CONTROLLED by the Government, you wonder why drugs are so cheap in Mexico? Because its REGULATED. Drugs in Sweden, Denmark, Britain, Canada even Switzerland are all REGULATED.

Keep that point in mind.

Keep this point in mind - Those countries rely on the US to do their research in pharmaceuticals.

And because of that they have affordable drugs/treatments and we don't?

What's so special about America and being American that we automatically paymore for everything medical related?

It surely can't be because its better, otherwise medical mistakes, overcharges and malpractice wouldn't constantly happen....

[jaycanuck]

I just want to say, thanks to everyone for making this the longest thread I've had so far. Very cool. :)

[Silcc69]

Can anybody tell me what is the average income in the US compared to Canada?

[jaycanuck]

Can anybody tell me what is the average income in the US compared to Canada?

As of 2007 (where this data comes from), a family with 2 people or more is $71,900 in Canada. In the US it's approx. $50,000. I could be wrong on those...

As with the States...it varies up here too. I know where I come from....no one's making $72,000......more like....$35,000

[Tepres]

I never said that you said I was. In the words of Bugs Bunny, what a maroon.

I brought up my Citizenship to respond to a clueless non citizen. You had no reason to bring up yours, ass-hat. It's obvious from your past ignorant, left-wing rants, that you're a US citizen. Even if you do hate your country. (which you'll falsely deny)


the majority of Americans, voted last fall for a healthcare reform with a substantial public option.

Things change quickly in politics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071902176.html

Now go back to jacking off to cartoons pics.

[jaycanuck]

I brought up my Citizenship to respond to a clueless non citizen.

DUUUHHHHHH who's clueless? Heyukk

[Dirky]

Trish has been downgraded from a 'moronic fuckface' to a 'ass-hat'.

Progress is being made!

[jaycanuck]

I'm trying to picture what an ass hat would look like....and how it would stay on.

[Chaotic]

I'm trying to picture what an ass hat would look like....and how it would stay on.

This is the closest approximation I could find :shrug :

[jaycanuck]

I'm trying to picture what an ass hat would look like....and how it would stay on.

This is the closest approximation I could find :shrug :

:claps

[trish]

I love my country, and unlike radical right wing cowards, I not deathly afraid of its government or whole classes of its people.

[Tepres]

I love my country,

You love your present government, not your country. Once the hand outs stop, you'll go back to hating.


unlike radical right wing cowards,

Those words mean so much over the Internet.



I not deathly afraid of its government or whole classes of its people.

There's already too much big government. The only thing big government social programs have ever proven, was how they can fail.
It's not fear, just common sense. Not that I'm trying to convince you, because you left-wing Moon-bats are unreachable.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/support_for_congressional_health_care_reform_falls _to_new_low

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071902176.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122822/americans-sharply-divided-healthcare-reform.aspx

Just keep sipping that Kool-Aid.

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Koolaid.jpg

[trish]

Oh yeah it's not fear. Then why are half you assholes too afraid to go to a town meeting without gun? Rush is a fear mongerer & he's got you cowards shivering in your boots.

[Tepres]

Oh yeah it's not fear. Then why are half you assholes too afraid to go to a town meeting without gun? Rush is a fear mongerer & he's got you cowards shivering in your boots.

I don't listen to Rush. But I'll bet that a good portion of Rush's listeners are the far left lunatics with too much time on their hands, trying to gather information. They have time to do this, because a lot of them don't have steady jobs. But it's plain to see that you've listened to plenty of Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann. Do you use them for your talking points, or do you rely on the Huffington Post?

It's Hemorrhoids like you, that make me wish this forum had an ignore feature.

Oh well, maybe someday.

[trish]

That's been the right's stategy for some time now: ignore the truth, shout down other discussants, divert the conversation to inanities like birth certificates & death panels. Afraid of the truth (you obviosly are) just bring a gun to the conversation. If you're afraid of what's being posted, shoot the keyboard. Ignore button ... what a coward!

[sp fan]

I love my country, and unlike radical right wing cowards, I not deathly afraid of its government or whole classes of its people.

There is nothing wrong with loving your country but there is no way you can love the people that run it. American politics has failed and needs to start over from scratch. This is a fact and it is not an opinion.

[jaycanuck]

I love how if you don't agree how something is run...and you feel it should be improved or worked on to become better, you automatically "hate" your country. God forbid you switch to metric. "You hate your country and you made baby Jesus cry"

[fitz207]

You love your present government, not your country. Once the hand outs stop, you'll go back to hating.
Why do you assume Trish doesn't love her country? And what makes you think she's getting a hand out?

Nice signature of a simulated rape scene BTW.

Good old conservative values on display :lol:

[fitz207]

That's been the right's stategy for some time now: ignore the truth, shout down other discussants, divert the conversation to inanities like birth certificates & death panels. Afraid of the truth (you obviosly are) just bring a gun to the conversation. If you're afraid of what's being posted, shoot the keyboard. Ignore button ... what a coward! :claps :claps :claps

[fitz207]

I love how if you don't agree how something is run...and you feel it should be improved or worked on to become better, you automatically "hate" your country. God forbid you switch to metric. "You hate your country and you made baby Jesus cry"
Exactly. If you don't agree with the Tea Party/birther morons you must hate America. What a bunch of BS.

[duplicatt]

Moreover, Canadian hospitals do not get enough funding to do all of the bone marrow transplants that are indicated.

Every system has its own drawbacks.

You're right...we don't get enough funding. But if you lived here in the 90s you would know that that's the fault of a Conservative government who slashed more than just health care. We're still trying to fix his mess. Unfortunately he didn't listen to his voters.

According to an article I found Ontario performs 70 out of the 120 surgeries per year that need to be performed. Considering each surgery is between $200,000 - $500,000 that's pretty good. And as I said before, I would be willing to pay a lot more tax to make sure that that number of surgeries is bumped up. Read back a bit...you'd know that.

Although in the States you can go from state to state to get shorter wait lists, the fact is you still have wait lists in the States. It's 16,000 people for a liver transplant? In both cases (liver and bone marrow) the major issue is donations.

In short, the ability for any Canadian to go to a hospital for treatment any time in his life (here it comes..) FREE OF CHARGE (i'll wait for the..."you pay taxes, it's not free") is totally worth the cost in taxes.

58% is really good?

What you want is irrelevant. I want a lot of things. What is available to you is what matters.

As for 'FREE OF CHARGE', I know a guy on Medicaid & VA here in the States. He gets everything 'FREE OF CHARGE', too.

so what about the waiting list. Missed that bit. But you don't have to answer if you don't want. I can just see this going back and forth.

So what about the fact that Americans can get health care 'FREE OF CHARGE', Jay? Missed that bit I see...

As for the wait list, yes? So? Did you miss the part where there was only funding for those 70 operations when 120 are needed in Ontario? Even if you found 120 donors, only 70 operations are funded and only 70 operations would get done. That comes from the head of Ontario's premier bone marrow transplant centre (nod to Canadian spelling).

[duplicatt]

I'm a tax paying American you nitwit, one who, along with the majority of Americans, voted last fall for a healthcare reform with a substantial public option.

I never said that you weren't a US Citizen you moronic fuckface. But a Canadian started this thread, so I threw that in there....

Dude...

Name calling of that order is just wrong.

[duplicatt]

Now, the problem is Insurance Companies, Medical Supply Companies and Big Pharma.

In other countries, the cost of drugs is CONTROLLED by the Government, you wonder why drugs are so cheap in Mexico? Because its REGULATED. Drugs in Sweden, Denmark, Britain, Canada even Switzerland are all REGULATED.

Keep that point in mind.

Keep this point in mind - Those countries rely on the US to do their research in pharmaceuticals.

And because of that they have affordable drugs/treatments and we don't?

What's so special about America and being American that we automatically paymore for everything medical related?

It surely can't be because its better, otherwise medical mistakes, overcharges and malpractice wouldn't constantly happen....

Better is relative. You seem to insist on perfect. Don't you think medical mistakes and malpractice happen in other countries? There are horror stories for every health care system.

[duplicatt]

I love my country, and unlike radical right wing cowards, I not deathly afraid of its government or whole classes of its people.

You have a very distorted view of things.

[duplicatt]

Oh yeah it's not fear. Then why are half you assholes too afraid to go to a town meeting without gun? Rush is a fear mongerer & he's got you cowards shivering in your boots.

I've heard of ONE person going to a town hall meeting with a gun.

As for Limbaugh, have you ever listened to Limbaugh?

[duplicatt]

That's been the right's stategy for some time now: ignore the truth, shout down other discussants, divert the conversation to inanities like birth certificates & death panels. Afraid of the truth (you obviosly are) just bring a gun to the conversation. If you're afraid of what's being posted, shoot the keyboard. Ignore button ... what a coward!

Do you mean like how union thugs tried to shout down Tea Party protesters at town hall meetings? Do you mean like then-candidate Obama urging his supporters to get in the face of the opposition in Nevada? Do you mean like how people like the lamented ex-green czar Van Jones spread the Truther claims about 9/11?

The problem here is that the right has finally picked up on the playbook of the left and lefties don't like that very much.

[trish]

Oh please, I can't stop laughing. Who stole whose playbook? You guys have been using those plays ever since McCarthy. Who invented swiftboating? And why do both parties now use the term negatively? Look, if you've been shouting people down at townhall meetings for a solid two weeks, you might expect some other organization will stage a counter demonstration. I see you don't enjoy your own medicine.

[trish]

I love my country, and unlike radical right wing cowards, I not deathly afraid of its government or whole classes of its people.

You have a very distorted view of things.
I'm not the one viewing the world through a fox news camera lens :arrow:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/912-tea-party-photo-false_n_286082.html

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[trish]

...American politics has failed and needs to start over from scratch. This is a fact and it is not an opinion.
That's your opinion, honey.

[Justawannabe]

Nasty thread overall.

What does loving your country mean? I keep hearing the right say that those on the left don't love their country because we want to make changes, but the right is also trying to change things, so what are the elements of our country that define the love?

[jaycanuck]

Nasty thread overall.

What does loving your country mean? I keep hearing the right say that those on the left don't love their country because we want to make changes, but the right is also trying to change things, so what are the elements of our country that define the love?

$200 and a hotel room

[Silcc69]

But let's be real both sides are barbaric at times. Neither one can really sit down and have a civilized conversation.

[Tepres]

I'm a tax paying American you nitwit, one who, along with the majority of Americans, voted last fall for a healthcare reform with a substantial public option.

I never said that you weren't a US Citizen you moronic fuckface. But a Canadian started this thread, so I threw that in there....

Dude...

Name calling of that order is just wrong.

Dude...

If you're looking for civility, you're in the wrong forum. Especially during political arguments.


Why should U.S.citizens give a flying fuck about what some shitfaced right wing radical, paranoid, unpatriotic coward fears about healthcare?

Take a good hard look at the history of the HA political forum. Not just the recent stuff, go back a year or two. As far as the fuckface name? I call all unhappy liberals fuckfaces. (Usually not in porn forums)
The reason for this is that they're always angry and never happy. Even after they won the recent elections, they're still angry, unhappy, fuckfaces. And they're losing their grip on reality. The name fits perfectly, as far as I'm concerned. :)

[Tepres]

I see that you've been posting at all hours of the day again, trish. Don't you have a steady job? Or are you one of those left-wing haters, with too much time on their hands, like I mentioned earlier?


That's been the right's stategy for some time now: ignore the truth, shout down other discussants,

I acknowledged the truth when I showed you how public opinion was shifting in those polls. Yet you had no response to that, therefore Ignoring the truth.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/support_for_congressional_health_care_reform_falls _to_new_low

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071902176.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122822/americans-sharply-divided-healthcare-reform.aspx


[b]divert the conversation to inanities like birth certificates & death panels.

Huh?


Afraid of the truth (you obviosly are) just bring a gun to the conversation. If you're afraid of what's being posted, shoot the keyboard.

A gun? much of the year, I live in a liberal state that does everything in it's power, to stifle 2nd Amendment rights. You won't see me carrying guns too often, when I'm there. Only the criminals and the police have them, for the most part. And the murder rate is high in the major cities. So much for the effectiveness of gun control. Which is wrong, But that's another debate.


Ignore button ... what a coward!

More accusations of cowardice on the Internet? You really need to step away from your computer and get outside more. The fresh air will do you good. An ignore button is perfect for people like you, because You don't ever have anything new, or fresh to say. How many times do I need to read your regurgitation of the same tired political lines? It's so predictable. Save it for the sheep who can't think Independently, hence their desire for a nanny-state.

I already have a list of around 10 people, who will be going on ignore, if it ever gets Implemented. Not just for political Diarrhea, but for various other reasons. Anyway, I think I'm done with this thread. I'll leave it to you, and the Canadian Chrome Dome, to try save the world, one tranny forum at a time. What a pair.

http://www.hungangels.com/board/images/avatars/gallery/faces/ny-shante3-shante1-4.jpg http://www.hungangels.com/board/images/avatars/8178546144a80bcf699345.jpg

Good luck with that. lol

[duplicatt]

I love my country, and unlike radical right wing cowards, I not deathly afraid of its government or whole classes of its people.

You have a very distorted view of things.
I'm not the one viewing the world through a fox news camera lens :arrow:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/912-tea-party-photo-false_n_286082.html

:lol: :lol: :lol:

There is a long history of gatherings being overestimated in terms of attendance. 'Million Man March' anyone?

As for viewing things through a 'Fox News' lens, I don't watch Fox News nor do I read their web site.

In any case, I saw live shots from DC traffic cams (linked to by Instapundit) that had some impressive looking crowds. Not being trained in crowd estimation, I will not hazard a guess as to the size of the gathering. You do know that the DC gathering was not the only one this past weekend, correct?

You have an obvious prejudice and like to leap to conclusions that fit your prejudice.

[duplicatt]

Oh please, I can't stop laughing. Who stole whose playbook? You guys have been using those plays ever since McCarthy. Who invented swiftboating? And why do both parties now use the term negatively? Look, if you've been shouting people down at townhall meetings for a solid two weeks, you might expect some other organization will stage a counter demonstration. I see you don't enjoy your own medicine.

Ever heard of Saul Alinsky?

Who invented Borking? A counter-demonstration? More like a mugging. Just ask Kenneth Gladney.

[jaycanuck]

Even after they won the recent elections, they're still angry, unhappy, fuckfaces.

Maybe because you religious nut jobs won't let the new government do their job. You guys had 8 years to fuck the world up. Now sit back and STFU.

[Silcc69]

http://newmediachatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/can_t_we_all_just_get_along.jpg

[fred41]

Even after they won the recent elections, they're still angry, unhappy, fuckfaces.

Maybe because you religious nut jobs won't let the new government do their job. You guys had 8 years to fuck the world up. Now sit back and STFU.

O.K...first of all..I usually don't have a problem with most of what you say but....not all Republicans are religious (or nut jobs). They may have an extreme wing, but so do the Democrats and they are just as obnoxious..sometimes even more so. Also,..I don't think the Republicans single-handedly fucked up the whole world in eight years..lol.

[Tepres]

Even after they won the recent elections, they're still angry, unhappy, fuckfaces.

Maybe because you religious nut jobs won't let the new government do their job.

I'm not religious, Chrome Dome. Though I support people's rights to their religion. Get over your preconceived stereotypes. And it's not my fault, that they (The current gov) don't know how to do their job.


You guys had 8 years to fuck the world up.

Try substantiating that with facts, Chrome Dome. The UN has done more to fuck up the world than any US government, ever could.


Now sit back and STFU.
This is my country we're talking about, not yours, Chrome Dome.
So you STFU.

[trish]

I'm done with this thread.

Another cowardly strategy: say your peace and run away. Oh my...I said "cowardly" on the INTERNET!! What's your obsession with that? Are you implying that were I to say it in your presence you would meet observation with violence? Oh my!!! Veiled threats ... over the INTERNET!! Well, since you think you're done with this thread, I'll say goodbye.

[jaycanuck]

I hope he doesn't call me "Chrome Dome" again...It weally hurt my feelings. :(

[trish]

Don't worry, I don't think he will ... he said he was done with this thread. I hope he finds a cure for his hemorrhoids.

[Tepres]

Don't worry, I don't think he will ... he said he was done with this thread. I hope he finds a cure for his hemorrhoids.

The only cure, would be the ability to put you, and Baldo, on Ignore.

[trish]

OH GOODY...I KNEW YOU COULDN'T STAY AWAY! Too bad you don't have any self-control. Most people don't need a button to ignore someone.

[jaycanuck]

Baldo? Really? Best you could do? Chrome Dome? Yikes

[Jericho]

I'm just not in favor of trotting out false or misleading data to get there.

Ya mean like:


Those countries rely on the US to do their research in pharmaceuticals.

? :?

That is neither false nor misleading.

No, of course it isn't.
Nowhere else in the world is doing cutting edge medical research. :roll:

Compare the percentage of research.

The stage is your...Please...Enlighten us.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/2/452

Hmmm, bit different to your original statement, init!

[JerseyMike]

If you really look at it the Democrats don't need any Republicans to pass health care. They could do it today if they wanted to. Only problem is that it would be just like 1994 in 2010 and the Dems wouldn't be in power in Congress. It is other Democrats that are keeping health care down not Republicans. It is just fear of a Republican rise that is keeping Democrats from passing health care. In other words, Democrats are still wimps. If we want to pass it they shouldn't worry about future elections and pass it.

[Tepres]

Baldo? Really? Best you could do? Chrome Dome? Yikes

You remind me of hondarobot. The same senseless passive-aggressive typing style, that leads to nowhere. Anyway I have to step away from the puter, and run some errands.
I'll catch you later, Chromie.

[jaycanuck]

bye now

[trish]

If you really look at it the Democrats don't need any Republicans to pass health care. They could do it today if they wanted to. Only problem is that it would be just like 1994 in 2010 and the Dems wouldn't be in power in Congress. It is other Democrats that are keeping health care down not Republicans. It is just fear of a Republican rise that is keeping Democrats from passing health care. In other words, Democrats are still wimps. If we want to pass it they shouldn't worry about future elections and pass it.

A few remarks:
1) Obama is not a progressive. He’s willing to sacrifice a lot that progressives are not willing to sacrifice, in order to optimize political support for healthcare reform.
2) Obama was never about ramming things through unilaterally, as much a progressive democrats (like me) wish it would be the case. His strategy to almost every sort of problem is to sit down with all the interested parties, hear each other out and find a mutual course of action.
3) The bill cannot be passed by democrats alone without the support of the blue dogs, which are not yet on board.

[duplicatt]

Even after they won the recent elections, they're still angry, unhappy, fuckfaces.

Maybe because you religious nut jobs won't let the new government do their job. You guys had 8 years to fuck the world up. Now sit back and STFU.

The Democrats have a majority in the House and Senate. They have control of the Executive Branch. There is no real way to stop them from doing anything.

As for you telling people to STFU, how uncivil can you get? Here in America we have free speech.

[duplicatt]

I'm just not in favor of trotting out false or misleading data to get there.

Ya mean like:


Those countries rely on the US to do their research in pharmaceuticals.

? :?

That is neither false nor misleading.

No, of course it isn't.
Nowhere else in the world is doing cutting edge medical research. :roll:

Compare the percentage of research.

The stage is your...Please...Enlighten us.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/2/452

Hmmm, bit different to your original statement, init!

Only to the anal-retentive nit pickers of the world, Ersatz Einstein.

The world has long relied on American and British innovation in the field of medicine. Once the UK went to NHS, British innovation slacked off.

Do other countries DO research? Why, yes they do. But when new and expensive drugs cannot even be prescribed in many socialized medicine countries (like Sutent in the UK was, for example), there is no incentive to research those drugs in those countries.

[trish]

As for you telling people to STFU, how uncivil can you get? Here in America we have free speech.

Not so much. When people drown out others at townhall meetings chanting "Hear my voice," that's an obstruction of speech.

[duplicatt]

If you really look at it the Democrats don't need any Republicans to pass health care. They could do it today if they wanted to. Only problem is that it would be just like 1994 in 2010 and the Dems wouldn't be in power in Congress. It is other Democrats that are keeping health care down not Republicans. It is just fear of a Republican rise that is keeping Democrats from passing health care. In other words, Democrats are still wimps. If we want to pass it they shouldn't worry about future elections and pass it.

A few remarks:
1) Obama is not a progressive. He’s willing to sacrifice a lot that progressives are not willing to sacrifice, in order to optimize political support for healthcare reform.
2) Obama was never about ramming things through unilaterally, as much a progressive democrats (like me) wish it would be the case. His strategy to almost every sort of problem is to sit down with all the interested parties, hear each other out and find a mutual course of action.
3) The bill cannot be passed by democrats alone without the support of the blue dogs, which are not yet on board.

Obama is the most progressive national stature politician ever seen since I've been alive.

Do you mean to tell me that if Senator Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed through a bill that he liked he wouldn't sign it because there was no Republican support?

Last time I looked, the Blue Dogs were Democrats.

[trish]

Obama is the most progressive national stature politician ever seen since I've been alive.

That doesn’t make him progressive. If he were progressive he would be pushing single payer universal healthcare. If he were progressive, we probably would be sending more troops into Afghanistan. Have you seen Kucinich?


Do you mean to tell me that if Senator Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed through a bill that he liked he wouldn't sign it because there was no Republican support?

Of course not, and I didn’t say that he would. But he did insist on attempting to have a bipartisan committee of legislators write the bill.


Last time I looked, the Blue Dogs were Democrats.

Of course they’re democrats. So what? That doesn’t mean we can count on their vote on the healthcare bill. In our party not everyone follows in lockstep and repeats the talking points of the day. As you know, the blue dogs have traditionally rather conservative leanings for democrats.

[thombergeron]

The world has long relied on American and British innovation in the field of medicine. Once the UK went to NHS, British innovation slacked off.

Interestingly, about 28% of biomedical research funding in the United States comes from the NIH, that is, the government:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/11/1333

Even that number is a bit deceptive, since industry funding is overwhelmingly concentrated in clinical trials, or the final stage of bringing a drug to market. Some estimates are that 75% of the papers cited in pharma patent applications are from publicly funded research. NIH funding is focused on basic research, which is where real innovation happens. That's a big part of why NIH-funded research has racked up over 90 Nobel prizes, compared to 4 from industry scientists.

[dj4monie]

If you really look at it the Democrats don't need any Republicans to pass health care. They could do it today if they wanted to. Only problem is that it would be just like 1994 in 2010 and the Dems wouldn't be in power in Congress. It is other Democrats that are keeping health care down not Republicans. It is just fear of a Republican rise that is keeping Democrats from passing health care. In other words, Democrats are still wimps. If we want to pass it they shouldn't worry about future elections and pass it.

A few remarks:
1) Obama is not a progressive. He’s willing to sacrifice a lot that progressives are not willing to sacrifice, in order to optimize political support for healthcare reform.
2) Obama was never about ramming things through unilaterally, as much a progressive democrats (like me) wish it would be the case. His strategy to almost every sort of problem is to sit down with all the interested parties, hear each other out and find a mutual course of action.
3) The bill cannot be passed by democrats alone without the support of the blue dogs, which are not yet on board.

Obama is the most progressive national stature politician ever seen since I've been alive.

Do you mean to tell me that if Senator Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed through a bill that he liked he wouldn't sign it because there was no Republican support?

Last time I looked, the Blue Dogs were Democrats.

He is not PROGRESSIVE, not by a LONG SHOT. If you think he's progressive then you must think he's a socialist too?

I suppose you call Michelle Bachmann a MODERATE?

Kay Hutchinson a Moderate?

The only moderates left in Congress are Snowe and Collins both from Maine...

Everybody else is a nutcase protected by their nutcase constituency

The Blue Dogs were a response to Moderate Republicans in largely Republican districts that fired Republicans from office in '06 and '08.

They are Republican Light, how you explain them getting into office?

True Progressives like myself have been calling for SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE.

They sold us down the river for "The Public Option" which is a compromise to start with, there's no need to give up that position for something else.

What we'll end up with is something less than great and better than nothing and we'll be re-visiting it again in the future...

The only way to keep Health Care affordable for BOTTOM 80% of Americans is to go Single Payer. Funny how some countries could have copied our model and choose NOT TOO, that's how "Great" it is.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/interviews/reinhardt.html

The US tried to push India to deregulate its Banking system (via the IMF) like we have done with ours, good thing they didn't....











Why do Americans tolerate 22,000 people dying every year [who] could be cured?

Reinhardt: Well, in part, most other nations were nations that shared a common culture and are more middle-class; the income distribution is much less wide. We have a whole new corporate aristocracy here, ... and [recently] we have increasingly legitimized the idea that this aristocracy has certain rights. For example, what always stuns me on Princeton campus is that you have young men who favor the surge [in Iraq], who say we must fight terrorists and talk about the grave danger of the terrorists, [yet] feel under no obligation to put on a uniform and lead that fight. ...

So we have a nation where the elite thinks it's OK to advocate a war and send the lower-income people to do the fighting. It's natural for such a people to think that the lower-income people should also have a worse health care experience. ... And the other countries are not there -- I always say, not there yet. I tell the Germans and the Swiss, "You're not there yet, but if you're not very, very careful, if we Americans come over there and rearrange ... your health care system, you will be just like us."

[Jericho]

I'm just not in favor of trotting out false or misleading data to get there.

Ya mean like:


Those countries rely on the US to do their research in pharmaceuticals.

? :?

That is neither false nor misleading.

No, of course it isn't.
Nowhere else in the world is doing cutting edge medical research. :roll:

Compare the percentage of research.

The stage is your...Please...Enlighten us.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/2/452

Hmmm, bit different to your original statement, init!

Only to the anal-retentive nit pickers of the world, Ersatz Einstein.

The world has long relied on American and British innovation in the field of medicine. Once the UK went to NHS, British innovation slacked off.

Do other countries DO research? Why, yes they do. But when new and expensive drugs cannot even be prescribed in many socialized medicine countries (like Sutent in the UK was, for example), there is no incentive to research those drugs in those countries.





Only to the anal-retentive nit pickers of the world, Ersatz Einstein.


My my, arent you clever, almost qualify as a Europen...Almost! :shrug


Right, we've both taken shots, now we've got that out of the way....



The world has long relied on American and British innovation in the field

Right, so the world doesn't just rely on American, but, American and BRITISH inovations...Which is a bit of a backtrack on your original statement, but, not back enough. Dosn't matter anyting that's coming out of china and russia (remember those 3rd world countries?)



Do other countries DO research? Why, yes they do. But when new and expensive drugs cannot even be prescribed in many socialized medicine countries (like Sutent in the UK was, for example), there is no incentive to research those drugs in those countries

Remember Bhopal?
Little bit of a disaster they had in India :?

The drugs they were producing there, weren't for the Indian market.
Go on, guess

Really, i envy you your innocence.

[duplicatt]

Remember Bhopal?
Little bit of a disaster they had in India :?

The drugs they were producing there, weren't for the Indian market.
Go on, guess.

They weren't producing drugs at Bhopal. Union Carbide wasn't a drug company. They were producing pesticides (Sevin).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

[Rogers]

Do other countries DO research? Why, yes they do. But when new and expensive drugs cannot even be prescribed in many socialized medicine countries (like Sutent in the UK was, for example), there is no incentive to research those drugs in those countries.

The problem with that line of argument is that it ALSO leads to corruption in science and medicine, just as it has done with the I.D.S.A.. There are many examples of drug companies biasing their research with the sole aim of helping their profit margins. Many of these new and expensive drugs have the same or even worse efficacy than the ones we've already got, nevermind nasty side-effects, which is part of the reason public health services are slow to start using them. It is however to be expected that patients looking for hope will want to try them immediately though. But as thombergeron has already pointed out, most of the breakthrough research is done by public institues where profit isn't king. :king

Glaxo Executive’s Memo Suggested Burying Drug Studies (Update4)
Sept. 15 (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ah9mMl9sDitg

[TommyFoxtrot]

I love my country, and unlike radical right wing cowards, I not deathly afraid of its government or whole classes of its people.


A lot of people on the far right would say that people on the far left don't love THIS country, but the idea of what this country could be. If you consider that many on the far left disdain the nation state, find nationalism or patriotism as crass, primitive and an evil in itself, than there is a strong inclination to believe the right wing when they say that at it's core, the far left HATES America.

It's the truth, obviously not for every card carrying liberal, but for a large share of the intelligentsia, absolutely. It's very dangerous to say so, but it's the truth.

[TommyFoxtrot]

That's been the right's stategy for some time now: ignore the truth, shout down other discussants, divert the conversation to inanities like birth certificates & death panels. Afraid of the truth (you obviosly are) just bring a gun to the conversation. If you're afraid of what's being posted, shoot the keyboard. Ignore button ... what a coward!

Honestly, the rightwing says the same thing about lefties. And there are plenty of right wingers who say the birther/death panel thing is a favorite of the MSM because it distracts from more credible, more serious debate about the President and his intentions.

The left seems to do VERY well at taking "dangerous" individuals like Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin and holding them up for ridicule, so they can't be effective beyond their base. Could this be a trick that David Axelrod learned from reading Saul Alinksky's Rules for Radicals?


Why does Chris Matthews bring up birthers, deathers etc. 14, 17, and 9 times the last 3 weekends? Because he likes setting up fools so he can knock them down and say, 'see what kind of folks criticise the POTUS? Pay no attention to them, avert your gaze.'

[trish]

I know no one who thinks patriotism is crass, though there are people who think jingoism is. Patriotism is taking an interest in your country's interests and involving yourself in the solution of the problems it faces. If we both have the same understanding of "nation-state" I know very very few liberals who harbor a disdain for our nation-state, but I do know republicans and libertarians who do and who would prefer living within a nation-state of much diminished influence. The U.S. is a melting pot of nationalities, so it's not so clear what one even means by American nationalism. Liberals pledge the flag, read history, celebrate the national holidays just a fervently as any conservative. The right just has a penchant for wanting to define the language. They want to have the franchise on patriotism. That's not very patriotic of them.

[slip969]

so if you did not pay for the care, who did?

Oh you. I see what you did there. Yes I did pay for a portion with my taxes. But I'd rather pay a portion in taxes than paying $800+. And then everyone gets to take advantage of it. Good idea no?


So let me get this straight. It's alright for someone who has to bust their ass every day at work to pay for health care for people who don't work, collect welfare (<-- already an awesome example) and let corrupt government agencies decide that I'm just not working hard enough and crack the whip to take more taxes out of me? No thank you!

I'll gladly pay for my poison ivy treatments myself, choose my doctor and hell... probably pay less then the taxes they are going to take from me anyways.

Basically, under Obama's regime... the more you work, the more your punished. Fuck, maybe that's the idea... let me get fat, clog my arteries, pop out 2 and 1/2 kids and never work again. I'll be taken care of by my savior Mr. Obama... Awesome!

Fuck that fascist pig in the face.

[TommyFoxtrot]

I know no one who thinks patriotism is crass, though there are people who think jingoism is. Patriotism is taking an interest in your country's interests and involving yourself in the solution of the problems it faces. If we both have the same understanding of "nation-state" I know very very few liberals who harbor a disdain for our nation-state, but I do know republicans and libertarians who do and who would prefer living within a nation-state of much diminished influence. The U.S. is a melting pot of nationalities, so it's not so clear what one even means by American nationalism. Liberals pledge the flag, read history, celebrate the national holidays just a fervently as any conservative. The right just has a penchant for wanting to define the language. They want to have the franchise on patriotism. That's not very patriotic of them.

Patriotism=Jingoism to many liberals. To many liberals, Patriotism means allegiance to the goals and principals of the American left, which often run counter to, and plot the demise of America as a sovereign nation. It's not even really that well hidden.

Obviously, this is all coming from a right winger (or to be more honest, someone who distrusts the left more than he loves the right) but this is the way I see it.

I would also put qualifiers on them reading history-it doesn't need to be stated that liberal apologists and conservative apologists often have a vastly different view of history. Defining language and controlling semantics has been a halmark of the left since Marx. This is absolutely irrefutable. It was immediately recognized to be a main tool of the left.

Political Correctness, that started with the modern left. Liberals got a taste of it after 9/11, till about 2004, but think of what conservatives or libertarians have gone through all these years.

When liberals rant about Fox, they should really just pity non-liberals. Fox is the only real tool they have on network television. Look at talk radio. How did they take a dead format and make it into a powerhouse? Because non-liberals had nowhere else to go.

[trish]

To many liberals, Patriotism means allegiance to the goals and principals of the American left, which often run counter to, and plot the demise of America as a sovereign nation.

???!!

[jaycanuck]

so if you did not pay for the care, who did?

Oh you. I see what you did there. Yes I did pay for a portion with my taxes. But I'd rather pay a portion in taxes than paying $800+. And then everyone gets to take advantage of it. Good idea no?


So let me get this straight. It's alright for someone who has to bust their ass every day at work to pay for health care for people who don't work, collect welfare (<-- already an awesome example) and let corrupt government agencies decide that I'm just not working hard enough and crack the whip to take more taxes out of me? No thank you!

I'll gladly pay for my poison ivy treatments myself, choose my doctor and hell... probably pay less then the taxes they are going to take from me anyways.

Basically, under Obama's regime... the more you work, the more your punished. Fuck, maybe that's the idea... let me get fat, clog my arteries, pop out 2 and 1/2 kids and never work again. I'll be taken care of by my savior Mr. Obama... Awesome!

Fuck that fascist pig in the face.

Under your assumption everyone should be working, there should be 100% unemployment. What rose coloured glass world do you live in? The idea of social healthcare is to provide for a nations people when they can't.

A person is shot or has a broken leg...whatever. Goes into a hospital but doesn't have insurance. Do you toss him out on the street? By your view, I'm assuming you would.

[archineer]

Any healthcare system should be based on the concept of the healthy paying for the sick. Anything else is simply inhuman.

[TommyFoxtrot]

Any healthcare system should be based on the concept of the healthy paying for the sick. Anything else is simply inhuman.

I don't quite understand that. Should we be getting advice from the British on healthcare anyway?

[thombergeron]

Patriotism=Jingoism to many liberals. To many liberals, Patriotism means allegiance to the goals and principals of the American left, which often run counter to, and plot the demise of America as a sovereign nation. It's not even really that well hidden.

Obviously, this is all coming from a right winger (or to be more honest, someone who distrusts the left more than he loves the right) but this is the way I see it.

I would also put qualifiers on them reading history-it doesn't need to be stated that liberal apologists and conservative apologists often have a vastly different view of history. Defining language and controlling semantics has been a halmark of the left since Marx. This is absolutely irrefutable. It was immediately recognized to be a main tool of the left.

Political Correctness, that started with the modern left. Liberals got a taste of it after 9/11, till about 2004, but think of what conservatives or libertarians have gone through all these years.

When liberals rant about Fox, they should really just pity non-liberals. Fox is the only real tool they have on network television. Look at talk radio. How did they take a dead format and make it into a powerhouse? Because non-liberals had nowhere else to go.

This is a textbook example of why I gave up trying to engage in substantive debate in Internet forums. The poster plainly has no idea whatsoever what "many liberals" think, nor a very well developed understanding of what liberalism even is. The entire post is utterly meaningless from either a policy or a philosophical/ideological perspective.

[archineer]

Any healthcare system should be based on the concept of the healthy paying for the sick. Anything else is simply inhuman.

I don't quite understand that. Should we be getting advice from the British on healthcare anyway?

Seriously? What don't you get?

[Justawannabe]

A friend of mine has a nice saying that explains some of the political situation to me.

A progressive has to say right from the start he could be wrong. It is inherent in believing there is always another better way. A conservative never has to say he's wrong, because what he believes in is already proven to work enough for him.

On the healthy having to pay for the sick... um yeah. We've tried the personal responsibility thing where we expect all people to prepare for the worst, but the reality of the world is that no one person can prepare sufficiently for random illness or disaster on anything but the highest salaries. The only way to handle disaster and illness is to all pay into some pool for dealing with these relatively rare events when they strike the unlucky few.

Who at 20 has the means to deal with cancer or a kidney failure? At 30? How about at 63? We're talking access to hundreds of thousands of dollars, above and beyond all other needs.

[duplicatt]

Patriotism=Jingoism to many liberals. To many liberals, Patriotism means allegiance to the goals and principals of the American left, which often run counter to, and plot the demise of America as a sovereign nation. It's not even really that well hidden.

Obviously, this is all coming from a right winger (or to be more honest, someone who distrusts the left more than he loves the right) but this is the way I see it.

I would also put qualifiers on them reading history-it doesn't need to be stated that liberal apologists and conservative apologists often have a vastly different view of history. Defining language and controlling semantics has been a halmark of the left since Marx. This is absolutely irrefutable. It was immediately recognized to be a main tool of the left.

Political Correctness, that started with the modern left. Liberals got a taste of it after 9/11, till about 2004, but think of what conservatives or libertarians have gone through all these years.

When liberals rant about Fox, they should really just pity non-liberals. Fox is the only real tool they have on network television. Look at talk radio. How did they take a dead format and make it into a powerhouse? Because non-liberals had nowhere else to go.

This is a textbook example of why I gave up trying to engage in substantive debate in Internet forums. The poster plainly has no idea whatsoever what "many liberals" think, nor a very well developed understanding of what liberalism even is. The entire post is utterly meaningless from either a policy or a philosophical/ideological perspective.

First off, tell us what is wrong with his comment. There is no learning if what is incorrect isn't pointed out.

Secondly, where were you while Trish was giving her distorted views of conservatives?

[MrF]

The "liberal" vs "conservative" divide in the USA is pretty interesting. I tend to side with the liberal side, but I listen a lot to the conservatives and appreciate the ideas of self-reliance and the inefficiency of government for solving problems. On the other hand, I feel strongly that much of the social progress we've made in US history is due to active government and would not have happened otherwise.

One of my conservative friends pointed out that the percentage of people who don't pay taxes is fast approaching a majority. He worries that when that happens the impoverished majority can tax the hell out of the wealthy minority. Here democracy may become a kind of tyranny.

One of the great problems in the USA is the deep divide between rich and poor. I'm not sure, but I bet this divide is much worse here than in other industrialized countries, and it's due to our legacy of immigration (illegals, impoverished, and slaves) -- a legacy other countries don't have to the same degree. Therefore you cannot compare the societies: what works in one country might not work in the USA.

There is a danger that if we socialize everything we simply cannot pay for it. Consider that we are already borrowing at an enormous and unsustainable rate. The entire economic system in the USA could become unstable and collapse. Indeed some think this is already starting to happen.

It's great to have liberal ideals -- but you need a workable plan and someone has to PAY for it. Clever ideas are very welcome. Dreamy ideals with no plan are not useful.

[archineer]

The "liberal" vs "conservative" divide in the USA is pretty interesting. I tend to side with the liberal side, but I listen a lot to the conservatives and appreciate the ideas of self-reliance and the inefficiency of government for solving problems. On the other hand, I feel strongly that much of the social progress we've made in US history is due to active government and would not have happened otherwise.

One of my conservative friends pointed out that the percentage of people who don't pay taxes is fast approaching a majority. He worries that when that happens the impoverished majority can tax the hell out of the wealthy minority. Here democracy may become a kind of tyranny.

One of the great problems in the USA is the deep divide between rich and poor. I'm not sure, but I bet this divide is much worse here than in other industrialized countries, and it's due to our legacy of immigration (illegals, impoverished, and slaves) -- a legacy other countries don't have to the same degree. Therefore you cannot compare the societies: what works in one country might not work in the USA.

There is a danger that if we socialize everything we simply cannot pay for it. Consider that we are already borrowing at an enormous and unsustainable rate. The entire economic system in the USA could become unstable and collapse. Indeed some think this is already starting to happen.

It's great to have liberal ideals -- but you need a workable plan and someone has to PAY for it. Clever ideas are very welcome. Dreamy ideals with no plan are not useful.

Debt and insolvecy are the result of fractional reserve banking and the fact that money is created through the issuing of bank loans. If it was created through public works spending this wouldn't be a problem.

[slip969]

so if you did not pay for the care, who did?

Oh you. I see what you did there. Yes I did pay for a portion with my taxes. But I'd rather pay a portion in taxes than paying $800+. And then everyone gets to take advantage of it. Good idea no?


So let me get this straight. It's alright for someone who has to bust their ass every day at work to pay for health care for people who don't work, collect welfare (<-- already an awesome example) and let corrupt government agencies decide that I'm just not working hard enough and crack the whip to take more taxes out of me? No thank you!

I'll gladly pay for my poison ivy treatments myself, choose my doctor and hell... probably pay less then the taxes they are going to take from me anyways.

Basically, under Obama's regime... the more you work, the more your punished. Fuck, maybe that's the idea... let me get fat, clog my arteries, pop out 2 and 1/2 kids and never work again. I'll be taken care of by my savior Mr. Obama... Awesome!

Fuck that fascist pig in the face.

Under your assumption everyone should be working, there should be 100% unemployment. What rose coloured glass world do you live in? The idea of social healthcare is to provide for a nations people when they can't.

A person is shot or has a broken leg...whatever. Goes into a hospital but doesn't have insurance. Do you toss him out on the street? By your view, I'm assuming you would.


That is not the case at all. You can go to any hospital here in the U.S. with a broken leg, etc.. and will be taken care of. However! the patient will be of course billed for it later if they do not have insurance or will have to pay the deductible on the plan.

Now, I have absolutely no sympathy for people who can't pay their way in life. Most employers today offer some sort of company health care as a part of the job and have low deductibles. Hell, a friend of mine even gets medical benefits by working at a grocery store. So I'm not saying go out and become a rocket scientist to afford your health care, but take some responsibility for your needs in life (<-- that is a whole other topic).

For instance, look at our welfare system. I dutifully pay my welfare tax out of my paycheck every week like a good little citizen. What do I see when I go to the local food store or Walmart? It's always some fat, retarded lady with 5,000 kids running around paying for $400 worth of groceries with the welfare card. Please somehow tell me this is looking out for my fellow citizen or "being compassionate". It's a fucking mess, just like health care will be.

One of the largest concerns in my opinion about the national health care proposal is that companies are going to be mandated to carry the "government" option. Let me tell you as a small business owner that it's already hard to be competitive with overseas companies and eek out a average living by today's standards. What we need right now is less legislation and bureaucracy, not more.

[jaycanuck]

so if you did not pay for the care, who did?

Oh you. I see what you did there. Yes I did pay for a portion with my taxes. But I'd rather pay a portion in taxes than paying $800+. And then everyone gets to take advantage of it. Good idea no?


So let me get this straight. It's alright for someone who has to bust their ass every day at work to pay for health care for people who don't work, collect welfare (<-- already an awesome example) and let corrupt government agencies decide that I'm just not working hard enough and crack the whip to take more taxes out of me? No thank you!

I'll gladly pay for my poison ivy treatments myself, choose my doctor and hell... probably pay less then the taxes they are going to take from me anyways.

Basically, under Obama's regime... the more you work, the more your punished. Fuck, maybe that's the idea... let me get fat, clog my arteries, pop out 2 and 1/2 kids and never work again. I'll be taken care of by my savior Mr. Obama... Awesome!

Fuck that fascist pig in the face.

Under your assumption everyone should be working, there should be 100% unemployment. What rose coloured glass world do you live in? The idea of social healthcare is to provide for a nations people when they can't.

A person is shot or has a broken leg...whatever. Goes into a hospital but doesn't have insurance. Do you toss him out on the street? By your view, I'm assuming you would.


That is not the case at all. You can go to any hospital here in the U.S. with a broken leg, etc.. and will be taken care of. However! the patient will be of course billed for it later if they do not have insurance or will have to pay the deductible on the plan.

Now, I have absolutely no sympathy for people who can't pay their way in life. Most employers today offer some sort of company health care as a part of the job and have low deductibles. Hell, a friend of mine even gets medical benefits by working at a grocery store. So I'm not saying go out and become a rocket scientist to afford your health care, but take some responsibility for your needs in life (<-- that is a whole other topic).

For instance, look at our welfare system. I dutifully pay my welfare tax out of my paycheck every week like a good little citizen. What do I see when I go to the local food store or Walmart? It's always some fat, retarded lady with 5,000 kids running around paying for $400 worth of groceries with the welfare card. Please somehow tell me this is looking out for my fellow citizen or "being compassionate". It's a fucking mess, just like health care will be.

One of the largest concerns in my opinion about the national health care proposal is that companies are going to be mandated to carry the "government" option. Let me tell you as a small business owner that it's already hard to be competitive with overseas companies and eek out a average living by today's standards. What we need right now is less legislation and bureaucracy, not more.

I'd argue your points...but I've repeated myself over and over in this thread and the right just can't see it. So why continue to try and hammer it home.

[lahabra1976]

Well I can understand both sides of the argument here and why neither sides will give in.

The "less government" side is understandable because the "American" way of life has been set on free competition, less government involvement, and the strong American economy relative to the world is prove of how this philosphy has worked (America makes up 20% of the world GDP, which is measure of economic size). And of course it make sense people compete and competition drives people to improve productivity, quality, and the like.

But on the other side, the "more government" involvement in health care I can understand cause will other countries that use socialized medicine appear to have better health care than us, period.

I do work as a doctor in the health care profession and I will say yes there is competition in the health industry. But the rules of competition don't work the same as other industries and, thus, this has lead to lower quality healthcare. The truth of the matter is a doctor is paid by insurances and insurances don't pay you to cure the patient or to make them better. You paid per visit for the patient so the more you see the patient the more you make. So this commonly done, you do a procedure one day and have the patient come back another to do another so get paid twice when it could all be done on the same day.

Additonally insurances pay you a set fee for everything. A set fee for the exam, other procedures. Can you imagine if all restaurants had to charge the same price for everything? All this does it cause doctors to find ways to cut cost and, thus, cut quality. For example, insurances pay about $100 to take a picture of the back of the eye. And the same each charged for all doctors. Now there are several machines out there that can take this picture, some are high cost, but give better detail. But since insurance always pays the same, most doctors get the lowest cost machine. Again the result is less care to the patient.

I only bring up this example to prove the point that American healthcare problem is not as simple is who pays for what. The problems transcend through the entire system and perhaps it may regulations on health insurances that maybe needed rather than government providing the care. Cause afterall government providing the care doesn't solve the problems mentioned above.

[Beagle]

I haven't seen everything on this topic....but what I have seen on the news scares the shit out of me. Seriously...when did helping those less privileged turn into Obama being Hitler? You have some incredibly uninformed people down there.

Who knows...maybe it was like that when our universal health care was introduced....but I don't think people were called Hitler.

Gotta say folks, I hope you guys do find your way. I went to the hospital twice last month for poison ivy. Didn't spend 1 red cent there. :)

Bring on the flame!!



Jay,

The Hitler thing was way overblown. Nancy Pelosi started this whole Nazi-Hitler thing by making a bogus comment complaining about the town hall protestors carrying swastikas -still unproven, by the way.

I haven't heard any mainstream opponent of Obama care using the Hitler reference. Actually, The Hitler references were much more prevalent during Bush's reign.

Now it seems in this country you're not allowed to criticize the President without being accused of being racist. And yes, while it was out of line for Joe Wilson to exclaim "You Lie" during the president's speech, to call him a racist like Jimmy Carter and congressman Hank Johnson recently did is just disgusting.

The fact of the matter is the majority of Americans do not want state-run health care. This is way the Democrats haven't just rammed this bill through by now. The majority of Americans are fed up with the insane spending, pork bills and they upset in the direction this country is headed. We see that NOTHING that the government runs works well. NOTHING. Social Security, Medicare even our Post Office are horribly mismanaged and loses money. They don't trust the government. They even screwed up the Cash-for-Clunkers program.

And notice that there was no Tort Reform in any of the Dem's bills either. This was a sure sign that they weren't serious about reform. There are numerous things and laws the govt could enact to truly bring down the cost. Tort reform and eliminating the stupid barriers to interstate insurance commerce are but two examples.

Yeah, they weren't crazy about Bush and when he overspent and they're sure as hell upset when Obama outspends Bush by nearly an order of magnitude.

All of these protests and town hall meetings HAVE NOTHING to do with the color of Obama's skin, his haircut, the ties he wears, the food he eats or whether or not he wears briefs or boxers.

It's a fundamental disagreement with his policies. That's it. Anyone trying to play the race card and to paint those of us who object to a state-run health care plan as being racist are sadly wrong and will find their desperate attempts will backfire.

[Beagle]

Also, regarding the so-called 50 million number of uninsured people here in the US.

We now know this is a bogus number.

How many of these are illegally here? Obama now says his program won't cover illegals....he'll just make them legal and then they'll be covered. Heh...clever play on words.

I know dozens of young healthy people who simply don't want to spend their money on health insurance. They think they're invincible and they're cheap. There must be tens of millions of these people in our country. Well, one law Obama could pass that I would support is some sort of proof of insurance. You need proof of car insurance to drive, why not the same for health insurance.

Obama has admitted he eventually wants a single payer system. One big fear is that he's using a plan of incrementalism to move us in that direction.

This is why i don't trust him when he says I can keep my doctor and health insurance. I won't be able to keep my doctor and health insurance if my insurer goes out of business because everyone's on the public option. My employer has already told us that they would only offer the public option because it will be easier and cheaper for them.

So much for keeping my insurer and doctor.


PS: Of ALL the people that cross the US border in order to receive health care - what percentage LEAVE and what percentage COME into the USA?

[jaycanuck]

Again...I've debated this to death but...

Re : Hitler comments. True...no political opponents here...but referring to my original post...it's what we see up here. Gotta admit that that stuff is shocking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQPEFGtn1sI

And an additional video about the success of Cash for Clunkers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srchIN6Dn6M

I think it's good that they're attempting new ways of doing things. Are they perfect? No. But they're attempting.

[Beagle]

Jay,

Look, there's always going to be wackos on both sides. Let me ask you an honest question...

How come all the Hitler comparisons made against Pres Bush never got the mainstream media as upset and sensitive??

Hitler-Bush comparisons were an everyday occurrence for years and no one seems to care much. And they were MUCH more widespread than the few wacko (Lyndon LaRouche supporters) we've seen.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bush+hitler&search_type=&aq=f

The problem is that the media is trying to now portray those of us who disagree with Obama's policies as radical, hate filled mobs and they go out and find the few wackjobs in order to make their points.




Again...I've debated this to death but...

Re : Hitler comments. True...no political opponents here...but referring to my original post...it's what we see up here. Gotta admit that that stuff is shocking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQPEFGtn1sI

And an additional video about the success of Cash for Clunkers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srchIN6Dn6M

I think it's good that they're attempting new ways of doing things. Are they perfect? No. But they're attempting.


Regarding Cash for Clunkers...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A63RC81&show_article=1

I can post dozens of similar links that show the problems. And what now that it's over. Car sales just took a huge nose dive.

What's the purpose of a short term incentive if afterwards things crash even worse?

Instead of a slow sure recovery we now have dealers in trouble because there's this huge vacuum of sales. One dealer right down my street just closed their doors.

Hell, it would have been better to use that money and give these struggling dealers tax amnesty.

[jaycanuck]

I think the difference with Bush to Obama is that there was war involved. This is legislative reform. Two extremes.

[Beagle]

Are you actually saying that it was OK to compare Bush to Hitler because there was a war?

Well, we still have a lot of troops at war now, perhaps that makes it OK to compare Obama to Hitler?

Actually the rabid left wing had many reasons to compare Bush to Hitler...

http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Bush%20Hitler%20Comparison

Bush-Hitler comparisons were big business during the past 8 years.

And now that we have a few wackos (that aren't even republicans - but Lyndon LaRouche wackos) carrying an Obama Hitler poster it's big news?

Cmon, now. It's just a bit disengenuous don't you think?

[jaycanuck]

I didn't say it was ok. You're putting words into my mouth. I'm explaining the 2 extremes of the actions. nothing more. I never called Bush Hitler. He was his own unique war criminal.

[Beagle]

Here's a lovely video put out by the prominent Democratic organization - MoveOn.org...

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2004/01/15/bush.and.hitler.comparisions.-.moveon.org.mov


It's almost humorous that democrats are actually upset over these few wackos not associated with the Republicans, who show off their Obama - Hitler posters.

Either they have extremely short memories on what happened to Bush in this regard, or they just don't care about promoting a double standard.

[Beagle]

Jay,

So is Obama a war criminal too?

He hasn't brought home the troops.

He supports the Bush Patriot Act.

If you're honest you would have to agree that the level of hatred and Hitler comparison were SO much more open and prevalent against Bush than Obama.

And I'm not condoning either one. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.

Look, this health care debate has nothing to do with this Hitler nonsense.

It's about the vast majority of Americans who DO NOT want the government in the health care business. Plain and simple.

No matter how you slice and dice it, it is that simple. The Democrats in this country hold all the strings. They could have voted this thing in months ago if they wanted to. Why havent they?

Because in a massive grass roots effort, the voters of all these Democratic congressmen and Senators have wrote them and told them in no uncertain terms that they DON'T WANT any more government health care debacles.

It's very simple. The people have spoken.

[Beagle]

Also...

The American public is getting sick of the out of control spending and taxes being put forth by Obama...

Just the other day this shit hit the fan...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml

[jaycanuck]

He's attempting to shut down Guantanamo, he's relocating troops to Afghanistan (where they should've been in the first place looking for Osama). Look, you're trying to get into a debate over the former and present president. You have an 8 year track record to check Bush on and a very struggled...what...8 months of trying to get things done and being slashed apart at every turn?

Why am I even debating this? This debate has nothing to do with my original post which was the extremity of the protesters over legislative reform. Do I deny that that stuff happened with Bush? No. I didn't condone it then and I don't now. Quit twisting the subject Beagle. Won't work.

[jaycanuck]

Also...

The American public is getting sick of the out of control spending and taxes being put forth by Obama...

Just the other day this shit hit the fan...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml

Keep talking Beagle. I'm done. I've asked you to stick to the OP and I've explained myself.

[raybbaby]

Seems to me there is little actual debate happening. Just a lot of fools screaming "socialist, fascist, Non-Amercan citizen, liar", and whatever else they can think of. There's no Republican bill or any ideas for reform even put forward by their side, so there is in fact little to debate. In a real democracy, I imagine thr Republicans would be championing a bill and ideas like the Dems have put forward, and the Dems would all be lined up solidly behind H.R. 676. Unfortunately we've got a corporate friendly, right of center plan, and nothing but obstruction from a party that is absolutely out to lunch these days.

[Beagle]

Ray,

You are incorrect. The Republicans have put forth a number of plans and options. Of course, they get shot down by the party in power and ignored by the Obama sympathetic media.

The three Republican bills total almost 400 pages and have been on the table since May and June.

In May, Republicans in the House and the Senate formed a bicameral coalition to produce the130-page “Patients Choice Act of 2009.”

In June, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced the “Health Care Freedom Plan,” a 41-page proposal.

And in July, the Republican Study Committee, under the leadership of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), unveiled the “Empowering Patients First Act,” a 130-page plan.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-stifle-Republican-health-care-plans-8224780-58644807.html


http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare


I can certainly cite other examples but it is just not true that the Republicans have not put forth alternatives to Obama Care

[Beagle]

He's attempting to shut down Guantanamo, he's relocating troops to Afghanistan (where they should've been in the first place looking for Osama). Look, you're trying to get into a debate over the former and present president. You have an 8 year track record to check Bush on and a very struggled...what...8 months of trying to get things done and being slashed apart at every turn?

Why am I even debating this? This debate has nothing to do with my original post which was the extremity of the protesters over legislative reform. Do I deny that that stuff happened with Bush? No. I didn't condone it then and I don't now. Quit twisting the subject Beagle. Won't work.

Jay,

I am attempting to stay on topic and I only used those examples to illustrate my point. I believe your premise on the extremity of these protestors is flawed.

First, I don't believe that the health care protesting is extreme. There's nothing wrong with strident and vocal opposition. People are upset over the direction they see the country headed in.

Second, the so-called extreme protest that included a Hitler-Obama poster was not even a Republican. I was trying to point out that there's always a few extreme fringe protestors that can be found and to single them out and make them center of attention is wrong.

We recently had over 1 million protestors descend on Wash DC last week. You might not be aware of this peaceful event because the mainstream media chose not to cover it. But there were no problems and the protesters even cleaned up after themselves.

Check it out and you'll see the vast majority of these peaceful protestors are middle aged and elderly and hardly can be described as extreme hate mongers.

But I realize this picture of 1 million grass roots average middle-aged, mainstream Americans driving to Wash DC to protest doesn't fit the mold that the news media and administration put forth.

Therefore you hear trumped up charges about the very few fringe elements that carry some poster or elect to carry a legal firearm to an event.

The Obama admin, the Dems, and the news media are starting to realize they have lost this health care debate and they are pulling out all the stops.

[raybbaby]

Ray,

You are incorrect. The Republicans have put forth a number of plans and options. Of course, they get shot down by the party in power and ignored by the Obama sympathetic media.

The three Republican bills total almost 400 pages and have been on the table since May and June.

In May, Republicans in the House and the Senate formed a bicameral coalition to produce the130-page “Patients Choice Act of 2009.”

In June, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced the “Health Care Freedom Plan,” a 41-page proposal.



And in July, the Republican Study Committee, under the leadership of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), unveiled the “Empowering Patients First Act,” a 130-page plan.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-stifle-Republican-health-care-plans-8224780-58644807.html


http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare


I can certainly cite other examples but it is just not true that the Republicans have not put forth alternatives to Obama Care
Alright, I should have said no serious proposal. The Repubs have put forth bills that really say nothing, and affect no change, and the latest from Baucus is such a handout to the insurance companies, even the republicans are running away from it. My bad.

[jaycanuck]

Sorry Beagle. I finished.

[Beagle]

Ray,

I am not surprised you dismissed their proposals out of hand.

First you said they didn't propose anything and now you say you don't like what they propose.

This is part of the problem with this debate. People say pretty much say and do anything to try and make a point.

Let me offer this comment about serious proposals.

You cant put forth a serious proposal about cutting health care COSTS unless you address tort reform. Just look in the yellow pages under lawyers and you'll see part of the problem. Obama is beholden to the trial lawyers and won't address this problem. Hence, no tort reform.

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

Anyway, there were a lot of excellent suggestions and alternatives put forth by the Republicans and I'm willing to bet that mainstream America will accept these plans much more readily than ObamaCare.

[Beagle]

Sorry Beagle. I finished.

That's OK Jay.

I understand. This whole thing about health care isn't about open, polite and honest debate of the facts.

It's about distorting the truth and getting upset when people don't get their way.

The radical left thought that since Obama won the election everything would go his way. Little did they understand that Obama didn't win because people really liked his politics, he won because so many people (left and right) hated GWB.

So, now the left just can't understand when people actually oppose and disagree with Obama!!! Gasp!!!! How can this be!!

Obama is certainly cementing the notion that Democrats are tax and spend liberals. (and yes, I do know the GWB taxed and spent too).

I look forward to a day of true conservative government and also a government that stays out of your personal life.

[trish]

You cant put forth a serious proposal about cutting health care COSTS unless you address tort reform. Just look in the yellow pages under lawyers and you'll see part of the problem. Tort reform is necessary. In his address to Congress the President addressed and affirmed the need for tort reform. But suits directly contribute very little to cost of health care. The main effect of tort reform will be to lessen the pressure on doctors to conduct thorough tests when searching for a diagnosis of a patient’s health problem. The theory is that many useless tests are being ordered just to cover the doctor’s ass in case the real cause of a patient’s problem is overlooked. True enough, thorough testing is expensive and often seems useless when you think you already know what the problem is. On the other hand, if the doctor is sure enough to risk the patient’s life, but not sure enough to risk his own financial wellbeing, then how sure is he really? Is he sure enough to work on you?

[Beagle]

Trish,

In more comprehensive Tort Reform scenarios there are also panels that could review and reject frivolous lawsuits.

There also has be steps taken to reduce the enormous cost of malpractice insurance.

There seems to be a notion that health insurance companies are evil and drowning in ill-gotten profits. Actually, health insurance companies make very little profit.

I thought it might be good to actually post the Republican response...

[Beagle]

Here is the Republican response on Health Care. Instead of just dismissing it like Ray did, perhaps you can read it.



Rep. Boustany Delivers Republican Health Care Address

Washington, Sep 9 - Below is the full text (as prepared) of tonight’s Republican address on health care, delivered by Dr. Charles Boustany (R-LA) following President Obama’s speech to a Joint Session of Congress:

“Good evening. I’m Dr. Charles Boustany, and I’m proud to serve the people of Louisiana’s Seventh Congressional District. I’m also a heart surgeon with more than 20 years of experience, during which I saw first-hand the need for lowering health care costs.

“Republicans are pleased that President Obama came to the Capitol tonight. We agree much needs to be done to lower the cost of health care for all Americans. On that goal, Republicans are ready – and we’ve been ready – to work with the President for common-sense reforms that our nation can afford.

“Afford is an important word. Our country is facing many challenges. The cost of health care is rising. Federal spending is soaring. We’re piling huge debt on our children. And families and small businesses are struggling through a jobless recovery, with more than 2.4 million private-sector jobs lost since February.

“It’s clear the American people want health care reform, but they want their elected leaders to get it right. Most Americans wanted to hear the President tell Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and the rest of Congress that it’s time to start over on a common-sense, bipartisan plan focused on lowering the cost of health care while improving quality. That’s what I heard over the past several months in talking to thousands of my constituents.

“Replacing your family’s current health care with government-run health care is not the answer. In fact, it’ll make health care much more expensive. That’s not just my personal diagnosis as a doctor or a Republican; it’s the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office – the neutral scorekeeper that determines the cost of major bills.

“I read the bill Democrats passed through committee in July. It creates 53 new government bureaucracies, adds hundreds of billions to our national debt, and raises taxes on job-creators by $600 billion. And, it cuts Medicare by $500 billion, while doing virtually nothing to make the program better for our seniors.

“The President had a chance tonight to take government-run health care off the table. Unfortunately, he didn’t do it.

“We can do better, with a targeted approach that tackles the biggest problems. Here are four important areas where we can agree, right now:

“One, all individuals should have access to coverage, regardless of preexisting conditions.

“Two, individuals, small businesses and other groups should be able to join together to get health insurance at lower prices, the same way large businesses and labor unions do.

“Three, we can provide assistance to those who still cannot access a doctor.

“And, four, insurers should be able to offer incentives for wellness care and prevention – something particularly important to me. I operated on too many people who could have avoided surgery if they’d simply made healthier choices earlier in life.

“We do have ideas the President hasn’t agreed with. We’re grateful the President mentioned medical liability reform, and we hope he’s serious. We need to establish tough liability reform standards, encourage speedy resolution of claims, and deter junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of care. Real reform must do this.

“Let’s also talk about letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines. I and many other Republicans believe that that will provide real choice and competition to lower the cost of health insurance. Unfortunately, the President disagrees.

“You can read more about all these reforms at healthcare.gop.gov. These are common-sense reforms we can achieve right away – without destroying jobs, exploding the deficit, rationing care, or taking away the freedom American families cherish.

“This Congress can pass meaningful reform soon to reduce some of the fear and anxiety families are feeling in these very difficult times. Working together in a bipartisan way, we can truly lower the cost of health care while improving quality for the American people.

“I’m Dr. Charles Boustany. Thanks for listening.”

[Realgirls4me]

I am attempting to stay on topic and I only used those examples to illustrate my point. I believe your premise on the extremity of these protestors is flawed.

First, I don't believe that the health care protesting is extreme. There's nothing wrong with strident and vocal opposition. People are upset over the direction they see the country headed in.

Second, the so-called extreme protest that included a Hitler-Obama poster was not even a Republican. I was trying to point out that there's always a few extreme fringe protestors that can be found and to single them out and make them center of attention is wrong.

We recently had over 1 million protestors descend on Wash DC last week. You might not be aware of this peaceful event because the mainstream media chose not to cover it. But there were no problems and the protesters even cleaned up after themselves.

Check it out and you'll see the vast majority of these peaceful protestors are middle aged and elderly and hardly can be described as extreme hate mongers.

But I realize this picture of 1 million grass roots average middle-aged, mainstream Americans driving to Wash DC to protest doesn't fit the mold that the news media and administration put forth.

Therefore you hear trumped up charges about the very few fringe elements that carry some poster or elect to carry a legal firearm to an event.

The Obama admin, the Dems, and the news media are starting to realize they have lost this health care debate and they are pulling out all the stops.

Uh, when and where was this million strong protest? It certainly wasn't in Washington DC recently where the Washington DC Fire Department -- a fire department that knows something about measuring crowd sizes at the mall -- had it figured at 70,000 based on their reliable markers. You want to cite that source of yours for that figure, as well as links for all the health care proposals for its much needed overhaul from Dubya's tenure? His father's? Reagan's? Surely these guys saw that the current system is unsustainable and took an aggressive posture in getting it changed. Yes?

[trish]

I don’t think insurance companies are evil, but I do think their loyalty, as with all corporations, is with their stockholders. To maximize profits, they minimize costs. This means covering mainly the healthy, not covering pre-existing conditions, dropping the ill from their rosters whenever the opportunity presents itself etc. These practices aren’t evil. They’re just good business. Unfortunately they serve the stockholders better than the clients.

The administration gave no indication that it was opposed to comprehensive tort reform.

I agree the cost of malpractice insurance needs to be reduced. But tort reform won’t solve the problem of high health care costs. Moreover, if tort reform is done carefully it will, as I said above, endanger patients.

[archineer]

It would have been interesting if the Dems had tried to push the swiss system, it would have been great to see what objections the right would have come up with to it.

[raybbaby]

The real problem here is while the Repubs are owned outright by big corporations, there are enough dem's who have also been bought out that the first thing that happened was the best thing, single payer, was totally taken off the table without there being any discussion of it. It should make your blood run cold that an idea at least 70% of Americans support cannot make any headway.

[Beagle]

Regarding the numbers of the size of the protest...

I've heard all sorts of estimates. From a ridiculously low estimate of 70,000 to 2 million.

I had often thought all that one would need to do is to work with aerial views and calculate a real estimate.

Well, it turns out that someone actually did a technical analysis and he believes the number is closer to 1.7 million.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19743935/The-Real-Number-of-Protesters-Zac-Moilanen?classic_ui=1

I am sure that Moilanen's paper will be discredited by the left, I decided to use a more conservative estimate of 1 million.

[Beagle]

The real problem here is while the Repubs are owned outright by big corporations, there are enough dem's who have also been bought out that the first thing that happened was the best thing, single payer, was totally taken off the table without there being any discussion of it. It should make your blood run cold that an idea at least 70% of Americans support cannot make any headway.

Ray,

Do you really believe that at least 70% of Americans want a State run single payer?

If this is the case, then why don't the Democrats just pass their plan? According to you they would be the heroes of the people?

If this is the case why are the Democrats continuing to revise and revamp their plan?

I'll tell you why. The Democrats will not pass a single payer or even a public option plan because the majority of Americans don't want it.

These Democrats went back to their constituents and got the riot act read to them. They won't pass such a plan because they want to keep their jobs.

[Beagle]

...The administration gave no indication that it was opposed to comprehensive tort reform.

I agree the cost of malpractice insurance needs to be reduced. But tort reform won’t solve the problem of high health care costs. Moreover, if tort reform is done carefully it will, as I said above, endanger patients.

Trish,

The administration didn't take a single step to do anything about tort reform either.

True, tort reform by itself won't solve the entire problem but it would make a huge difference.

Obama's (and the Dems) public option doesn't solve the problem of high health care costs either. Or I guess we're not supposed to believe the OMB either.

And why should we believe Obama?

Every government run health/service organization we have today is a disaster. From Social Security to Medicare to Medicaid and so on, these plans are mismanaged boondoggles that are heading for bankruptcy.

Here's some boring history that was sent to me just the other day...




Our Social Security

Franklin Delano Roosevelt a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He Promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:

----------THEN---------------------------------------------------


In 1958 Congress, not President Eisenhower, voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend. If I recall correctly, it was a democratically controlled Congress. From what I understand, Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for.

-------------WORSE STILL------------------------------------------------

Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th. President, Democrat

Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term of Office: November 22,1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security
(FICA) withholding?

Answer: The Democratic Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 10, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US ...

------------------THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK !!-----------------------


James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981


Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

ANSWER: That's right! JAMES EARL CARTER, JR. ( JIMMY CARTER) (DEMOCRAT, TERM OF OFFICE: JANUARY 20, 1977 TO JANUARY 20, 1981 AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
IMMIGRANTS MOVED INTO THIS COUNTRY, AND AT AGE 65, BEGAN TO RECEIVE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY GAVE THESE PAYMENTS TO THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY NEVER PAID A DIME INTO IT!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes WILL evolve! Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers..

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1777 to January 20, 1781


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have".
Thomas Jefferson

[yosi]

Here is the Republican response on Health Care.

“Replacing your family’s current health care with government-run health care is not the answer. In fact, it’ll make health care much more expensive. That’s not just my personal diagnosis as a doctor or a Republican; it’s the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office – the neutral scorekeeper that determines the cost of major bills.
”

the FACTS in some other countries that do have government-run health program show otherwise , healthcare is NOT more expensive.

healthcare is not important for healthy poeple who think health problems will never happen to them personaly , some of them might be proven wrong. the very hard way.

I was one of those who never got sick until out of the blue , I was notified that I had a cancer , with 3 more months to live............

if my country ( I am not an American ) didn't have government-run healthcare program , I won't be sitting here writing these words.

as simple as that 8)

[Realgirls4me]

Regarding the numbers of the size of the protest...

I've heard all sorts of estimates. From a ridiculously low estimate of 70,000 to 2 million.

I had often thought all that one would need to do is to work with aerial views and calculate a real estimate.

Well, it turns out that someone actually did a technical analysis and he believes the number is closer to 1.7 million.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19743935/The-Real-Number-of-Protesters-Zac-Moilanen?classic_ui=1

I am sure that Moilanen's paper will be discredited by the left, I decided to use a more conservative estimate of 1 million.

Wait a minute?! You -- YOU -- decided for a conservative estimate of one million? Well then, it must be an accurate count then.

Beagle exemplifies how the Far-Right operates today. They pull their figures from the most remote, unproven, invalid, unreliable, and discredited corners of the internet (read:their ass); apply a contingency clause (I am sure that Moilanen's paper will be discredited by the left...); cement it as fact, and viola, a new reality comes into being.

Yeah, why take the word of the Washington DC Fire Department, or the hotels and restaurants of the DC area, etc., who actually have had experience with DC Mall crowds and realize the boon a million person strong mass does for business, when one can just go to the blog of a ROTC undergrad (This must have been the paper Glen Beck could not remember, right?) with no background or expertise on crowd size counts, and thus questionable methods and conclusions, and make it reality. To further buttress this reality, the paper's writer lists none other than lunatic rightwinger Michelle Malkin, WorldNetDaily, and Godlike productions, among other sources, as references. Yep, that appears pretty sound to me.

Yeah, now why would anyone discredit that figure? Why not make it 30 million? Hey, if it means making Obama and his policies look bad, do it!

... You're so full of shit, Beagle, it is oozing out of you ears.

[giovanni_hotel]

Jay,

So is Obama a war criminal too?

He hasn't brought home the troops.

He supports the Bush Patriot Act.

If you're honest you would have to agree that the level of hatred and Hitler comparison were SO much more open and prevalent against Bush than Obama.

And I'm not condoning either one. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.

Look, this health care debate has nothing to do with this Hitler nonsense.

It's about the vast majority of Americans who DO NOT want the government in the health care business. Plain and simple.

No matter how you slice and dice it, it is that simple. The Democrats in this country hold all the strings. They could have voted this thing in months ago if they wanted to. Why havent they?

Because in a massive grass roots effort, the voters of all these Democratic congressmen and Senators have wrote them and told them in no uncertain terms that they DON'T WANT any more government health care debacles.

It's very simple. The people have spoken.

But 8 months into his 1st term as POTUS, who was protesting against Bush and comparing him to Hitler??

It's the relative instantaneous rebuke of Obama, for a President who has very little track record so far to criticize, that's hypocrital.

Right wingers are mobilizing against Obama as if he's in the third year of his 3nd term, not less than a year into his first term.

Bush 'earned' that level of animus from the American people, Obama so far has not.

[giovanni_hotel]

Regarding the numbers of the size of the protest...

I've heard all sorts of estimates. From a ridiculously low estimate of 70,000 to 2 million.

I had often thought all that one would need to do is to work with aerial views and calculate a real estimate.

Well, it turns out that someone actually did a technical analysis and he believes the number is closer to 1.7 million.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19743935/The-Real-Number-of-Protesters-Zac-Moilanen?classic_ui=1

I am sure that Moilanen's paper will be discredited by the left, I decided to use a more conservative estimate of 1 million.

I live in DC, and if the protesters numbered in excess of a million, if they had lined up vetically along the Mall, they would have stretched well past the Washington Monument. This would have been the largest demonstration/organizing event in the history of the city.

There weren't THAT many people there. I will say this, because the protesters fanned out horizontally in front of the Capitol instead of vertically along the Mall, it was difficult to calculate the true size of the crowd using the normal estimates.

After looking at the first few minutes of the crowd video from C-SPAN which took a wide pan shot, I would think there were more than 70,000 people there, but less than 500,000. Not quite the 1 million number quoted, but far greater than the less than 100,000 cited by major news outlets.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/09/12/HP/A/23055/FreedomWorks+Rally+in+DC.aspx

BTW, health insurance companies are not a vital cog in the U.S. economy. They aren't physicians and they don't provide care. They're middle men attempting to make a buck, and in the process have degraded the overall quality of American health care.

IMO, no one has a right to make a profit of the plight of sick people, and for those who advocate their 'right' to be gouged by Health insurance companies and to receive progressively less care the sicker they become, these people need to have their heads readjusted.

Barack and the Feds are correct in offering a public option to consumers, one that's not driven by profit and instead whose only priority is the health of its policy holders.

Unbridled capitalism will be the downfall of the United States, if it hasn't been already.
We are the only nation in the world where private entities are allowed to profit from the medical care given to sick people.

That's just plain wrong, un-American, and against many of the values we as citizens hold dear.

Sometimes I wish Obama had not spent one cent on bailing out the big banks, sat on his ass in the WH and didn't do a damn thing.

No bailout, no healthcare reform, no nothing.
Sometimes republicans need to be forced to look into the mirror to see how crazy some of their ideas really are.

Also, the reason why there has been such a delay in dispersing the stimulus funds nationwide is because behind closed doors conservatives politicians have repeated blocked the confirmation of bureaucrats responsible for the approval and to oversee many shovel ready projects.

Why? To make the President look bad so conservatives can say the stimulus package isn't working.

GOP = the slow road to hell. :twisted:

[duplicatt]

He's attempting to shut down Guantanamo, he's relocating troops to Afghanistan (where they should've been in the first place looking for Osama).

Why? If Osama is even alive (have we seen any video of Osama? we know one of his sons sounds just like him), he's in Pakistan. Should we invade our putative ally Pakistan willy-nilly?

[TommyFoxtrot]

Here is the Republican response on Health Care. Instead of just dismissing it like Ray did, perhaps you can read it.



Rep. Boustany Delivers Republican Health Care Address

Washington, Sep 9 - Below is the full text (as prepared) of tonight’s Republican address on health care, delivered by Dr. Charles Boustany (R-LA) following President Obama’s speech to a Joint Session of Congress:

“Good evening. I’m Dr. Charles Boustany, and I’m proud to serve the people of Louisiana’s Seventh Congressional District. I’m also a heart surgeon with more than 20 years of experience, during which I saw first-hand the need for lowering health care costs.

“Republicans are pleased that President Obama came to the Capitol tonight. We agree much needs to be done to lower the cost of health care for all Americans. On that goal, Republicans are ready – and we’ve been ready – to work with the President for common-sense reforms that our nation can afford.

“Afford is an important word. Our country is facing many challenges. The cost of health care is rising. Federal spending is soaring. We’re piling huge debt on our children. And families and small businesses are struggling through a jobless recovery, with more than 2.4 million private-sector jobs lost since February.

“It’s clear the American people want health care reform, but they want their elected leaders to get it right. Most Americans wanted to hear the President tell Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and the rest of Congress that it’s time to start over on a common-sense, bipartisan plan focused on lowering the cost of health care while improving quality. That’s what I heard over the past several months in talking to thousands of my constituents.

“Replacing your family’s current health care with government-run health care is not the answer. In fact, it’ll make health care much more expensive. That’s not just my personal diagnosis as a doctor or a Republican; it’s the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office – the neutral scorekeeper that determines the cost of major bills.

“I read the bill Democrats passed through committee in July. It creates 53 new government bureaucracies, adds hundreds of billions to our national debt, and raises taxes on job-creators by $600 billion. And, it cuts Medicare by $500 billion, while doing virtually nothing to make the program better for our seniors.

“The President had a chance tonight to take government-run health care off the table. Unfortunately, he didn’t do it.

“We can do better, with a targeted approach that tackles the biggest problems. Here are four important areas where we can agree, right now:

“One, all individuals should have access to coverage, regardless of preexisting conditions.

“Two, individuals, small businesses and other groups should be able to join together to get health insurance at lower prices, the same way large businesses and labor unions do.

“Three, we can provide assistance to those who still cannot access a doctor.

“And, four, insurers should be able to offer incentives for wellness care and prevention – something particularly important to me. I operated on too many people who could have avoided surgery if they’d simply made healthier choices earlier in life.

“We do have ideas the President hasn’t agreed with. We’re grateful the President mentioned medical liability reform, and we hope he’s serious. We need to establish tough liability reform standards, encourage speedy resolution of claims, and deter junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of care. Real reform must do this.

“Let’s also talk about letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines. I and many other Republicans believe that that will provide real choice and competition to lower the cost of health insurance. Unfortunately, the President disagrees.

“You can read more about all these reforms at healthcare.gop.gov. These are common-sense reforms we can achieve right away – without destroying jobs, exploding the deficit, rationing care, or taking away the freedom American families cherish.

“This Congress can pass meaningful reform soon to reduce some of the fear and anxiety families are feeling in these very difficult times. Working together in a bipartisan way, we can truly lower the cost of health care while improving quality for the American people.

“I’m Dr. Charles Boustany. Thanks for listening.”

This was almost completely ignored by the press because Rep. Wilson decided to throw decorum out the window.

[duplicatt]

The real problem here is while the Repubs are owned outright by big corporations, there are enough dem's who have also been bought out that the first thing that happened was the best thing, single payer, was totally taken off the table without there being any discussion of it. It should make your blood run cold that an idea at least 70% of Americans support cannot make any headway.

Gee, Ray...

If the Republicans are owned outright by the big corporations, why did so many big corporation types (like Warren Buffett and George Soros) support Obama?

[TommyFoxtrot]

Here is the Republican response on Health Care. Instead of just dismissing it like Ray did, perhaps you can read it.



Rep. Boustany Delivers Republican Health Care Address

Washington, Sep 9 - Below is the full text (as prepared) of tonight’s Republican address on health care, delivered by Dr. Charles Boustany (R-LA) following President Obama’s speech to a Joint Session of Congress:

“Good evening. I’m Dr. Charles Boustany, and I’m proud to serve the people of Louisiana’s Seventh Congressional District. I’m also a heart surgeon with more than 20 years of experience, during which I saw first-hand the need for lowering health care costs.

“Republicans are pleased that President Obama came to the Capitol tonight. We agree much needs to be done to lower the cost of health care for all Americans. On that goal, Republicans are ready – and we’ve been ready – to work with the President for common-sense reforms that our nation can afford.

“Afford is an important word. Our country is facing many challenges. The cost of health care is rising. Federal spending is soaring. We’re piling huge debt on our children. And families and small businesses are struggling through a jobless recovery, with more than 2.4 million private-sector jobs lost since February.

“It’s clear the American people want health care reform, but they want their elected leaders to get it right. Most Americans wanted to hear the President tell Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and the rest of Congress that it’s time to start over on a common-sense, bipartisan plan focused on lowering the cost of health care while improving quality. That’s what I heard over the past several months in talking to thousands of my constituents.

“Replacing your family’s current health care with government-run health care is not the answer. In fact, it’ll make health care much more expensive. That’s not just my personal diagnosis as a doctor or a Republican; it’s the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office – the neutral scorekeeper that determines the cost of major bills.

“I read the bill Democrats passed through committee in July. It creates 53 new government bureaucracies, adds hundreds of billions to our national debt, and raises taxes on job-creators by $600 billion. And, it cuts Medicare by $500 billion, while doing virtually nothing to make the program better for our seniors.

“The President had a chance tonight to take government-run health care off the table. Unfortunately, he didn’t do it.

“We can do better, with a targeted approach that tackles the biggest problems. Here are four important areas where we can agree, right now:

“One, all individuals should have access to coverage, regardless of preexisting conditions.

“Two, individuals, small businesses and other groups should be able to join together to get health insurance at lower prices, the same way large businesses and labor unions do.

“Three, we can provide assistance to those who still cannot access a doctor.

“And, four, insurers should be able to offer incentives for wellness care and prevention – something particularly important to me. I operated on too many people who could have avoided surgery if they’d simply made healthier choices earlier in life.

“We do have ideas the President hasn’t agreed with. We’re grateful the President mentioned medical liability reform, and we hope he’s serious. We need to establish tough liability reform standards, encourage speedy resolution of claims, and deter junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of care. Real reform must do this.

“Let’s also talk about letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines. I and many other Republicans believe that that will provide real choice and competition to lower the cost of health insurance. Unfortunately, the President disagrees.

“You can read more about all these reforms at healthcare.gop.gov. These are common-sense reforms we can achieve right away – without destroying jobs, exploding the deficit, rationing care, or taking away the freedom American families cherish.

“This Congress can pass meaningful reform soon to reduce some of the fear and anxiety families are feeling in these very difficult times. Working together in a bipartisan way, we can truly lower the cost of health care while improving quality for the American people.

“I’m Dr. Charles Boustany. Thanks for listening.”

This was almost completely ignored by the press because Rep. Wilson decided to throw decorum out the window.

[duplicatt]

It should make your blood run cold that an idea at least 70% of Americans support cannot make any headway.

There is a difference between an idea and a plan, Ray.

Beyond that, I'd like to see a link to the study/survey that indicates 70% support.

[duplicatt]

the FACTS in some other countries that do have government-run health program show otherwise , healthcare is NOT more expensive.

healthcare is not important for healthy poeple who think health problems will never happen to them personaly , some of them might be proven wrong. the very hard way.

I was one of those who never got sick until out of the blue , I was notified that I had a cancer , with 3 more months to live............

if my country ( I am not an American ) didn't have government-run healthcare program , I won't be sitting here writing these words.

as simple as that 8)

I'm sorry to hear of your illness, yosi.

However, I have a friend here in the US who was diagnosed with cancer just a little over two years ago. He was out of work, with no insurance and about to lose his apartment. He was operated on and currently receives health care benefits and treatment from governmental sources. He was declared disabled and is on Social Security disability. He was able to keep his apartment.

So you can see that, in America, the exact same outcome can result.

[duplicatt]

Jay,

So is Obama a war criminal too?

He hasn't brought home the troops.

He supports the Bush Patriot Act.

If you're honest you would have to agree that the level of hatred and Hitler comparison were SO much more open and prevalent against Bush than Obama.

And I'm not condoning either one. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.

Look, this health care debate has nothing to do with this Hitler nonsense.

It's about the vast majority of Americans who DO NOT want the government in the health care business. Plain and simple.

No matter how you slice and dice it, it is that simple. The Democrats in this country hold all the strings. They could have voted this thing in months ago if they wanted to. Why havent they?

Because in a massive grass roots effort, the voters of all these Democratic congressmen and Senators have wrote them and told them in no uncertain terms that they DON'T WANT any more government health care debacles.

It's very simple. The people have spoken.

But 8 months into his 1st term as POTUS, who was protesting against Bush and comparing him to Hitler??

It's the relative instantaneous rebuke of Obama, for a President who has very little track record so far to criticize, that's hypocrital.

Right wingers are mobilizing against Obama as if he's in the third year of his 3nd term, not less than a year into his first term.

Bush 'earned' that level of animus from the American people, Obama so far has not.

I ask you what President Bush had done at this point in his first term. The answer is very little. President Obama has done quite a bit and is trying to do more. If Bush had pushed as many programs in his first days in office as Obama has, there would have been a similar backlash. As it was, there were already people who wouldn't cut him any slack because of Florida 2000.

[jaycanuck]

He's attempting to shut down Guantanamo, he's relocating troops to Afghanistan (where they should've been in the first place looking for Osama).

Why? If Osama is even alive (have we seen any video of Osama? we know one of his sons sounds just like him), he's in Pakistan. Should we invade our putative ally Pakistan willy-nilly?

Why's the US in Iraq then?

[trish]

I live in DC, and if the protesters numbered in excess of a million Bullshit and if you live in DC and have seen other marches you know it's bullshit. The most reliable sources put the numbers at 70 thousand tops. Other networks (besides Fox) did indeed cover the march and they gave it amount of coverage it deserved. Hey, I bet you have a big dick too.

[giovanni_hotel]

Did you read my post, Trish??

I never said I thought the numbers were approaching a million protesters.

But I would not be surprised if the actual number was north of 70,000 because of the unusual way in which the protesters gathered.
They weren't lined up vertically along the Mall, the tea-baggers were fanned out horizontally in front of the Capitol. I've never seen that before.

I put the top end number possibly around 250,000.

If you click the C-SPAN link I posted and watch the first few seconds where they pan across the crowd, you'll see what I mean.

Also, the DC Park Service is notorious for underestimating actual crowd sizes. Take a look at the photos from the Million Man March, DCPS said there were about 500,000 people there, and yet that demonstration had spillover all the way to the Washington Monument which would have made it much closer to 800,000 to a million attendees.

[giovanni_hotel]

Jay,

So is Obama a war criminal too?

He hasn't brought home the troops.

He supports the Bush Patriot Act.

If you're honest you would have to agree that the level of hatred and Hitler comparison were SO much more open and prevalent against Bush than Obama.

And I'm not condoning either one. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.

Look, this health care debate has nothing to do with this Hitler nonsense.

It's about the vast majority of Americans who DO NOT want the government in the health care business. Plain and simple.

No matter how you slice and dice it, it is that simple. The Democrats in this country hold all the strings. They could have voted this thing in months ago if they wanted to. Why havent they?

Because in a massive grass roots effort, the voters of all these Democratic congressmen and Senators have wrote them and told them in no uncertain terms that they DON'T WANT any more government health care debacles.

It's very simple. The people have spoken.

But 8 months into his 1st term as POTUS, who was protesting against Bush and comparing him to Hitler??

It's the relative instantaneous rebuke of Obama, for a President who has very little track record so far to criticize, that's hypocrital.

Right wingers are mobilizing against Obama as if he's in the third year of his 3nd term, not less than a year into his first term.

Bush 'earned' that level of animus from the American people, Obama so far has not.

I ask you what President Bush had done at this point in his first term. The answer is very little. President Obama has done quite a bit and is trying to do more. If Bush had pushed as many programs in his first days in office as Obama has, there would have been a similar backlash. As it was, there were already people who wouldn't cut him any slack because of Florida 2000.

Right. Obama should damn near be impeached for saving the global economy from collapse, sending out a life preserver to the U.S. auto industry and attempting to reform the outrageous failure of the private heath care industry.

Obama is a very BAD MAN. :roll:

You conservatives are permanently out lunch!!!

[trish]

My bad :oops:

I hope you and your dick accept my apology.

[giovanni_hotel]

Still luv ya anyway, Trish!!

No apology necessary.

[trish]

Obviously, I need to give this infuriating topic a rest. Thanks for being a good sport.